Key
Ray Johnstone
Neil
> What determines the "key" of a work?
> r...@iinet.com.auwww.iinet.com.au/~ray
The key signature, the ending note and chord, the chords throughout
the music being from the family of chords for the key. There's much
more for you to learn. And music will change keys, usually coming back
to the original key. Start by learning the Circle of 5ths and continue
from there. This topic has appeared here and similar groups recently
with several lengthy replies.
Neil Miller, author of The Piano Lessons Book
Enter in Amazon.com search: Neil Miller Piano Lessons Book
OR http://www.createspace.com/3332371
Tom K.
"Neil" <nhmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c587a3e-4fde-4acb...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 9:27?am, Ray Johnstone <r...@iinet.com.au> wrote:
> What determines the "key" of a work?
> r...@iinet.com.auwww.iinet.com.au/~ray
>The key signature, the ending note and chord, the chords throughout
>the music being from the family of chords for the key.
Not necessarily. Music is aural but a key signature is a notational
(visual) device which indicates the pitches being used - if (and it's a big
if) there are no alterations (accidentals). From these notes, you should be
able to hear a central pitch or tonic and then determine whether the scale
is major or minor - that is what determines the key.
For more info, this article is a decent starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music)
Tom K.
LJS
> What determines the "key" of a work?
> r...@iinet.com.auwww.iinet.com.au/~ray
The notes used and the manner in which they were used will determine
the key. A more specific answer can be make if there is a more
specific question. There are many specific elements that will
determine a key, if indeed the piece in question actually is in a key.
If you can be more specific as to what you want to know, your question
can me better addressed.
In a general sense, the key signature will generally be an important
clue. As seen in another post, some don't rely on that as having any
influence. A key signature suggests seven major and seven minor scales
and modes. The arrangement of the notes by the composer may establish
a home base of tonality and this is generally referred to as the key.
This home base or tonality may be built on any note in the set of
notes being used or the piece may not have a home base and then there
would be no key. Assuming that there is a tonality established, this
tonality may be expressed as "in the key of Cmaj", or Bmin or Dmajor
or F# Phrygian or any of the names associated with the descriptions of
tonalities. This is one way of describing what a key is, (yes there
are others!) but there are so many different ways that a tonality can
be established that without a specific example, the exact thing (or
things) that actually determines the key of any specific piece of
music are too numerous to list and their explanations could fill
volumes.
I hope that this sheds some light this question that is looking for
something specific in a very large ocean of very different music. Do
you have any examples that you would like to know what, in those
specific pieces, tells me: This piece is in _______!
LJS
Steve Latham
"Ray Johnstone" <r...@iinet.com.au> wrote in message
news:tqor145l1nnrgrls8...@4ax.com...
Ray, the notes, and harmonies used, and their relationships to each other
and a central tone determines the key. What makes those relationships
"hierarchical" to each other has to do with how things are used - typical
patterns, various emphases, etc.
A Key Sig as Tom pointed out is merely a notational device. It may
correspond to the key, and very often does, but it doesn't necessarily have
to. For example, virtually all classical music pieces will modulate to a
different key. If a piece in C modulates to G, the key signature will remain
C, and the F# will be written in. So the music will sound "in the key of G"
even though the signature reads C. It's the addition of the F# and its
replacing of the F natural in this case that changes the hierarchical
relationship of the tones and harmonies (and of course the composer will
create musical patterns that help to emphasize the key of G, such as ending
melodies on a G note, and with a G harmony, etc.).
One common mistake theory students make is they look at a key - say 1 sharp,
and assume it's in G. It MIGHT be in E minor - the only way to tell is to
look and see if E minor and B Major chords are emphasized, with the
inclusion of D#, as opposed to G and D chords.
So key signatures, ending notes/harmonies, and beginning notes/harmonies are
good ways to narrow down what the key might be, but ultimately, it's the
music itself that tells us the key.
HTH,
Steve
vi...@online.de
>So key signatures, ending notes/harmonies, and beginning notes/harmonies are
>good ways to narrow down what the key might be, but ultimately, it's the
>music itself that tells us the key.
By such way to determine the key it is clear why authors, as a rule,
don’t indicate the keys of their works. And not without reason
corresponding designations are absent in music notation. They might
conduct to unnecessary arguments.
Yuri Vilenkin
Ray Johnstone
wrote:
>What determines the "key" of a work?
>r...@iinet.com.au
>www.iinet.com.au/~ray
Thanks. I should have made myself clearer. The "key" of a piece of
music seems mostly to be the key of its opening bars. But not always.
For example, the Tchaikovsky piano concerto in B flat minor. What are
the rules?
r...@iinet.com.au
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
Joey Goldstein
It would be nice if there were a simple set of rules, but there isn't.
First of all you have to understand what a key is, and that's actually a
fairly complex idea.
Then you have to realize that "key" means slightly different things to
various groups of musicians within today's musical community. I.e.
Someone concerned only with music from the Common Practice Period of
classical music will have different notions of what "key" means compared
to a modern jazz player. Yes, their notions of key are very closely
related, but they also have significant differences.
A key is a particular type of tonal center.
A musician can create the feeling of a tonal center in his listener's
ear by manipulating his music such that a single tone emerges which is
felt to be a place of rest, compared to the other tones used in the
composition. Medieval musicians made music with tonal centers but they
were not "keys". They were "modes". Keys and modes are related, but they
are not the same things. Keys and modes both involve tonal centers, but
they are both particular types of tonal centers, and both have certain
conventions of common practice that need to be in play in order for the
music to be defined as either "modal" or "Tonal". [Note: "Tonal" with a
capital "T" means the maj/min key system.]
Essentially, as far as modern notions of key are concerned, if musical
materials are manipulated such that a central tone emerges (which feels
like a place of rest) as well as a major chord (maj triad, maj7, maj6,
dom7, etc.) associated with that central tone, then the music is in a
major key.
If the musical materials are manipulated such that a central tone
emerges (which feels like a place of rest) as well as a minor chord (min
triad, min7, min6, min(maj7), etc.) associated with that central tone,
then the music is in a minor key.
Note: In CPP classical music there would never be a Imaj7 or I6 (used as
final chords) or I7 (ever) in major keys. I.e. The only acceptable
version of I, as far as a final chord is concerned is a Imaj triad and a
dom7 chord built on I would have been against all their "rules".
In min keys the only acceptable final chord is a Im triad, and they
would never have used Im7, or Im6 or Im(maj7) as chords in their own
right, and especially not as final chords.
The ways that a musician might manipulate his musical materials in order
to bring about this feeling of key are many. But the two most important
ones are rhythmical emphasis (which may involve the notion of departure
and return) of the notes in the tonic chord and familiar cadential
formulas (which are also governed largely by rhythm) like V7-I and V7-Im
cadences.
So, the key signature of a piece of music may tell you exactly what key
the music itself is in, or it may not. It may tell you what key the 1st
16 bars of music in, but may not tell you what the new key is at bar 17.
Etc.
If the music you're looking at is indeed Tonal music (but lots of modern
music that is not specifically atonal is not really Tonal btw), then the
surest way (usually) to thresh out any operative key(s) is to look for
any dom7 chords in the piece. Very often (but not always) the dom7 chord
will be functioning as V7 in the primary key, in a secondary key, or in
the key-of-the-moment.
If the dom7 chords are also part of V7-I and/or V7-Im progressions then
that usually cinches the deal.
If the music you are looking at is just a monophonic melody (i.e. no
chords) then you need to look for melody lines that appear to be
outlining V7-I or V7-Im cadences.
But the final arbiter is always how the music feels. If the key
signature is no sharps or no flats but Dm feels like home then it's not
really the "key of C". It's not necessarily really "in D dorian" either,
if you're the type of guy who has studied Medieval modal music, although
it may well be. It might be (probably is) one of these modern jazz-type
modal pieces that most jazz musicians would say is "in D dorian". But I
prefer to say "it's in D minor with a dorian coloring" to avoid the
arguments with the medieval modal guys.
Hope that helps rather than confuses, but that's the way it is.
I.e. Being able to tell the key is not really all that simple in a lot
of cases. But then again, quite often it is as simple as just observing
the dom7 chords and if and how they resolve.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
LJS
Rules? There are no rules! There are conventions that have mostly been
followed by certain genres, but as music continues to evolve, each
step taken changes the conventions or "rules" that have observed
before. Your phrasing in this question sort of describes the dilemma,
"the key seems mostly to be the key of the opening bars. But not
always."
So far I can only find the second movement score on-line for download.
If I can find the opening, I will look at it and see if I can give you
a more useful answer.
LJS
LJS
I see that there are some "interesting" information about key that is
really only distracting. In general, when you ask about the key, it is
a shortened way of saying what is the key note and what is the
tonality. (Tonality is usually only capitalized if it is the first
word of a sentence.)
Key Note
The note by which the key of a composition, or a section of it, is
named and on which its scale starts (i.e. the Final of a church mode
or the Tonic of the major or minor mode).
This comes from Groves and is pretty much what is considered to be
what key is all about. To determine a key, you need to establish a key
note. This is the part of the process that has many variables. There
are many ways to establish the key note. If may be established by
melodic considerations or it can be established by harmonic
considerations or by a combination of these two elements. Rhythm,
however, is not really a factor in establishing a key or key note.
Once a key note is determined, then you can be more precise by adding
the modifier. The modifier can be major or minor (which are the most
common choices) or it can describe any system of tonality that is
appropriate. Modal names are another very common form of tonality so
an answer of "F# Phrygian" is acceptable of describing a key as is "C#
Major" or "Bb Harmonic Minor". In the names of compositions, the form
of the minor is not generally used.
