We all have in mind the image of a medieval mode as a scale with a pattern of tones and semitones with a finalis, a specific range, etc.

However, it seems that medieval chants were classified according to their modes before the IX century. The first adiastematic neumatic notation appeared by that time. What's even worse, probably by then (VIII-IX centuries) names for musical pitches wouldn't even exist in the monks' vocabulary.

But when Hucbald (ca. X century) finally managed to map the medieval pitch space to the greek greater system... The previous classification turned consistent!

How could this possibly happened?

  • 1
    Written notation is not needed to be able to distinguish between the modes; their sounds are distinctive. Unless your classification scheme is based on notation rather than sound, I see no need for notation here. Of course, notation can be an aid in classification, that is one reason we use notations. Further, there is no reason that the classification of various melodies and modes can't be passed as oral tradition just as easily as the melodies themselves. – David Bowling Sep 17 '18 at 12:46

It is not necessary to notate pitches or to have names for the notes to observe that melodies have different characteristics and can be grouped by these characteristics.

Neither is it necessary to notate or name pitches to understand that some notes in the scale are closer together and others farther apart. Anyone who played a stringed instrument or built or tuned an organ would be well familiar with that fact.

Music theory is often, if not usually, devised to explain musical practice. For example, the Roman-numeral chord analysis that we learn and apply to Bach chorales did not exist in Bach's day.

Almost anyone can identify, for example, the difference between a melody in a major key and one in a minor key, even without being able to name the difference or to explain what determines the difference, let alone to discuss pitch names or distances between the pitches.

As people sought analytical tools and terminology to communicate about and explain music, they developed understanding that allowed them to explain why these groups of similar melodies were similar.

Thus it is not particularly surprising that the modern theory and practice of notation followed, rather than preceded, the recognition of different classes of melodic organization.

  • 1
    I'm noy very sure if "anyone" can classify melodies in major and minor... It took hundreds of years to develop that idea even when triads where routinely used in music. In any case, what strikes me most is that a classification done without help of any notation turned out "correct" when the modes where finally described in terms of tones and semitones, finalis, etc. – Pablo Sep 17 '18 at 6:32
  • 1
    @Pablo, the method of oral history, the passing down of information by word of mouth, is extremely strong. The knowledge was known, just not written down. That is true in all sorts of areas, from farming skills to herbal medicine to the great epics. I think we actually lose more when the info is not passed down person to person and we then must rely on the written material only. Many cultures of the world have preserved their musical heritage through the centuries by word of mouth only. It is not surprising that they passed on correct information. – Heather S. Sep 17 '18 at 10:53
  • @Heather, I'm not talking about a passing down of any tradition by word of mouth. I'm talking about doing a scientific job (inventing new classes in order to classify chants which had never been classified before) without analytical tools like notation or pitch naming – Pablo Sep 17 '18 at 11:49
  • @Pablo, yes but you acted surprised that they were all "correct" when a formal notation came into being. That indicates that the information was classified previously. Things can be classified before being written down. – Heather S. Sep 17 '18 at 12:36
  • @Pablo yet my musically untrained wife could tell the difference from before we met. She could not name the difference, but she recognized that there was one. My point is that the classifications were "correct" because there is a real difference between, for example, Dorian-mode melodies and Mixolydian-mode melodies. It's possible to recognize the differences and categorize the melodies without being able to explain them. As an analogy, there were centuries of effective theories of color in the visual arts before the development of physical theories of light. – phoog Sep 17 '18 at 13:39

There were earlier notations: https://www.mfiles.co.uk/scores/seikilos-epitaph.htm

Boethius did use letters from A to O to notate pitches around 500.

There were lots of methods around. Guido advanced notation by using a staff system though there were probably earlier staff attempts.

  • Of course, but both of them were lost by that time. St. Isidore of Seville in the Etimologias (s. VII) in which he summarized the knowledge of the world, states that melodies could not be written down. – Pablo Sep 16 '18 at 22:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.