I'm reviewing last year's theory before moving on. There are two methods for writing modes, and I'm in the process of being able to handle the second method as well as I can the first. but now I would like to know whether both are used, how often for each, and if there is a reason or place for each way.

Method 1: Supposing that I want to write the scale of Lydian mode with F# as the starting note (can we call it tonic?). I consider that Lydian is like the fourth degree of a scale. Or in solfege terms, it's like "fa". So I ask myself, in what scale is F# the fourth degree? Answer: C# major.

So Lydian mode on F# = C# on 4th degree.

I write the key signature of C# major, 7 sharps, and I write my notes going from F# to F#. If I test it by playing it, I get a major scale intervalically that starts on "fa" or the fourth degree.

Method 2.
I consider that Lydian and Mixolydian are the two major scales. So Lydian on F# is like F# major. I also consider that in this method I raise the submediant for Lydian scales.

So instead of the seven sharps in the first method, I write the key signature for F# major, which has six sharps. I write my notes from F# to F#, but when I get to B, I add a B# accidental for a seventh sharp. In other words, I have added the sharp that is already in the key signature of C# major which I used in the first method.

Now, for the question: Which of these two methods are more common? Is one of these methods used in one scenario, and the other in another scenario, or is the music world divided? Why would you use method 2, which I suspect is the common one? Instead of having everything there in the key signature, you have to memorize which degree is raised or lowered, and then you end up adding a missing sharp or flat, or suppressing an extraneous sharp or flat, which would be where it belongs if you used method 1.

Hi keystring,
What you place in the key signature would depend on the context in which your modal music would appear. If the entire piece is in F# Lydian, then using 7 sharps would be the most expedient. If you simply have an F# Lydian passage in the context of a larger tonality/modality, then use the key signature that would be appropriate in the overall sense. Or to emphasize that you are in a mode (as opposed to a key), you can use the F# major key signature and sharp all the B's (as accidentals). So, it really depends on the context and the purpose of your music. You have to consider the psychological and practical impact of the key signature.

Thanks, Harmosis. So in other words, if F# Lydian suddenly appeared in the middle of a piece that was in D major for some reason, I would end up putting in five sharps as accidentals?

But to do that I still have to know how many sharps F# Lydian should have if it were treated as a mode. Thus the "fourth degree of C# major" gives me that.

However, if I used 7 sharps it looks like it's C# major or A# minor. You are saying that if there is a piece with a key signature, and the same note keeps being peppered with sharps, flats, or natural signs, that is a typical "look" of modes so we know immediately that we're dealing with modes. The second method gives me that "look". Just like minor keys often reveal themselves because of the raised leading note which gives minor keys a typical appearance.

I think that this is telling me that I should memorize which degree is raised or flatted in modes so that when I see such thing I can compare signature and pattern of accidentals. I can say "Aha, 7th degree is lowered, this is probably Mixolydian mode!"

Is that how it works?

Yes, you not only have to have the pitch material that makes up a mode, but also have it arranged so that it sounds like a mode (i.e., it doesn't sound like fa in C# major, but do in F# Lydian).

Yes, the look of the passage can help with understanding what is going on. It's a judgement call.

I recommend studying the music of Debussy, as he uses lot of modal passages. For example, in "La Cathedrale engloutie," the key signature is ostensibly C major. On the down beat of m 5, we get an E Phrygian cadence. In the next measure, we get a bunch of E's ringing out, emphasizing this modality. In m 6, we get a C# accidental which at first may be taken as the major 6th of E. But, by the time we get to the end of m 9, it is clear that mm 7-9 are in C# Dorian. All of this is done with accidentals. The main theme is C Ionian, with a section in C Mixolydian where he simply adds a Bb.

So, you have to visualize the "big picture" of what you're doing and use a key signature that best suits what the piece is doing.

I suppose that we have to learn to listen for the mode and get a feel for its "modality". I'm primarily a violin student and a piece I started last year was the Swan by Saint Saens. It had a funny sounding ascending part which my teacher said was modal. I think I'll look and listen to it again. I had a friend who was learning it on viola and both of us tended to play the same wrong note somewhere because we wanted to turn it back into something more diatonic. It was the same error on the same note because the mind could not accept it for what it was.

I'll try to get a hold of some music by Debussy.