In all of those examples, there is a keynote and the modifier. These
are all acceptable ways of answering the question of "What is the
key?" The confusion comes from old terminology that seems to have been
used around the beginnings of the Baroque and Classical Periods. When
legitimate music began to break away from the Church to follow the
increasingly popular Major and Minor system that was based on the
Common Practice Period's foundation on functional harmony, the term
"key" was used to avoid confusion with the modal music and implied
music that was based on this Tonic and Dominant relationship of
harmonic progression rather than the melodic and contrapuntal modal
music that was considered "old school" music at that time by many.
With the evolution of music and the use of various forms of tonality
as well as atonal music, the distinction tonal or modal becomes rather
unnecessary. Thus, when talking about "key" in todays world, one
generally is talking about the "key note". Even though there has been
flaws in some recent threads concerning "modal borrowing" and
"interchange", they did show that some believe that a piece of music
can be in a "key" that has more borrowing from modal concepts than
"non borrowed" chords even on the tonic and dominant of the "key", is
seems that to place this archaic necessity to make the distinction is
rather only a study in the confusion that can be attained by using
terms that imply certain semantic differences that came from very
specific circumstances. The "keynote" is not limited to one specific
era of music and can be used in all music that is based on any kind of
tonality.
So, unless you are asking about how the "key" of this Romantic Period
composition is expressed in terms of only the major and minor system
as defined during the CPP, I would assume that you were talking about
the "key note" as it is the more universal term and you seemed to ask
a more universal question.
LJS
Tom K.
If I understand you correctly, the key of a work is often (but not always)
the key of the opening bars. It is almost always the primary key of the
first and last movements, and virtually always the key the piece ends in.
The only "rule" I use for determining this is what I hear over the course of
the work.
Tom K.
Steve Latham
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:zvednShUKte3AILV...@comcast.com...
And a slight addendum: The concept that movements would be related by key is
something that evolved over time - in the Baroque, movements in a suite
might have totally unrelated keys, so we don't talk about the key as a whole
(just for individual movements). In the classical period, composers started
more and more to make the keys for each movement related, so that the keys
might go C-G-C for the three movements, and we say that the work itself is
in C. Further, on to Beethoven, we may say a piece like the Ninth is in "D
minor" even though it ends in D Major.
But I should also point out that sometimes the word "in X" are used to
simply distinguish two similar works. For example, if Haydn wrote 104 or so
symphonies, and only one is in Db Major, we might say "the Db Major
Symphony" or "Symphony in Db Major" to differentiate between it and the
other symphonies. It may only be the first movement in that case that we use
to choose the key we "speak".
Steve
SleepyHead
Well in part the problem you're having is that there aren't any. Or
rather, there are rules but iconoclastic musicians like to break those
rules for dramatic effect. Thus, some pieces of music clearly state a
key but might take a while to meander around to it while others go for
the jugular. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the surrealists (some
like Eric Satie, for example) had written a piece "In the key of A"
while steadfastly refusing to write in that key.
David Raleigh Arnold
The key signature is the determinant, and the only one.
The problem with the question "What key is this tune *really*
in?" is that key is two things, not one.
The tonality is the tone center or key note.
The mode is the system by which the other notes are determined
on the basis of the tonality.
For example, in the key of C Major, the tonality is C and the mode
is Major. The step scheme of major mode is wwhwwwh, starting with
C.
Until about a century ago, there were three major and three minor
modes. The loss of this convention has led to the increased use
of Greek names for the modes, which is basically a bonehead stupid
idea, and the even dumber one of adding the late medieval theorist
Glarean's bogus "locrian" mode, which is not Greek at all and never
was.
Ever since the invention of the sharp and the flat, it has been
perfectly possible and most practical to stick with one major and
and one minor mode.
So the tonality is determined by reading and listening, but it
is usually obvious. The mode is a practical decision of whether
major or minor or one of the others requires the least accidentals
and is easiest for others to read and understand.
Many pieces begin and end with different tonalities.
In late medieval times, when they began to write harmony, every voice was
considered to be in its own mode with its own tonality. So much
for what key a piece is *really* in. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:
http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:
http://www.openguitar.com. :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
LJS
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:27:18 +0800, Ray Johnstone wrote:
> > What determines the "key" of a work?
> > r...@iinet.com.au
> >www.iinet.com.au/~ray
>
> The key signature is the determinant, and the only one.
>
> The problem with the question "What key is this tune *really*
> in?" is that key is two things, not one.
>
> The tonality is the tone center or key note.
>
> The mode is the system by which the other notes are determined
> on the basis of the tonality.
>
> For example, in the key of C Major, the tonality is C and the mode
> is Major. The step scheme of major mode is wwhwwwh, starting with
> C.
But your opening statement says that this signature of no sharps or
flats determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and that
is certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could also be
A min as well as D dorian, E phrygian, F lydian G mixolydian and even
the disputed (?) B locrian. So the signature is a clue to the key, but
does not determine the key.
>
> Until about a century ago, there were three major and three minor
> modes. The loss of this convention has led to the increased use
> of Greek names for the modes, which is basically a bonehead stupid
> idea, and the even dumber one of adding the late medieval theorist
> Glarean's bogus "locrian" mode, which is not Greek at all and never
> was.
>
> Ever since the invention of the sharp and the flat, it has been
> perfectly possible and most practical to stick with one major and
> and one minor mode.
Do you really think that these two things are directly related? I
don't know of any sources to indicate that, but it would be
interesting to see some.
>
> So the tonality is determined by reading and listening, but it
> is usually obvious. The mode is a practical decision of whether
> major or minor or one of the others requires the least accidentals
> and is easiest for others to read and understand.
This is ONE way and this is rather vague and somewhat confusing.
Listening or reading, however, does not determine the key. The key, if
three is one present in a specific example, is there if it is listened
to or read or not. It is the usage of various aspects of musical
composition that determines the key. You listen to how these devices
are used and you may decide what you think the key is, but it is the
use of cadential formulas, functional harmony, melodic considerations
and many other factors that actually determine a key or atonality, but
all these elements are there if the piece is read or listened to or
not.
>
> Many pieces begin and end with different tonalities.
>
> In late medieval times, when they began to write harmony, every voice was
> considered to be in its own mode with its own tonality. So much
> for what key a piece is *really* in. daveA
I don't think that this was a universal belief although I have heard
something of this nature before. Could you cite sources that support
this statement of every voice having its own mode?
Thank you,
LJS
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Webber
>
> "Neil" <nhmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3c587a3e-4fde-4acb...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 9:27?am, Ray Johnstone <r...@iinet.com.au> wrote:
>> What determines the "key" of a work?
>> r...@iinet.com.auwww.iinet.com.au/~ray
>
>>The key signature, the ending note and chord, the chords throughout
>>the music being from the family of chords for the key.
>
> Not necessarily. Music is aural but a key signature is a notational
> (visual) device...
Indeed. And as a counter-example one should note that French Horn parts
were traditionally written with no key signature, but that doesn't mean that
all pieces played by French Horns are in the same key :-)
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
LJS
wrote:
> "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:C_idnV4KEsoehYPV...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > "Neil" <nhmil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:3c587a3e-4fde-4acb...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 4, 9:27?am, Ray Johnstone <r...@iinet.com.au> wrote:
> >> What determines the "key" of a work?
> >> r...@iinet.com.auwww.iinet.com.au/~ray
>
> >>The key signature, the ending note and chord, the chords throughout
> >>the music being from the family of chords for the key.
>
> > Not necessarily. Music is aural but a key signature is a notational
> > (visual) device...
>
> Indeed. And as a counter-example one should note that French Horn parts
> were traditionally written with no key signature, but that doesn't mean that
> all pieces played by French Horns are in the same key :-)
>
> Dave
>
> --
> David Webber
> Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
> For discussion/support seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
The French Horn parts are all transposing parts. They are written in
the same key (C to be accurate) because they are all played with the
same harmonic series partials producing the notes. These are open
horn parts and to change keys, the player just replaces the slides to
correspond to the indicated key on the parts. Thus in most cases, this
part was indeed written in the key of C, but they are for transposing
instruments so they are, in this case, indicative of the signature
giving the key. This was also true with trumpet parts.
LJS
David Raleigh Arnold
> On May 7, 5:05 am, David Raleigh Arnold <darno...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:27:18 +0800, Ray Johnstone wrote:
>> > What determines the "key" of a work?
>> > r...@iinet.com.au
>> >www.iinet.com.au/~ray
>>
>> The key signature is the determinant, and the only one.
>>
>> The problem with the question "What key is this tune *really* in?" is
>> that key is two things, not one.
>>
>> The tonality is the tone center or key note.
>>
>> The mode is the system by which the other notes are determined on the
>> basis of the tonality.
>>
>> For example, in the key of C Major, the tonality is C and the mode is
>> Major. The step scheme of major mode is wwhwwwh, starting with C.
>
> But your opening statement says that this signature of no sharps or
> flats determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and that is
> certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could also be A min
> as well as D dorian, E phrygian,
Those are not keys. Keys are restricted to major and minor modes only.
"D Dorian" is not ambiguous but neither is it a key. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>On Wed, 07 May 2008 11:07:30 -0700, LJS wrote:
>
>> On May 7, 5:05 am, David Raleigh Arnold <darno...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:27:18 +0800, Ray Johnstone wrote:
>>> > What determines the "key" of a work?
>>> > r...@iinet.com.au
>>> >www.iinet.com.au/~ray
>>>
>>> The key signature is the determinant, and the only one.
>>>
>>> The problem with the question "What key is this tune *really* in?" is
>>> that key is two things, not one.
>>>
>>> The tonality is the tone center or key note.
