Abstract

A random sample of 98 Gregorian chants was used to assemble “mode profiles” — pitch-class distributions for each of eight medieval modes in the manner of Krumhansl's and Kessler's (1982) key profiles. These profiles are shown to be useful in predicting the conventional modal designation for individual chants. An analysis of the eight mode profiles suggests that modes 3, 5 and 8 (Phrygian, Lydian and Hypomixolydian) are highly similar and can be distinguished from a more heterogeneous group consisting of the remaining modes. A cluster analysis of profiles for individual chants gives further evidence that these three modes form a supramodal category. The results are shown to be consistent with a theory of mode offered by the 11th-century writer, Johannes Cotto, who proposed that the tenor pitch is important in classifying modes. It is suggested that an observed polarization of the eight modes into two broad groups may have provided a cognitive kernel that facilitated the emergence of the major/ minor system in the 17th century.

Abstract

This commentary examines Huron and Veltman's article from the perspective of historical musicology. The following issues are discussed: The authors regard modes as conceptual categories of the medieval listener, which seems unlikely on historical and theoretical grounds. Pitch class profiles are not a good way of capturing the melodic nature of the modes. The diatonic rather than the chromatic scale should be employed as the reference pitch system for the modes. The tentative explanation of the transition from modality to tonality ignores the fundamental differences between modes and keys, and the role of polyphony in this supposed transition. The article's methodology, to apply quantitative methods to problems of historical musicology, is fundamentally sound, and suggestions are made in this commentary as to how its shortcomings can be amended by reformulating research questions and redesigning methods.