"Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ukpLj.23700$4O1.14933@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "paramucho" <paramucho@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47fda8d2.38731472@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> but, interestingly, that's *not* the
>> equivalent of our current day "minor", which is "moll" in German, but
>> fits more closely terms "modus major" and "modus minor" in Walther's
>> Musicalisches Lexicon", published in 1732.
>
>
> And modus minor is modus Dorian?
Let me clarify:
It seems you are saying, that in Mozart's day (let's say the 2nd half of
the
18th century) many people (many, most, all, some, a few, etc.) called what
we now call minor key pieces "Dorian" (or other mode of choice)?
It seems pretty clear that Mozart is calling his own works "in G minor" in
whatever his language of choice was for that day.
If his words, in written German, translate to "G Modus Minor", that
doesn't
convince me that Mozart, or any of his contem****aries were calling what we
now call a minor key work "G Dorian", "G Phrygian" or even "G Aeolian.
Now, did Mozart know these terms? Certainly. He studied Fux, and probably
the words themselves were not super uncommon. But my question is, are
those
the terms he would be using to describe his own music, or did he use
something that more closely resembles our ideas of major and minor
instead.
Bach, I would really say might have used the terms more frequently. I'm
sure
he knew full well that he was setting a Mixolydian Chant. However, I would
be hesitant to think that even he was "calling" the resulting work "in the
Mixolydian mode". For CPE, and JC, even more doubtful. Haydn and Mozart,
more doubtful, and Beethoven, very doubtful - though again, we have
obvious
examples of his knowledge of the term - however, even the piece he
composes
and calls "in the Lydian Mode", really isn't - it's Lydian mode through
major/minor goggles.
Now, I'm sure there were old dudes wandering around during Mozart's
lifetime
that clung on to the modal heritage, and certainly in Sacred music there
would be a strong tradition. So if you're counting them, I guess there
could
be "many" of them calling (or mis-calling) a contem****aneous Mass in C
minor
a "Mass in C Dorian" instead (after all, Beethoven sort of mis-called his
Lydian).
That people were *conceptualizing* minor key (or minor mode) works as
being
"the same" as Dorian is another issue that might not be verifiable to any
consistent extent. However, it seems to me that had people been doing so,
there would have been no need to coin terms like Major or Minor, or modus
major, or modus minor, or whatever.
I'm sure for some period, "many" people "though of" what Glareanus came to
call Aeolian works as being Dorian or Phrygian (or hypo- versions). That
doesn't invalidate our (or Glareanus') post hoc interpretation of the
music
as being something different. Glareanus saw enough of a distinction to
make
note of it. I think Tonal era composers and theorists saw enough of a
distinction in the music they were making, and the music that had been
made
previously, that to them warranted a terminology that pointed out the
distinction.
Steve
|