>>>
>>> The mode is the system by which the other notes are determined on the
>>> basis of the tonality.
>>>
>>> For example, in the key of C Major, the tonality is C and the mode is
>>> Major. The step scheme of major mode is wwhwwwh, starting with C.
>>
>> But your opening statement says that this signature of no sharps or
>> flats determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and that is
>> certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could also be A min
>> as well as D dorian, E phrygian,
>
>Those are not keys. Keys are restricted to major and minor modes only.
>"D Dorian" is not ambiguous but neither is it a key. daveA
Dave,
What key is this in?
LJS
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 11:07:30 -0700, LJS wrote:
> > On May 7, 5:05 am, David Raleigh Arnold <darno...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:27:18 +0800, Ray Johnstone wrote:
> >> > What determines the "key" of a work?
> >> > r...@iinet.com.au
> >> >www.iinet.com.au/~ray
>
> >> The key signature is the determinant, and the only one.
>
> >> The problem with the question "What key is this tune *really* in?" is
> >> that key is two things, not one.
>
> >> The tonality is the tone center or key note.
>
> >> The mode is the system by which the other notes are determined on the
> >> basis of the tonality.
>
> >> For example, in the key of C Major, the tonality is C and the mode is
> >> Major. The step scheme of major mode is wwhwwwh, starting with C.
>
> > But your opening statement says that this signature of no sharps or
> > flats determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and that is
> > certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could also be A min
> > as well as D dorian, E phrygian,
>
> Those are not keys. Keys are restricted to major and minor modes only.
> "D Dorian" is not ambiguous but neither is it a key. daveA
>
> --
> DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:http://www.openguitar.com. :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
It has a key note and a tonality. What more would you want.
"The tonality is the tone center or key note"
"The mode is the system by which the other notes are determined
on the basis of the tonality."
"For example, in the key of C Major, the tonality is C and the mode
is Major. The step scheme of major mode is wwhwwwh, starting with
C. . "
The poster of the above statements seems to disagree with you. He is
stating that a keynote and a tonality defines the key. Is he wrong
then or is he wrong now?
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and that is
>> certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could also be
>> A min as well as D dorian, E phrygian,
> Those are not keys. Keys are restricted to major and minor modes only.
> "D Dorian" is not ambiguous but neither is it a key. daveA
What positive benefit would result from restricting usage in the way
you advocate?
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
David Raleigh Arnold
It's not "really" in a key, but it's written in B min. daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
>>> your opening statement says that this signature of no sharps or flats
>>> determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and that is
>>> certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could also be A
>>> min as well as D dorian, E phrygian,
>> Those are not keys. Keys are restricted to major and minor modes only.
>> "D Dorian" is not ambiguous but neither is it a key. daveA
>
> What positive benefit would result from restricting usage in the way you
> advocate?
Fewer of these stupid arguments. The "restriction" has been there ever
since they idea of keys was adopted. Not my idea. daveA
>
> ==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k ===
> <http://www.campin.me.uk> ==== Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange
> EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557 CD-ROMs and free stuff:
> Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
--
David Raleigh Arnold
and major or minor mode, which gets the key signature. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Jack Campin - bogus address
>>>> flats determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and
>>>> that is certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could
>>>> also be A min as well as D dorian, E phrygian,
>>> Those are not keys. Keys are restricted to major and minor modes only.
>>> "D Dorian" is not ambiguous but neither is it a key. daveA
>> What positive benefit would result from restricting usage in the way you
>> advocate?
> Fewer of these stupid arguments. The "restriction" has been there ever
> since they idea of keys was adopted. Not my idea. daveA
That is, nothing. You don't have any idea why somebody would want to
use a designation like "D dorian", so you want to stop them doing it
without any attempt to listen to their requirements.
I believe you sell some sort of educational product, but whatever it is,
you just persuaded me not to bother finding out anything more about it.
You're obviously a crap teacher.
Joey Goldstein
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:27:18 +0800, Ray Johnstone wrote:
>
>> What determines the "key" of a work?
>> r...@iinet.com.au
>> www.iinet.com.au/~ray
>
> The key signature is the determinant, and the only one.
What if the music was never written down in standard notation?
Why can't a piece of music like that, that clearly adheres to the
conventions of the maj/min key system, not have its key determined just
because no-one ever transcribed the music in standard notation?
> The problem with the question "What key is this tune *really*
> in?" is that key is two things, not one.
>
> The tonality is the tone center or key note.
>
> The mode is the system by which the other notes are determined
> on the basis of the tonality.
If the music is truly key-based music, and not modal music, or some
other form of music; and if the chord associated with the "key note"
(usually called a "tonic" in key-based music, btw, in my experience) is
a major chord, then "mode" of the key is major. If the chord associated
with the tonic is a minor chord, the the "mode" of the key is minor.
Coming from a jazz theory background, where we use the word "mode" in
somewhat different ways than folks from the classical community, I've
never liked the idea of terms like "major mode" to describe a major key
and/or "minor mode" to describe a minor key (although I understand what
people mean when they use these terms). Any clear meaning of the word
"mode" just gets all jumbled up in all the various tributaries of common
usage of the word. But that's just me, I suppose.
What jazz players often refer to as "modes" should probably be re-named
to something like (but hopefully shorter in length): "alternate tonal
centers that are not really keys and are not really classical modes
either". Still, most of us throw the word "mode" around with each other,
blissfully unaware of any problems with our usage of the word.
• A key is a type of tonal center that adheres to certain notions of
key-based music which were propagated during the Common Practice Period
of classical music. If the music actually adheres to these conventions,
then the key will be either in the "major mode" or the "minor mode".
• There is a type of tonal center involved in medieval modal music too,
but it is not a "key" and that music actually pre-dates any notions of
key-based music.
• There is also a type of tonal center that is active in a "modal" jazz
tune like So What that is neither a "key" or a "mode" (according to
classical notions of modal music).
• Jazz musicians have also extended the idea of "alternate tonal centers
that are not really keys and are not really classical modes either" to
include non-diatonic scales as well.
Eg. It's not uncommon in modern jazz to have extended vamps over the 2nd
"mode" of the melodic minor scale, aka the dorian b2 scale.
D13sus4(b9) / / / |repeat ad infinitum.
At any rate, a "key" comes about by means of the hierarchical
relationship that a composer decides to use when he manipulates the
tones of the diatonic scale (including the ways in which he uses or does
not use chromatic notes). It is possible for a piece of music to be
based the Ionian mode without the music actually being in a "major key"
if the musical materials do not follow the conventions of Tonality.
I.e. In order for the pitch collection known as the diatonic scale to be
used to make music that is in a "major key" those notes note have to be
treated "stylistically" in very particular ways, adhering to very
particular conventions. If those conventions are absent, the music is
not in a "major key".
> For example, in the key of C Major, the tonality is C and the mode
> is Major. The step scheme of major mode is wwhwwwh, starting with
> C.
>
> Until about a century ago, there were three major and three minor
> modes.
And what do we have now that is different?
> The loss of this convention
I don't recall losing this convention.
Must have missed something.
> has led to the increased use
> of Greek names for the modes,
How were they named prior to 100 years ago?
> which is basically a bonehead stupid
> idea, and the even dumber one of adding the late medieval theorist
> Glarean's bogus "locrian" mode, which is not Greek at all and never
> was.
Why is the locrian mode "bogus"?
> Ever since the invention of the sharp and the flat, it has been
> perfectly possible and most practical to stick with one major and
> and one minor mode.
It's also been possible to make all sorts of music that is not key-based
yet is not explicitly atonal either.
> So the tonality is determined by reading and listening,
Right. But you have to know what to listen for.
You haven't told us what to listen for.
> but it
> is usually obvious.
If only that were true.
I've been in huge arguments with people about the key of Sweet Home
Alabama, a simple blues based vamp.
D / C / |G / / / |repeat ad infinitum
On the surface, to many many people, it looks like the key of G major.
But G, and the Gmaj chord is not the tonal center. The tonal center is D
and the chord associated with that tonal center is Dmaj.
But it's not "the key of D major". It's an "alternate tonal center"
based on D mixolydian and/or a D blues tonality.
Lots of very simple seeming modern popular music is like that. I.e. The
key is often not obvious.
> The mode is a practical decision of whether
> major or minor or one of the others requires the least accidentals
> and is easiest for others to read and understand.
What you're referring to in the above sentence as "mode" appears to be a
bad choice of words to me. What you're describing are the reasons why a
writer would choose one key signature over another. Did you mean to
write something like this instead:
"The choice of key signature is a practical decision which is based on
writing the music with the least number of accidentals so as to make the
music easiest for others to read and to understand."
I.e. The mode is not decided when the writer decides what key signature
to use. The mode is decided when he composes the music, whether he
writes it down in standard notation or not.
> In late medieval times, when they began to write harmony, every voice was
> considered to be in its own mode with its own tonality.
That's interesting. I'd never heard that.
LJS
because of the key signature. Now you say in the relative minor of the
key signature. Which citations besides your theory book will support
that a tune with a keynote and a tonality is not in a key? Or are you
saying that this is key less so it is atonal?
LJS
LJS
That doesn't make any sense! You do know that those statement came
from your post. You stated that the tonality is C as it is the keynote
and that the mode is major. Well, with the same key signature, the
mode may be major, minor, dorian, phrygian etc.. Those statements that
you made follow the exact procedure that Groves online outlines for
the keynote. But you then ascribe your own preferences of only
referring to the Major and minor as a key. True, most of the time, the
key falls into the major or minor category, but that doesn't make the
statement that key can only be defined as major or minor modes.
