Talk:Properties of musical modes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Summertime" Aeolian?

The characterisation of Gershwin's "Summertime" as being in the Aeolian mode is highly questionable - the published melody never uses the sixth scale degree (with one exception where the second appears, it's entirely minor pentatonic), and the harmonic accompaniment uses both major and minor sixths and sevenths at various times. Thus isn't it more realistic to say that it's based on alternating melodic and harmonic minor scales if anything? Guy Hatton 13:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overcomplication

Isn't the last section, on ways for instrumentalists to understand modes, self-defeating in it's complexity? So many different methods are given I believe it confuses the issue of what a mode is and how you can find one. Surely Wikipedia is not a teaching resource but a factual one, and thus such examples are beyond the proper remit of the page?195.92.109.217 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree it really is not the point of the article to talk about the various memory aids people have used. It's probably also original research. I'll take the liberty to remove it. Justinmeister 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. This article has been in place for quite some time and represents the work of many editors who put forth sincere effort to create an informative page. If you wish to clean it up somewhat and improve upon it, then do so. I find it completely inappropriate, however, to eradicate almost an entire article simply because one or two editors feel that some parts may be superfluous. Even Wikipedia discourages this type of action. I have restored the article. 75.75.2.56 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, this article used to be part of the article Musical Mode. That article started getting too large so the parts pertaining to "Properties of musical modes" were moved to a new article . . . this article. That was about one year ago. Prior to that, this information had been a part of the "Musical Mode" article for some time as well. The entire purpose of this article is to discuss the "Properties of musical modes". It is therefore illogical to say that it is self-defeating. This content of this article adheres to exactly that which it is about. To delete large portions of it is the only thing I see which is self-defeating. This article needs to remain intact, with the exception of improvements by adding to it, not removing content. Additionally, the Musical Mode article links directly to this one as a reference for more detailed information on properties of the modes. 69.68.190.180 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• A guide on how to memorize the musical modes doesn't have anything to do with the properties of musical modes. It's also original research unless you can find a source that states it's part of some notable music school's curriculum. Otherwise, it's not encyclopedic. Justinmeister 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be part of a musical school's curriculum, it only needs to be referenced from a valid source. I admit, the references in this section are weak. When this section was moved from the old article, some of the references may have been left behind. I wrote the section entitled "By starting note" using the Harvard Dictionary of Music as my reference. When the article was moved, that particular reference wasn't. I added the reference back in. I don't know what references the others editors made use of, but perhaps you might use a "fact" tag on areas which seem questionable to you. I don't particularly care for the mnemonics section, but don't feel they warrant deletion. The article was given its name by the editor who moved the content. Perhaps a better title would have been "Learning the modes" or something of that nature. One additional note, and not that it is of any consequence whatsoever, but I've been a musician for more than 30 years and know that this information would be valuable to many seeking a greater understanding of the modes.69.68.190.180 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend that you read about What Wikipedia is not, especially the part about a collector of indiscriminate information and instruction manuals. The reason is because wikipedia is intended to convey information about people, places, concepts and ideas. IT is not a how-to guide. It would be acceptable if the section started off with something like "In traditional conservatories, such as Juliard, mnemonics are traditonally taught to aid students in memorizing the modes". Otherwise it's not. How do I know someone didn't just make this stuff up (as useful as it is)? Justinmeister 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learning the modes

Is the section Properties of musical modes#Learning the modes a "how to"? In that case it would be Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Hyacinth 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably, although if properly cited and slightly rewritten it could be about commonly taught methods. However, it still wouldn't belong in this article, because pedagogy is not a property of musical modes. I'm not really sure if that split is the correct one anyway. I think a modern modes article (there's probably a better title) concentrating on how modes are understood in tonal music, alongside Gregorian mode, would be the proper way to break it out, leaving Musical mode as a concise overview article. This article is nearly there anyway. — Gwalla | Talk 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)