Re: ¿origins of klezmer tonality?

[Joshua Horowitz <horowitz...>]

Hi friends of the motley modal mish mash club, 

I wanted to add a further differentiation to the definition of Freygish
and Mi Shebarakh: Although both modes have what western theorists would
call similar pitch classes, they are not the SAME pitch classes. When
you think of the modes as SCALES, then they give the illusion of having
the same pitches. The scale definition, however, we have defined as a 7
note-structure. Both Freygish (or Ahavo Raboh, if you like) and Mi
Shebarakh have more than 7 notes. This is due to 3 basic characteristics
generally found in Makam structures, which can be used as an analogy
(Freygish can be compared to Hijaz and Mi Shebarakh to Nihavent, but
there are too many specific differences to make a 1:1 correspondence):

1) Each mode has a sub-tonic tone group (notes BELOW the tonic which may
differ in the upper octave,

2) Motivically specific notes (altered notes in the scale form of the
mode which are generally relegated to certain motives)

3) Sub-modes (these are other modes to which one can *modulate* - I
prefer to call this modal progression)

On all 3 counts the modes differ from each other. The subtonic tone
group of Freygish (in D) includes the notes C and B. In C Mishebarach it
is GAB.

Freygish doesn't really have any *extra* motivically specific notes, but
C Mi Shebarakh can use a changing F and F# depending upon the contour
and direction of the melody. Also, in the 2nd octave it CAN have a Db
and E natural, and in the main ocatve it can use a Yishtabakh (my term)
cadence, which also utilizes the Db.

The sub-modes of both modes show the most descrepency. Whereas Freygish
(in Klezmer music, at least) has over 30, and is the most flexible mode
in this way, Mi Shebarakh has only a few. For instance, you may have
noticed how common it is for D freygish to move to C or F Adonoy Molokh,
or to G Mishebarakh or Mogen Ovos. Well, C Mishebarakh usually often
moves to Eb, F or C Adonoy Molokh, whereby you can see that the Tonic to
Sub-Mode relationship is different between Freygish and Mishebarakh. 

One more comment: Because Klezmer music as we know it has been
inseparably connected to both older Makam systems AND to the Western
harmonic system, it is suitable to talk about harmonic function (i.e. c
minor chords in Freygish fulfilling a cadential, and therefore a 
*substitute dominant* function), but I do think it is important to
realize that melodically, both modes have a completely NON HARMONIC
origin. Chords came later. Hence, the problems that Cantors had in the
19th Century when they first began to define Hazzanut Shtayger (i.e.
Joseph Singer and co.). As such, if we want to really solidify our
abject geekism by talking like musicologist eunichs, we should
differentiate between the mode, or *Shtayger* (which includes all the
mechanics of the mode, such as those mentioned above) and the scale OF
the mode, which is a reduction of the mode to its 7-note scalar form.
This can solve a lot of unspoken misunderstandings. 

I know that for you, Itzik-Leyb and Cantor Schwartz, as experts in your
fields, know all this stuff, but wanted to widen it out so as to confuse
everybody not involved in the discussion. by the way, I wrote a very
extensive article on the Freygish mode which was excepted for
publication in Vol 14 of Musica Judaica, but have no idea when and
whether it will actually be published. Welp, gotta go feed my cat now.
Be well. Josh Horowitz.