You can take your example and substitute Dorian Mode and whwwwhw and
the statement is equally true and as a bonus, it is useful for
accounting for a large part of the remaining tonal music.
LJS
LJS
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:33:23 +0100, Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
>
> >>> your opening statement says that this signature of no sharps or flats
> >>> determines the key. You have chosen Cmaj as an example and that is
> >>> certainly a possibility. But that same key signature could also be A
> >>> min as well as D dorian, E phrygian,
> >> Those are not keys. Keys are restricted to major and minor modes only.
> >> "D Dorian" is not ambiguous but neither is it a key. daveA
>
> > What positive benefit would result from restricting usage in the way you
> > advocate?
>
> Fewer of these stupid arguments. The "restriction" has been there ever
> since they idea of keys was adopted. Not my idea. daveA
>
>
>
> > ==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k ===
> > <http://www.campin.me.uk> ==== Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange
> > EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557 CD-ROMs and free stuff:
> > Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
>
> --
> DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:http://www.openguitar.com. :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
Really! Except for the early Classical era when they used it to
distinguish it from the Church modes I can't remember any thing that
stated that the concept of key was restricted to just Ionian and
Aeolian modes. That then brings up a question of if the piece is in no
sharps and no flats and the keynote is an A, then if it has musica
ficta to establish a tonic and dominant it must be in A min, but what
if it is in aeolian and does not use the F# and G#? Is it then key
less as well? I repeat what Jack has stated: What positive benefit
would result from restricting usage in the way you advocate?
On another point, why are the many contradictions in your argument
"smart" , and those that point out your contradictions and follow the
natural path of naming the key with the key note and the modality that
is supported by something like Groves considered "stupid"?
Here is another definition of key that seems to disagree with your
ancient assumption:
Dolmetsch Online:
Key Signature
an arrangement of sharps or flats, placed on the far left hand side of
each line of the staff, indicating the notes in the music that are
altered. Although it is common for the key signature to be the same as
the 'key' of the music, this is not what the key signature specifies
and indeed they can be different
This particular one seems to indicate that the Key Signature is NOT
the determinant factor.
Also, in the cite that was given as an example, the etude by Pujol has
a Key Note of F#. Practically everyone in this group agreed on that,
(no easy task by any means!) but F# is neither the keynote of Bmin nor
Dmaj. I suppose that this is just one of so many pieces that remain
key less with your very narrow definition of key?
LJS
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>> Dave,
>> What key is this in?
>>
>> http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x269/dtm106/?
>action=view¤t=pujoletudefromEscuelaRazonadaforgui.jpg
>
>It's not "really" in a key,
Is it atonal?
>but it's written in B min.
Why is that? The keynote is not B.
David Raleigh Arnold
The reason? Because it was restricted to major and minor. It wasn't
necessary to say that Greek mode names were not used, because they
weren't. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
Keys are either major or minor mode. You can get the other modes, which
are not keys, with one sharp or one flat. It is not necessary to
"account" for anything.
It is more practical to say that something is written in C major
but it is dorian mode, meaning that it's d-d'. Otherwise, "C dorian"
would be C minor with the 6th degree accidentally sharped.
daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
Sure it is. It ends on the dominant. Not at all uncommon.
Look at "Dark as the Dungeon". If clearly in C, ends on G.
That's just one way of "accounting" for it. daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
Nothing can be written in it if you use the f, and if you don't,
it's not locrian. It's not Greek in any case.
> It's also been possible to make all sorts of music that is not key-based
> yet is not explicitly atonal either.
>
>> So the tonality is determined by reading and listening,
>
> Right. But you have to know what to listen for. You haven't told us what
> to listen for.
>
>> but it
>> is usually obvious.
>
> If only that were true.
> I've been in huge arguments with people about the key of Sweet Home
> Alabama, a simple blues based vamp.
> D / C / |G / / / |repeat ad infinitum On the surface, to many many
> people, it looks like the key of G major. But G, and the Gmaj chord is
> not the tonal center. The tonal center is D and the chord associated
> with that tonal center is Dmaj. But it's not "the key of D major". It's
> an "alternate tonal center" based on D mixolydian and/or a D blues
> tonality.
>
> Lots of very simple seeming modern popular music is like that. I.e. The
> key is often not obvious.
That's because you think there has to be just one. Not so.
>
>> The mode is a practical decision of whether major or minor or one of
>> the others requires the least accidentals and is easiest for others to
>> read and understand.
>
> What you're referring to in the above sentence as "mode" appears to be a
> bad choice of words to me. What you're describing are the reasons why a
> writer would choose one key signature over another. Did you mean to
> write something like this instead:
> "The choice of key signature is a practical decision which is based on
> writing the music with the least number of accidentals so as to make the
> music easiest for others to read and to understand."
Fair enough.
>
> I.e. The mode is not decided when the writer decides what key signature
> to use. The mode is decided when he composes the music, whether he
> writes it down in standard notation or not.
>
>> In late medieval times, when they began to write harmony, every voice
>> was considered to be in its own mode with its own tonality.
>
> That's interesting. I'd never heard that.
--
Tom K.
"Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
news:h50924d4qq21s62pe...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:39:58 GMT, David Raleigh Arnold <darn...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Dave,
>>> What key is this in?
>>>
>>> http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x269/dtm106/?
>>action=view¤t=pujoletudefromEscuelaRazonadaforgui.jpg
>>
>>It's not "really" in a key,
>
> Is it atonal?
>
There are other possibilities. Music having a tonal center(s) which is
neither (CPP) tonal nor atonal is often described as "centric" or "post
tonal".
Tom K.
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>On Fri, 09 May 2008 16:50:43 +0000, Danny Schorr wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:39:58 GMT, David Raleigh Arnold
>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dave,
>>>> What key is this in?
>>>>
>>>> http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x269/dtm106/?
>>>action=view¤t=pujoletudefromEscuelaRazonadaforgui.jpg
>>>
>>>It's not "really" in a key,
>>
>> Is it atonal?
>>
>>>but it's written in B min.
>>
>> Why is that? The keynote is not B.
>
>Sure it is.
Where in the piece is B *ever* the keynote?
> It ends on the dominant. Not at all uncommon.
Begins there, too. In fact, every section, is centered on F#.
>Look at "Dark as the Dungeon". If clearly in C, ends on G.
Is this the Merle Travis tune?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dark+as+a+Dungeon&search_type=
Sorry, but the key- even to the most rank amatuer in this group- would
hardly be in doubt.
>That's just one way of "accounting" for it. daveA
.Accounting for - what?
I'm not clear on what "it" is here.
Sorry -I don't see any connection between the two examples at all.
Danny
Alain Naigeon
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:27:18 +0800, Ray Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>> What determines the "key" of a work?
>>> r...@iinet.com.au
>>> www.iinet.com.au/~ray
>>
>> The key signature is the determinant, and the only one.
Ooh, I'd say the opposite : if you hear something different
than what would appear from the key signature, then it means
that the latter doens't follow the modern convention.
BTW, key signature of a Renaissance piece in G minor,
for instance, often lacks the Eb.
The key signature is just a trick to save space, and to be
"neuron-friendly", it avoids the score to look too black ;-)
But music is always the winner in case of discrepancy.
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
Danny Schorr
wrote:
I don't think "post- tonal" would fit this case.
"centric", OTOH, works for me.
Danny.
>
David Raleigh Arnold
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:46:59 GMT, David Raleigh Arnold
> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 16:50:43 +0000, Danny Schorr wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:39:58 GMT, David Raleigh Arnold
>>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> What key is this in?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x269/dtm106/?
>>>>action=view¤t=pujoletudefromEscuelaRazonadaforgui.jpg
>>>>
>>>>It's not "really" in a key,
>>>
>>> Is it atonal?
>>>
>>>>but it's written in B min.
>>>
>>> Why is that? The keynote is not B.
>>
>>Sure it is.
>
> Where in the piece is B *ever* the keynote?
>
>> It ends on the dominant. Not at all uncommon.
>
> Begins there, too. In fact, every section, is centered on F#.
>
>
>>Look at "Dark as the Dungeon". If clearly in C, ends on G.
>
>
> Is this the Merle Travis tune?
He wasn't near born when it came out, but old versions ended
on the dominant.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dark+as+a
+Dungeon&search_type=
>
> Sorry, but the key- even to the most rank amatuer in this group- would
> hardly be in doubt.
Exactly.
>
>>That's just one way of "accounting" for it. daveA
>
> .Accounting for - what?
> I'm not clear on what "it" is here.
>
> Sorry -I don't see any connection between the two examples at all.
That's because you haven't heard old versions ending on the dominant.
LJS
You missed the boat. They only used the term to show that it was in
the "hip" new style and was different from the older church modes. And
you are still not making much sense. Like: what does restricted to
major and minor refer to? In fact, there are many examples of
Classical and Baroque pieces that used modes. There was even debates
as to weather aeolian or dorian was the minor mode. Then they decided
on aeolian but altered it to force it to fit with the functional
progressions of Major key V7 and sometimes IV with the three forms of
the "minor mode" The "restriction" was arbitrary and only was used
to show that it was in functional harmony rather than the older modal
system. This distinction never did have a musical reason other than
that. Then the major and minor "keys" were referred to as the Major
mode and the minor mode through out. They are still referred as such
today. To insist that this is a legitimate "restriction" is only
saying that you are still living in the Baroque or early Classical
period. It never did mean anything other than that the Ionian Mode was
referred to as the Major Mode because it used functional harmony. i.e.
the I IV I 6/4 V7 I type of cadence. The same is true for the Aeolian
Mode was referred to as the Minor Mode.The best working definition is
still, as it pretty much has always been is: The Keynote tells you
exactly that, the tonic or final. It is a named note that is
established as as the tonality of the music. Then there is the
modifier, and this is really optional!. You have a much better
argument in saying something like the "the Key is C". The modifier
only is there to give further information. It gives you the color of
the mode that is used. That color may be major, minor, dorian, or any
arrangement of tones in a scale. It can be in C whole tone if you like
if it is true with the music.
