William Byrd's Modal Practice (review)

John Harley's starting point was his wish to discover how far William Byrd's works may be thought of as modal. His conclusion (p. 133) is that 'Byrd's music had its roots in a manner of composition which the modal system of the sixteenth century was devised to explain and guide, yet he rarely wrote in a way corresponding exactly with modal principles'. Byrd's work anticipates in some respects later tonal developments, so that essentially it lies 'partly within and partly without [the] two theoretical systems' of modality and tonality. Although this is broadly the conclusion we would expect, we gain many new insights. Harley's book is an important contribution to the literature on Byrd.

The writing is stylish and generally very clear given the complex nature of the subject matter, with most points directly linked to specific passages from Byrd's music. Sometimes the order in which topics are treated is open to question, but there is plenty of cross-referencing. Although a few works are considered in some detail, there are no complete analyses. Presumably Harley wanted to avoid even appearing to raise any work to the status of pattern, but a single extended study in a separate chapter might still have been illuminating.

Harley's subject is problematic partly because the relationship between modal theory and practice is far from clear. How far did theoreticians describe existing practice, and how far did they prescribe and composers follow? Early writings on music theory are at times obscure, and different writers often do not agree on terminology or interpretation. As a result there are considerable problems today even in finding suitable terminology.

Harley employs a mixture of terms, some associated with the modes, and some with later forms of tonality. He has been frank about the difficulties. For example, he points out that we do not know by what names, if any, Byrd knew various types of cadence. He has adopted 'familiar later terms' (p. 44), but without 'the implications they have in the major-minor key system'. This, given plenty of inverted commas (as in 'cadences described as "imperfect" in later terminology') is a reasonable compromise, likely to be more helpful to most readers than avoidance of all anachronistic vocabulary or invention of many newly coined terms. It might however have been wiser to avoid the adjectives 'sharp' and 'flat' for chords and keys with respectively major and minor thirds above the root or keynote. Even though this usage is explained, the more widely accepted 'major' and 'minor' might have served better, especially where sharp or flat keys are referred to without the use of inverted commas.

It would have helped non-specialist readers in particular if some terms had been defined earlier or more prominently. Although the preliminary section on modes (pp. 12–22) follows a logical path, beginning with warnings against oversimplification, some kind of working definition at the start would have been welcome. The 'principles . . . governing contrapuntal composition' are referred to on page 13, but at this point without explanation of their relevance to an investigation of modal practice (e.g. an augmented-fourth interval may be avoided by replacing an E with an E♭ within the F Ionian mode). The meaning of 'local tonalities' is explained (initially on p. 25), and there are numerous later references, but a separate section might have been useful, with additional discussion of how such local tonalities compare with subsidiary tonalities in later music.

Chapter 1, a brief essay on Byrd's training and background, is to some extent helpful in setting the scene, although inevitably largely speculative. In chapter 2 there are explanations of 'some preliminary concepts', including the gamut and the hexachord system. Sections on scales and modes follow, with a table (pp. 16–17) of the twelve modes as codified by...