I agree with what Harmosis has said.

I think this reveals a weakness in they way key signatures are taught.

Didn't Bartok use some strange, non-standard key signatures?

How do you think they should be taught, including in the beginning? Are they always taught the same way?

It takes time to teach scales and modes - it would not be an overnight accomplishment. First there is the understanding of the concepts, and then the application to the piano for chosen notes, and fingerings.

I think you have to be in the mood for modes.

So many things come before modes, that the modes would actually seem easy to do, if you saved them for very last.

I'm a 5 Finger Position, Major Scale by tetrachords, fingering patterns - white and black - Circle of 5ths kind of teacher.

After grade level 4, I would consider modes, and 20th century contemporary music.

At least that's the plan this morning!

Betty

I am curious in what way in particular Wavelength thinks scales are taught wrong, and what a right way would be.

Personally, I am not confused by modes. My initially question was about the reasoning behind the two approaches that I learned, i.e. why leave out a sharp or flat in a key signature, and then add it or delete it? I am satisfied with the answer, that this helps make the modal nature more visible.

Modes are historical and they predate modern the key signature system so it seems logical that there is not one single answer as to their writing.

I mean that music students are taught to recognize the key of a song by memorizing the number of sharps or flats in the key signature of each major and minor key.

So if I want to write a piece based on a scale like the 4th mode of harmonic minor (C D Eb F G Ab B C) and I try to express it in a key signature, I'm out of luck. Because someone reading it is likely to think "two flats, easy-- Bb major or G minor," without giving it any thought.

I dont know if it's taught "wrong", and I'm not sure there's a better way to teach it. Would it make sense to analyze every key signature when 99% of them can be gotten at a glance? But I do consider it a weakness-- it seems we should aspire to a holistic understanding rather than rote memory.

And now that you mention it, I have a gripe about the way modes are presented, too. They seem to always be presented as a whole unit, all the modes together with their parent major scale. In the long run it works out, I guess. But it locks alot of people into thinking that they are inextricable from the major scale. To much emphasis is placed on the order of the modes: 1 Ionian, 2 Dorian, 3 Phrygian, etc... when really that system is just a mnemonic device.

I believe that each mode should be isolated, and more attention given to its individual properties and harmony.

Back to your original question about writing modes and key signatures; I don't know if there's a "correct" way to do it, but I can tell you how I do it:
I don't always write key signatures that reflect the mode (because I don't expect that it would be correctly interpereted if I did). If the piece is based on Bb dorian, I write a Bb minor key signature and write a natural everytime I write a G.

Sometimes I don't use a key signature at all.

Sometimes I do express the mode with the key signature.

Um... I guess I'm not very consistent. I try to balance "least number of accidentals to write" with "easiest to interperet".

Thank you for your explanation, Wavelength. This comes into my rethinking as an adult student a few years ago of what was involved in takeing even on set of lessons on instrumental music if one really wants to learn. What was I ready to do and how far did I want to venture? It seemed that all aspects of music had to be broached, and not just the immediately utilitarian such as recognizing a key signature and being able to play scales. There had to be actual understanding, and that involves real theory and other work, delved into deeply enough. So we're in agreement with that.

However, in this forum alone a number of teachers have demonstrated that they teach toward theoretical comprehension and make this part of their goals. You have circle of fifths approaches, aural transposing and a host of other things which are being done so that students will actually understand what they are doing and working with. Having written this, however, I wonder whether that also goes toward understanding written things like key signatures. Does it go back to memorization after all? This is what I refer to as the second method the RCM-recommended book uses. It is also what prompted my question.

The two approaches I learned is:
- Bb Dorian is Dorian, therefore it is like the second degree of the scale: of what key is Bb the second note?
- Bb Dorian is a minor scale, what is the key signature of Bb minor? Use that key signature but raise the 6th degree, which effectively causes one to write a natural every time the G is encountered, as you do.

I find the first easier, and since Bb Dorian starts on the second degree note of Ab major, I do not have the Gb, and I use that knowledge to help me check if I have to use the other method.

Then, since I know solfege, I sing the intervals and it should sound like a major scale starting on "re" - 3 way check. The more complete our knowledge, the more tools we have.

Which goes back to your concern about what is taught how thoroughly how.

How would you like to see it presented?