Your arbitrary restriction ONLY applies to a very short period of
music. It ignores so much tonal music that it is laughable. You may
adhere to that notion and you can restrict yourself to that small
slice of music history. But you can't truthfully and factually claim
that music that does not follow the strict CPP conventions are key
less if they are not written in The Ionian version of the Major scale
or the Aeolian version of the Minor scale. It just doesn't stand up to
reasonable thought. Think about it! If we were still in that era of
musical evolution (and a radical time it seemed to be!) it would make
some sense as that mostly major and minor was choice of the composers
of that time. But we are having this discussion not by writing and
mailing letters, not by traveling to each other's city and talking,
but over the internet! We are in a different era that has different
forms of music and we have gone though Romantic and 20th C. versions
of tonality and other non tonal form of music. If you adhere to the
strict rules of that small slice of music history, you are ignoring
all the things that came after that.
I am sure that it was an exciting time to compose music, but it is now
a part of the past. The distant past. It is still important, but you
only have the right to insist on that narrow era if you stipulate that
you are referring to music of that evolutionary era that generated the
term that defined Aeolian as Minor if it was functional and Ionian as
Major if it was functional.
LJS
LJS
I guess you don't realize that you are contradicting yourself again!
You can get to the other modes by adding a sharp of flat? Where does
that come from? You don't have to account for it? what are you talking
about. Your next paragraph shows that you have no real concept of
modes or tonality. Read on!
>
> It is more practical to say that something is written in C major
> but it is dorian mode, meaning that it's d-d'. Otherwise, "C dorian"
> would be C minor with the 6th degree accidentally sharped.
This is neither practical nor accurate. Dorian d-d' has nothing to do
with Cmaj except that it shares a key signature. "D dorian" tells you
that the signature is no sharps or flats. D dorian is NOT in Cmaj.
They have no real relationship except that they are relative by the
key signature. The keynote of dorian is the keynote of dorian. In this
case, D is the keynote! Not C. If C is the keynote and it is dorian
then yes. It will be the signature of 2 flats. But you would no more
write, in todays world, C dorian in Eb and "sharp" (the more accurate
term would be raised) the 6^. It would be written in its parent, or
relative key of Bb. In this post, you have chosen to ignore what you
have said about the keynote in other posts. In other posts, you seem
to have forgotten a different element to answer the objections that
your contradictions point out. This post the keynote, another post you
seem to rely only on the key signature, on another you change the
tonality names to suit your argument. You can't just keep changing
what you are saying like old time politicians did when they went from
farm voters to industrial voters. We are all privy to what you say in
each post. You have to try to keep a common thought from one reply to
the other.
LJS
Tom K.
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f772c63-2fe8-4638...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> You missed the boat. They only used the term to show that it was in
> the "hip" new style and was different from the older church modes. And
> you are still not making much sense. Like: what does restricted to
> major and minor refer to? In fact, there are many examples of
> argument in saying something like the "the Key is C". The modifier
> only is there to give further information. It gives you the color of
> the mode that is used. That color may be major, minor, dorian, or any
> arrangement of tones in a scale. It can be in C whole tone if you like
> if it is true with the music.
>
So referring to the language of the CPP as "Major-minor Tonality" is a
misnomer?
Tom K.
LJS
Tell that to Igor Stravinski about his beautiful melody in Petruska
that is written in the locrian (yes including the F) he makes it even
simple by writing it on the white notes so that you can plainly see
that it is locrian.
>
> > It's also been possible to make all sorts of music that is not key-based
> > yet is not explicitly atonal either.
>
> >> So the tonality is determined by reading and listening,
>
> > Right. But you have to know what to listen for. You haven't told us what
> > to listen for.
>
> >> but it
> >> is usually obvious.
If you don't worry about accuracy it is obvious! Any old thing that
you say is true if accuracy is not the objective. And if you limit
your self to strictly CPP it is also obvious. But in the broader
sense, it is not always obvious. and as Joey says (interesting to hear
him say it as I have said it so many time to him ;-) "But you still
haven't told us what to listen for?"
>
> > If only that were true.
> > I've been in huge arguments with people about the key of Sweet Home
> > Alabama, a simple blues based vamp.
> > D / C / |G / / / |repeat ad infinitum On the surface, to many many
> > people, it looks like the key of G major. But G, and the Gmaj chord is
> > not the tonal center. The tonal center is D and the chord associated
> > with that tonal center is Dmaj. But it's not "the key of D major". It's
> > an "alternate tonal center" based on D mixolydian and/or a D blues
> > tonality.
>
> > Lots of very simple seeming modern popular music is like that. I.e. The
> > key is often not obvious.
>
> That's because you think there has to be just one. Not so.
What does this mean? You are the one that says that all you have to do
is look at the key signature and that determines the key! Now you are
saying that there may be more than one key? You are not making any
sense.
>
>
>
> >> The mode is a practical decision of whether major or minor or one of
> >> the others requires the least accidentals and is easiest for others to
> >> read and understand.
Where does this come from? Music is not in a key because it is easier
to read it in one signature over another. Not only is this untrue on
its own merit, but it contradicts your assertion that the Signature
tells us the key. For example, It might be easier to read the A
harmonic minor mode (or Key if you insist) if you wrote the key
signature of one sharp on the G line. Or if a piece would use only the
ascending harmonic minor lines, and that piece did not use any
descending lines, then a signature of F# and G# would be the most
easily used. This is just so silly that I won't even finish the
analogy!!! Lets just say " Please quote some source that might
support this statement!" Personally, I don't know of any composer that
chose his key signature to make it easier to understand. Maybe in a
beginner piano book! But most composers write for Professional
Musicians and this "easier to read and understand" is simply not a
factor.
>
> > What you're referring to in the above sentence as "mode" appears to be a
> > bad choice of words to me. What you're describing are the reasons why a
> > writer would choose one key signature over another. Did you mean to
> > write something like this instead:
> > "The choice of key signature is a practical decision which is based on
> > writing the music with the least number of accidentals so as to make the
> > music easiest for others to read and to understand."
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
>
> > I.e. The mode is not decided when the writer decides what key signature
> > to use. The mode is decided when he composes the music, whether he
> > writes it down in standard notation or not.
>
> >> In late medieval times, when they began to write harmony, every voice
> >> was considered to be in its own mode with its own tonality.
>
> > That's interesting. I'd never heard that.
I think I mentioned it before, or at least asked for some
documentation supporting this view, but, alas, none has been
forthcoming. I have heard of a similar statement concerning say the
Dorian and the Hyper Dorian. But in this case they are both Dorian.
They only had the different names to basically or simply put, to show
the difference of tessitura of the voice. In the early days, the
ranges of the voices were usually around an octave. (Not entirely of
course) If there were more than one voice as counterpoint was being
explored, the Hyper, more or less described a voice that started on
the harmonic note a 5th above the final and wold eventually gravitate
to the final or would start on the final and would move above and
below the final. Thus there were two different modes, in this case,
Dorian and Hyper Dorian. But in the larger picture, they were both
DORIAN. This is the only case I have heard of each voice having its
own mode. What you are describing is a "Poly modal" technique and if
you know of any examples in the pre-Baroque time, I would LOVE to see
them. (And I think you would have a very historical discovery!)
I await your examples ir documentation!
LJS
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>On Fri, 09 May 2008 19:27:45 +0000, Danny Schorr wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:46:59 GMT, David Raleigh Arnold
>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 16:50:43 +0000, Danny Schorr wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:39:58 GMT, David Raleigh Arnold
>>>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>> What key is this in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x269/dtm106/?
>>>>>action=view¤t=pujoletudefromEscuelaRazonadaforgui.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not "really" in a key,
>>>>
>>>> Is it atonal?
>>>>
>>>>>but it's written in B min.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that? The keynote is not B.
>>>
>>>Sure it is.
>>
>> Where in the piece is B *ever* the keynote?
>>
>>> It ends on the dominant. Not at all uncommon.
>>
>> Begins there, too. In fact, every section, is centered on F#.
No response.
Hmmm...
An Inconvenient Truth?
>>
>>
>>>Look at "Dark as the Dungeon". If clearly in C, ends on G.
>>
>>
>> Is this the Merle Travis tune?
>
>He wasn't near born when it came out, but old versions ended
>on the dominant.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dark+as+a
>+Dungeon&search_type=
>>
>> Sorry, but the key- even to the most rank amatuer in this group- would
>> hardly be in doubt.
>
>Exactly.
>
>>
>>>That's just one way of "accounting" for it. daveA
>>
>> .Accounting for - what?
>> I'm not clear on what "it" is here.
>>
>> Sorry -I don't see any connection between the two examples at all.
>
>That's because you haven't heard old versions ending on the dominant.
>daveA
>>
I don't see how that would change the basic structure.
Feel free to enlighten me.
Danny
LJS
> "Danny Schorr" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:h50924d4qq21s62pe...@4ax.com...
>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> Dave,
> >>> What key is this in?
>
> >>>http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x269/dtm106/?
> >>action=view¤t=pujoletudefromEscuelaRazonadaforgui.jpg
>
> >>It's not "really" in a key,
>
> > Is it atonal?
>
> There are other possibilities. Music having a tonal center(s) which is
> neither (CPP) tonal nor atonal is often described as "centric" or "post
> tonal".
>
> Tom K.
