On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:05:33 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"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)?
I made two points:
That Ionian and Aoelian were alternatives for Major and Minor.
That there was a debate about whether the minor mode was based on the
Aoelian or Dorian.
I didn't say that minor mode pieces were called Dorian. I wrote:
In Mozart's time Major and minor were still thought of as "Ionian"
and "Aeolian" by many, although there was some debate as to whether
the minor was actually "Aeolian" or in fact "Dorian".
>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.
I don't know why you're still asking me if Mozart thought "Dorian"
when I've posted the comment below in two previous posts:
Which is not to say that Mozart was thinking "modally" at the time,
which was considered to be old fa****oned or suitable only for some
church music.
>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.
Of course the Tonal theorists did, and that's well do***ented. How
much notice composers took of their endeavors is unclear. But it took
them a good century to get the new language together (if we're not
still trying do do that). The new ideas in Mozart's time were fairly
rudimentary.
But this new thinking wasn't universally accepted and there was a good
deal of debate on the matter. Modal thinking, and adaptations of modal
thinking, persisted and that the way we approach the stuff today is
different again (if it hasn't gone full circle).
But it wasn't just "old Dudes". Some theorists were just as
conservative then as as some are are today, defending their turf and
all that.
If I recall correctly, I was making these points to illustrate the
error I saw in you saying that Mozart would have probably been
thinking in terms of borrowing from the dominant, when neither term,
"borrowing" or "dominant", had been invented at the time. Mozart was
probably thinking in terms of tem****ary key changes.
Lester discusses the issue in COMPOSITIONAL THEORY IN THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY, p84-85, commenting on a couple of fundamental bass analyses
of Bach preludes which have survived from the period which show the
thinking of what we would call secondary dominants etc as tem****ary
key changes. Noting the difference between figured bass and the
analysis above the stave, he writes:
The difference between the long-range structure top the score
and the quick changes in the score helps us understand why the
notion of secondary dominant or tonicizing dominant took so long
to become universal.
COMPOSITIONAL THEORY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, p85
The best way to picture theoretical thinking in the period is to
picture a large pot of pea soup.
Ian
|
