ABSTRACT
It has often been asserted that the modal system was self-evidently the basis of "classical vocal polyphony." The standard objection to this view is the existence of all manner of contradictions in the theoretical sources. And the standard refutation is that these contradictions arise at the level of intellectual discourse, not of practical musicianship. But, to follow Harold S. Powers's important distinction, the modal system is not objective, "etic," but "emic," that is, borrowed from another cultural context. l
Mode represents a concept that could never have been developed from a study of the music only. Theoretical, or better, textual sources are indeed emphatically "sources" in that they do not only offer raw materials or supporting evidence for our own constructions, but the basic concept as well. Inspired particularly by the work of Bernhard Meier,2 many scholars have used modality as a tool for the analysis of Renaissance music. But such second-hand knowledge never comes with a certificate of warranty. We acquire it at our own risk: if modality were a second-hand car, we would think twice before buying. Therefore, before we decide to use modes in analysis, we must find out if there are real or apparent contradictions, or other problems, in the sources. And since they undoubtedly exist, they must be investigated, not ignored or explained away, as has been done too often. To apply the image once more: we must not just make a test drive and accept the odd noises from the engine, but take it to pieces, inspect each part, and then reassemble it. In this study I will demonstrate for some parts, notably the modal final, how this can be done.