I have yet to find any real available source to go into the scope of "
Centric" or "Centric Tonality" or "Tone-Centric". I can't remember
where I heard the term but I know that it exists. I have heard it used
in reference to micro tonal (?) works? and/or maybe some music that is
part of or related to quarter tone and maybe micro tone music in some
ethnic context.
I admit that this is one of my fuzzy spots (from the terminology point
of view) and I would like to see where this term comes from and who
started to describe what kind of music in what kind of way that used
this term. I am not really sure about the connotations of "Post Tonal"
and how and what this was coined and what it was used to describe by
its originator.
I am not concerned about them as to their possible use to talk about
tonal music that is "not major or minor". That whole concept just
seems to be so simple. If one thinks of the Key Note as the tonality,
that is all you need to define. The Major, or Minor, or Dorian are all
important distinctions, but if the Key Note is F#, then by definition,
the key is F#. The rest of the term is clearly secondary to the
overall key note. As shown in recent examples with only Pujol and
Beethoven it was shown by some examples in these two pieces and in
other pieces in reference to the threads that although not always
present, there are certainly many examples of extensive modal
interchange and borrowing. One thing that seemed to be common in all
the examples, both in the views that thought them appropriate as well
as the views that thought that they were not, is that the modes have
been interchanged and borrowed (no matter how you think that these
sounds were achieved or how that they function, they all certainly do
exist. And one should also see that they include major modes and minor
modes as well. So if the composers used major, minor, dorian, lydian
etc easily and for effect all with rather equal importance and a "no
big deal" attitude about it that it is really not that cut and dry.
By putting these things together, the important thing about KEY is the
actual pitch that is the KEY NOTE. That is the key. The key is the key
note. The other word is there just for effect! No one wants to have
just a single letter sitting out there as the answer to such a basic
question. We don't want to hear the "Key is G." Its like a dominant
7th chord. You are just waiting for the next word. The single letter
answer is just not enough. People want to know more. They want to know
"more" than the "key". We already know the key. In this case I said it
was G. Now the next word tells us something about the "key". This key
is Major, or this is dorian or expect to hear mixolydian. If someone
wants to say it is in a "modal context of phrygian centered on the key
note of G" or anything that says something similar. I will know what
he is talking about and if I say it is a piece in the key of "E
phrygian b5" and give it a signature of one Bb that anyone capable of
understanding will know what I mean anyway. The key note is the
important part. The modifier is "maybe so, or maybe not!".
On the bandstand? I have known musicians that have worked with less
than that. "The key is Bb. one-two-a1234!" Most of us have done that
at some time or another. I believe that a one note keynote would be
enough of a premise for Ornet Coleman and other free jazz players.
Anyway, that is what I think on this and anyone can use which ever
terms that they want. I will still generally be able to understand
what is trying to be said. If someone can't understand what is meant
when terms other than major or minor is used reference keys then they
are probably not going to understand the principle that is being
talked about anyway, so its no big deal if people want to live in that
restricted environment. Just try to be aware that there are lots of
people that don't see things from that narrow perspective. These
discussions just seem to keep the conversation from going to some
possibly relevant concept or observation.
SO, I am not asking about the terms as they would be used to sub for
accepting dorian as a key. I just want to know what these terms were
originally used for and by whom? I can't find a definition and they
could have very different interpretations depending on the context.
Their origin should point out specifically what they were intended to
mean.
Thanks,
LJS
LJS
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Where did I say that? Do YOU think it is a misnomer? Is this your
opinion. I said nothing like that. The original question was: What
determines the "key" of a work?
He says nothing about CPP. Even later, when someone could not
understand the question he gave a late romantic piece as an example.
There was no reason to think that he meant to limit the scope of his
question to a narrow part of CPP that would include ONLY major and
minor tonalities. If the piece was in Bb minor, then it wold be called
Bb minor. But if it was in C dorian, then that is the key it was in.
It may have been written last week. If it has a Key note of C then it
is in the Key of C. And if this key is of the dorian persuasion, then
it is in C Dorian, but if it is in C minor, then it is in C minor.
What did I say that could possibly provoke a jump to a statement like
that? If you want to speak to the CPP as a Major-minor Tonality that
is fine. For the most part, it is. The question is more: Do you think
that all tonal music is Major-minor tonality? That would more fit the
insistence that the open question be limited to looking at things
through the eyes of the CPP. I said nothing that in any way said that
you could not call a major a major and a minor a minor in the CPP or
any other time. The question was not specific to the CPP.
And since this diversion has started, it is pretty successfully
blocked any discussion of what makes either a CPP work or a modern
modal composition or anything else to be perceived as a tonality and a
keynote. (Maybe I mentioned functional harmonic or melodic
implications and someone else may have as well said something on the
subject) There are many more posts about what tonalities we are
allowed to talk about in relation to what actually determines the key.
(Well, in a way the "key signature" addressed it, but didn't seem to
hold up very well, at least the way that it was presented) But we have
heard a lot of reasons why we should use the CPP limitations (If
indeed one sees it that way) that want to only refer to music that is
Major or Minor and ignore the rest. Oops, sorry. I forgot. We haven't
heard any reasons why we should use the CPP rules to answer this
question. Did I miss those posts? Please forward them to me.
LJS
David Raleigh Arnold
It refers to the term "key" and nothing else.
In fact, there are many examples of Classical and
> Baroque pieces that used modes.
You mean other modes than major and minor.
There was even debates as to weather
> aeolian or dorian was the minor mode.
Aha! *The* minor mode. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
If it means that with a key signature of three flats that the tonality
is sometimes Eb and sometimes C, "major-minor tonality" makes sense.
Otherwise, it makes no sense whatever. What is CPP? daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
It shares the same set of notes. That's not anywhere near "nothing".
daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
It wouldn't. It ends on the dominant. The common sense thing to
say is that it is major but it ends on the dominant, or used to.
The dumb thing to say is that it's *really* mode VII. The dumber thing to
say is that it's "really" mixolydian.
With most stuff which the 'hip' describe as 'Phrygian' and the hipper
would describe as mode III you have the same situation. A simple sequence
of Am G F E chords can better be referred to as being in A minor even if
you end on E, the dominant, especially considering the g#. daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
But there is no "key of f#". There is a key of F# major and there is
a key of f# minor, but there is no "key of f#". There is a key of
g# minor but there is no key of g# major *at all*, because double
sharps are not allowed in key signatures. Look in any method
book of the last three centuries. Where is the "Key of F#"? You
can *not* separate key from key signature and make sense just because you
*want* key to be synonymous with tonality.
That's the problem with "minor-major-tonality". Better to just consider
"key of C" to be short for "key of c major or a minor", but you can't
do that yet. daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
If you are waiting for a C at the end of the melody when you play
it *UNACCOMPANIED*, he was not successful in responding to the
challenge.
There was no locrian mode until Glarean. Look him up. daveA
>
>
>> > It's also been possible to make all sorts of music that is not
>> > key-based yet is not explicitly atonal either.
All the more reason to cut down on the ******** about modes. daveA
I meant tonality, but something certainly can be in both C major and
A minor at the same time.
Here's something in tonality E mode II and tonality G mode II at the
same time. Of course it's written in C. The A# should be a Bb, but
lilypond would not permit that:
http://www.openguitar.com/pdf/bitonale.pdf
It's easier to just say it's in E minor and G minor, but that would
not be "accurate". The *key* is C. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Tom K.
> On May 9, 2:30 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> There are other possibilities. Music having a tonal center(s) which is
>> neither (CPP) tonal nor atonal is often described as "centric" or "post
>> tonal".
>>
>> Tom K.
>
> I have yet to find any real available source to go into the scope of "
> Centric" or "Centric Tonality" or "Tone-Centric". I can't remember
> where I heard the term but I know that it exists. I have heard it used
> in reference to micro tonal (?) works? and/or maybe some music that is
> part of or related to quarter tone and maybe micro tone music in some
> ethnic context.
>
> SO, I am not asking about the terms as they would be used to sub for
> accepting dorian as a key. I just want to know what these terms were
> originally used for and by whom? I can't find a definition and they
> could have very different interpretations depending on the context.
> Their origin should point out specifically what they were intended to
> mean.
The term "centric" as applied to music came out of the development of
pitch-class set theory in the '60's & 70's, but the term does not seem to be
as popular these days as it was 30 years ago. I'm sorry not to have any
direct references right now, but some of the primary writers were Forte,
Perle, Berger, Lerdahl and Boretz among others. Googling them as well as
"Music theory centric" may be of help. The term is also used in the harmony
textbook by Benjamin, Horwit & Nelson.
The essential definition is music having one or more centers (but not 12,
obviously) but which is not CPP tonal. This usually means music not having
functional harmony although it could include polytonal music which has
multiple harmonic streams. While pre-CPP and post CPP music employing the
church modes may including in this rubric, "modal" is a far better term.
Whether or not non goal directed music such as minimalism should be included
as centric is doubtful as the theorists mentioned above emphasized pitch
relations and pitch goals.
Tom K.
Tom K.
"David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05...@cox.net...
>What is CPP?
"Common Practice Period" or "Period of Common Harmonic Practice" refers to
Western classical music of the Baroque, Classic & Romantic periods (roughly
1630~1900) when all composers shared the same pitch language - that of
Major-minor Tonality.
See Donald Grout, "A History of Western Music"; Walter Piston, "Harmony",
and other standard musicology texts.
Tom K.
LJS
Yes, it does. And so do other examples. There is more then Major and
Minor that can refer to key. There is nothing wrong with Major or
minor being part of a key name. If the shoe fits, wear it! But you are
asserting that it is the ONLY definition of key. You seem to think
that this small period accounts for all of music. It simply isn't so.
>
> In fact, there are many examples of Classical and
>
> > Baroque pieces that used modes.
>
> You mean other modes than major and minor.
>
> There was even debates as to weather
>
> > aeolian or dorian was the minor mode.
>
> Aha! *The* minor mode. daveA
Yes, some of those early CPPers though that Aeolian was "the Minor
mode" Others though it was Dorian. So if I follow you, if it is
written in dorian it is not in a key but if in Aeolian, well maybe.
But if it is in major and it has a raised 4^ or a lowered 7^ then it
has no key either. I still fail to see any consistency in your
assertions. You just seem to pick and choose to ignore anything that
you say to try to prove that ONLY your view is correct. Can you
assemble an argument that accounts for all of your statements?
LJS
LJS
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:56:37 -0400, Tom K. wrote:
>
> news:1f772c63-2fe8-4638...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> You missed the boat. They only used the term to show that it was in the
> >> "hip" new style and was different from the older church modes. And you
> >> are still not making much sense. Like: what does restricted to major
> >> and minor refer to? In fact, there are many examples of Classical and
> >> Baroque pieces that used modes. ..... You have a much better argument
> >> in saying something like the "the Key is C". The modifier only is
> >> there to give further information. It gives you the color of the mode
> >> that is used. That color may be major, minor, dorian, or any
> >> arrangement of tones in a scale. It can be in C whole tone if you like
> >> if it is true with the music.
>
> > So referring to the language of the CPP as "Major-minor Tonality" is a
> > misnomer?
>
> If it means that with a key signature of three flats that the tonality
> is sometimes Eb and sometimes C, "major-minor tonality" makes sense.
> Otherwise, it makes no sense whatever. What is CPP? daveA
To you it makes no sense. You are living in the musical world of CPP.
I really don't understand how you can be arguing about this the way
that you do and not know what CPP stands for. It is the key (little
pun intended ;-) to your whole objection! CPP simply stands for Common
Practice Period. And to many (not myself in regular life) in this
group it is limited to the earlier Classical era composers. It is a
rather narrow but influential period in musical history. It is
primarily beginning with the end of modality and the start of the
Functional Harmonic system that we all study. But the radical CPP
enthusiasts don't seem to acknowledge that music has evolved. They
seem to think that if it deviates from these early traditions that it
is something else entirely and thus must be called something different
and new. Well that just isn't the case. Functional harmony is and will
probably remain an evolutionary system of chordal progression and
there are other methods than the CPP uses to create tonality.The CPP
is only the first attempt at tonality. It was a rather large break
from the tradition of harmony being a byproduct of counterpoint. You
are focusing (you are not alone, btw!) on one insignificant term that
was used during this period to distinguish it from the older
contrapuntal style and trying to force it on the entire balance of
musical thought. It just didn't have that much of a significance as
you are ascribing to the notion. They would simply refer to the Maj/
Min system as Key to distinguish it from the older school of music. A
better term that they could have used would have been "functional
harmony" but it just didn't catch on the same way. Probably because
the use of the term Cmaj distinguished it from C Ionian because it
used functional harmony as they were beginning to see it. V7 to I (i).
It implies that the Key Note was more determined by the Dominant 7th
rather than by the older methods used in Counterpoint.
Now that there have been other successful ways of establishing key
note that does not use only (or even any) Dominant Tonic relationships
in their exact style, the notion of holding on to this limited view of
tonality. There has been a very large amount of music written since
then and to hold on to this ancient view simply is a way of ignoring
all this tonal music and denying its evolution from this common
source. Simple put, to say that Key is only valid if applied to Major
or Minor is just not putting everything into the larger context.
LJS
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
LJS
I think I stated that it shared the same notes. The statement was that
it shared nothing relative to key. If that same set of notes
establishes a key note of D, then it is dorian. Not any form of C at
all. That keynote of D can be dorian or Major or locrian b7. There is
just no relation of Keynote to the set of tones that it uses for its
particular color of tonality.
The same set of notes can have a key note of any tone in the series.
(yes, including B!) or it can have NO key note in the series. This
would occur with pandiatonicism. You have totally mixed up your apples
and oranges! All these notes are also on the piano keyboard, and that
is not anywhere near "nothing" either, but it has no relation to the
topic of what is the key or keynote either. In effect you are
inferring that all of the modes are in the "key" of the signature. Is
this the way you view music?
LJS
LJS
> That's the problem with "minor-major-tonality". Better to just consider
> "key of C" to be short for "key of c major or a minor", but you can't
> do that yet. daveA
Now I start to see. You are talking about fantasy theory! Well now it
makes sense. In fantasy theory, C major is the same as A minor. I have
to enter the fantasy world in order to understand this logic. The
magical world of "Theory is Anything You Want It to Be".
Of course, this does answer some other things as well. You see that
all the modes are in C if there is no signature! You are saying that
since Amin and Cmaj both have the same tone set (well I guess we can
ignore the harmonic and melodic forms,, hmm, the the natural is really
Aeolian and not minor in the true sense of key, now isn't it? so How
can Amin be a "key" according to your prior definitions? Oh well, it
is only fantasy!) that they are both in Cmaj. By that logic, then the
D dorian, the E phrygian etc are ALL in the key of Cmaj!
Fantasy Theory may be quite enjoyable. You should write a book about
it!.
LJS
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
LJS
>
> >> >> which is basically a bonehead stupid
> >> >> idea, and the even dumber one of adding the late medieval theorist
> >> >> Glarean's bogus "locrian" mode, which is not Greek at all and never
> >> >> was.
>
> >> > Why is the locrian mode "bogus"?
>
> >> Nothing can be written in it if you use the f, and if you don't, it's
> >> not locrian. It's not Greek in any case.
>
> > Tell that to Igor Stravinski about his beautiful melody in Petruska that
> > is written in the locrian (yes including the F) he makes it even simple
> > by writing it on the white notes so that you can plainly see that it is
> > locrian.
>
> If you are waiting for a C at the end of the melody when you play
> it *UNACCOMPANIED*, he was not successful in responding to the
> challenge.
Well, I don't expect a C at the end of the melody, and neither does
anyone else that I know. So I take this as a "+1" for the locrian as
being a true key!
Maybe if you listened more to various kinds of music, these more
modern concepts may not be so foreign to your ear.
>
> There was no locrian mode until Glarean. Look him up. daveA
There is a point to this statement?
>
>
>
> >> > It's also been possible to make all sorts of music that is not
> >> > key-based yet is not explicitly atonal either.
>
> All the more reason to cut down on the ******** about modes. daveA
yeah! lets burn all the modal and other works that do not fit into
major and minor. Or at least put them on an island that is far away
from the CPP! They are nothing but the devil's work anyway!
So you are now saying that there can be two keys at the same time. And
in your next example, you claim that these keys can be Mode II (what
ever that means in your example.
>
> Here's something in tonality E mode II and tonality G mode II at the
> same time. Of course it's written in C. The A# should be a Bb, but
> lilypond would not permit that:
>
> http://www.openguitar.com/pdf/bitonale.pdf
>
> It's easier to just say it's in E minor and G minor, but that would
> not be "accurate". The *key* is C. daveA
And the contradictions keep on rolling out of your mouth. Now you are
saying that this piece is in C. Earlier you stated that this could not
be. You said specifically that F# could not be a key, it had to be
either major or minor. This piece has nothing to do with C as a
tonality. This particular piece has more relationship to the open
tunings of the guitar as a foundation rather than any key. You simply
"noodle" around in 2nd position on these open strings. It really
doesn't establish any particular key that I can here other then the
"Key of Open Guitar Tuning and the 2nd position" (music exercises do
not have to be in any key, they can be written on a fingering concept
or any premise) But this piece as a composition aside (it is a
beginning guitar exercise as I understand you to say) your description
of key is back to the Fantasy Theory if you consider this piece to be
in the Key of C and that very term contradicts practically everything
that you have said in the past.
LJS
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
LJS
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks Tom,The is pretty generally what I had remembered except that I
seem to associate it with Microtonal music as well. I suspect that
there was some defining writing that established the term and it
referred to a specific instance of something. That is what I am
looking for.
I will continue to look. I now have some names to add the the
"centric" terms that did not yield what I was looking for. If you run
across something more specific, please forward it to me.
Thanks,
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:34:26 -0400, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:27:18 +0800, Ray Johnstone wrote:
>>> which is basically a bonehead stupid
>>> idea, and the even dumber one of adding the late medieval theorist
>>> Glarean's bogus "locrian" mode, which is not Greek at all and never
>>> was.
>> Why is the locrian mode "bogus"?
>
> Nothing can be written in it if you use the f, and if you don't,
> it's not locrian.
Of course music can be written in locrian. Who ever told you that it
couldn't?
It's a different type of tonal center, compared to most commonly
encountered types of tonal centers, because there is no major or minor
triad available on its tonic to aid in the focus of centrality.
But a tonal center involving a central tone, with a locrian scale-color
associated with that tone, is easily done.
The trouble with using a dim triad to help enforce the feeling of a
tonal center on the triad's root, is that dim triads are missing their
acoustical root.
I.e. The acoustical root of Bdim is actually G.
So, if a composer is trying to write something in B locrian he runs the
risk of turning the ear on G as the tonal center (thus making the modal
feeling really G mixolydian rather than B locrian) if he overemphasizes
the tones in a Bdim triad or a Bm7b5 chord.
Of course, I'm talking about modern notions of modal music, not the
techniques used in the Middle Ages.
I'm guessing that locrian was not used back then at all.
It's only rarely used even nowadays, but it is still entirely possible.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
LJS
> "David Raleigh Arnold" <darno...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:pan.2008.05...@cox.net...
>
> >What is CPP?
>
> "Common Practice Period" or "Period of Common Harmonic Practice" refers to
> Western classical music of the Baroque, Classic & Romantic periods (roughly
> 1630~1900) when all composers shared the same pitch language - that of
> Major-minor Tonality.
>
> See Donald Grout, "A History of Western Music"; Walter Piston, "Harmony",
> and other standard musicology texts.
>
> Tom K.
A good answer that seems to be narrowed by some in this group who
doesn't really seem to accept the Romantic period as being part of
this era. The Grout of course would be reporting mostly on research
that described this period. Is he the source of your time frame? You
have also opened a question with this post, however, and that is:
I am not really familiar with Piston's musical compositions. I am
starting t search for some. BUT as I recall, he used some 20th C.
techniques of tonality that does not fit neatly into these limited
tonalities of Tonic and Dominant. If I am recalling correctly, How
does he classify his own techniques of tonality as used in his
compositions? Does his use of the "Maj/Min only Keys" only apply to
his analysis of harmony in the earlier CPP? or does he then go beyond
that when he graduates to the next era of music writing. He did not
cross over until 1976. I would be surprised if he did not consider
that other forms of functionality that occurred outside the realm of
CPP to be irrelevant. The question, is does he limit these terms to
his thesis on Harmony or was it only really relevant to his analysis
of that particular era?
LJS
LJS
Wow, I am impressed. An on target response that has a lot of truth in
it! Good job Joey.
I would point out however, that there is no reason (except that you
play an instrument that tends one to think harmonically) to assume
that there needs to be any harmony at all. True enough that there are
challenges using the Locrian to avoid inferring another key as it is
related to the diminished triad on the 7^ of major/minor or other
modal tonalities. But key is not dependent upon harmony. It is
entirely natural to have simply a melody and that melody can define a
key just as well on its own without the necessity of harmony. A tonic
can be established melodically and does not have to rely on the full
tonic chord. I would think that in this case, the challenge would be
to distinguish the locrian from the phrygian rather than the
mixolydian.
LJS
Steve Latham
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:y_WdnSY8EMGfNrjV...@comcast.com...
>
> The term "centric" as applied to music came out of the development of
> pitch-class set theory in the '60's & 70's, but the term does not seem to
> be as popular these days as it was 30 years ago.
Depends in which circles one travels.
The term is also used in the harmony
> textbook by Benjamin, Horwit & Nelson.
Amongst others.
>
> The essential definition is music having one or more centers (but not 12,
> obviously)
which is often described as Pantonal - or rather than there being a center,
any of the 12 can be a center.
>
> Whether or not non goal directed music such as minimalism should be
> included as centric is doubtful as the theorists mentioned above
> emphasized pitch relations and pitch goals.
I have recently more and more heard the term "process" music to describe
many minimalist (or similar) pieces without pitch goals, but whose "goal" is
the completion of, or "bringing to the fore" (through completion, setting in
motion, etc.) the "process" by which the music is created.
Steve
Tom K.
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nqlVj.1962$Uz2.696@trnddc06...
>
>
>
> I have recently more and more heard the term "process" music to describe
> many minimalist (or similar) pieces without pitch goals, but whose "goal"
> is the completion of, or "bringing to the fore" (through completion,
> setting in motion, etc.) the "process" by which the music is created.
>
Thanks, Steve - I forgot that term.
Of course, since the process in question isn't necessarily a "musical"
process, I'm somewhat reminded of the routine I heard many years ago between
two African-American vaudevillians. Looking for a compliment on his conked
hairdo (known as a "process" in those days), one comic asked "What do you
think of my process? The reply: "Looks like your process took a recess!"
Tom K.
Tom K.
As he states early in the text, Piston's "Harmony" deals only with CPP
tonality.
Separating the theorist and composer (IIRC), he does not quote or mention
his own compositions in his harmony text. His works are usually described
as "neo-classical" and would therefore be essentially centric, perhaps with
some flashes of tonality.
Tom K.
LJS
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thank you Tom, That was exactly my point. All the references to key
being only major or minor refers to the CPP. And in particular,
generally to the early part of that period. That is why it is silly to
continue to address key as only major or minor without making that
disclaimer! When a general question such as what determines the key of
a work, there is no reason to limit the answers to the mind set of
freshmen music students that generally have only studied CPP harmony.
As one progresses to higher levels of theory, just as music has
evolved to various levels of musical thought there is little to be
served by trying to put everything into a nice neat package that
relies on the strict rules of such an old system of thought. It simply
eliminates the presence of so much music that does not fit into the
rules and conventions of first year harmonic and melodic theory.
LJS
David Raleigh Arnold
> On May 10, 2:39 am, David Raleigh Arnold <darno...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:56:37 -0400, Tom K. wrote:
>> > "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:1f772c63-2fe8-4638...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You missed the boat. They only used the term to show that it was in
>> >> the "hip" new style and was different from the older church modes.
>> >> And you are still not making much sense. Like: what does restricted
>> >> to major and minor refer to? In fact, there are many examples of
>> >> Classical and Baroque pieces that used modes. ..... You have a much
>> >> better argument in saying something like the "the Key is C". The
>> >> modifier only is there to give further information. It gives you the
>> >> color of the mode that is used. That color may be major, minor,
>> >> dorian, or any arrangement of tones in a scale. It can be in C whole
>> >> tone if you like if it is true with the music.
>>
>> > So referring to the language of the CPP as "Major-minor Tonality" is
>> > a misnomer?
>>
>> If it means that with a key signature of three flats that the tonality
>> is sometimes Eb and sometimes C, "major-minor tonality" makes sense.
>> Otherwise, it makes no sense whatever. What is CPP? daveA
>
> To you it makes no sense. You are living in the musical world of CPP. I
> really don't understand how you can be arguing about this the way that
> you do and not know what CPP stands for.
I know what the "common practice period" is. I had never seen the
acronym.
It is the key (little pun
> intended ;-) to your whole objection! CPP simply stands for Common
> Practice Period. And to many (not myself in regular life) in this group
> it is limited to the earlier Classical era composers. It is a rather
> narrow but influential period in musical history. It is primarily
> beginning with the end of modality and the start of the Functional
> Harmonic system that we all study. But the radical CPP enthusiasts don't
> seem to acknowledge that music has evolved. They seem to think that if
> it deviates from these early traditions that it is something else
> entirely and thus must be called something different and new. Well that
> just isn't the case. Functional harmony is and will probably remain an
> evolutionary system of chordal progression and there are other methods
> than the CPP uses to create tonality.The CPP is only the first attempt
> at tonality. It was a rather large break from the tradition of harmony
> being a byproduct of counterpoint. You are focusing (you are not alone,
> btw!) on one insignificant term that was used during this period to
> distinguish it from the older contrapuntal style and trying to force it
> on the entire balance of musical thought.
Not at all. The terms under discussion all emanate from CPP or before.
daveA
It just didn't have that much
> of a significance as you are ascribing to the notion.
Not at all. You are playing my song.
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
There is no "view" of music here at all. You just can't assert that
key note or keynote is the same thing as tonality if the music is
not minor or major in mode. Key is tonality *and* mode. When the modal
system of Glarean was still in use, key just meant clef. The problem
remains that key is two things and not one, which was my original
assertion, and that is the source of all the confusion. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
>> That's the problem with "minor-major-tonality". Better to just consider
>> "key of C" to be short for "key of c major or a minor", but you can't
>> do that yet. daveA
>
> Now I start to see. You are talking about fantasy theory! Well now it
> makes sense. In fantasy theory, C major is the same as A minor.
It is the same key signature. You don't have to analyze a piece of
music to play it, you just have to know what the notes are. That is
not fantastic. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
You see the key signature? I can't say that it's written in C?
The tonality is E and G. The modes are major and minor, minor for E
and both minor and major for G. It's written in C. I wrote the damn thing,
I get to say what key it's in, but writing serial and polytonal music
in C, which clearly refers to the key signature only, is the norm and not
a fantasy. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Jack Campin - bogus address
Variants of it still are in use...
> key just meant clef.
...and it doesn't.
>> Now I start to see. You are talking about fantasy theory! Well now it
>> makes sense. In fantasy theory, C major is the same as A minor.
> It is the same key signature. You don't have to analyze a piece of
> music to play it, you just have to know what the notes are.
Maybe you aren't just playing a score by rote, you might be improvising
something. If you are doing that in a modal idiom, you need to know the
space you're moving around in: what the finalis will be, what other
pitches matter, what directions the melody will tend to move in. You'll
need to know more than you actually play.
I have occasionally run into guitarists with your mindset trying to do
improvised accompaniments to Western modal folk music... if it's got one
sharp it must be G or E minor... with a resounding final chord on one or
the other when the tune ends just as emphatically on D. AAAARRRGHHH!!!
(The modality of the Middle East can be even more subtle - two modes
can share the same pitch set and tonal centre, differing only in which
notes they dwell on and which directions the melody tends to move in.
This information is conveyed by naming the mode and the tonal centre,
you don't leave the player to work it out just from a key signature).
LJS
What song? You are singing a round. You change each element of your
argument as it is questioned until you make the circle and then you
start to repeat the same contradictions over and over! Your song is
somewhat fitting; it has no key!
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
> DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:http://www.openguitar.com. :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
Sorry Dave, but unless you reconcile some of your contradictions, I
have to stop this conversation because of its not going anywhere.
You have said that a single note definition of KEY is not possible, it
must be either Major or minor, yet you describe it differently in your
beginning etude on the open strings.
You say that the key signature is the only determinant of the key and
then you talk of the key note as being important.
You say that the major key and the relative minor are the same key
You say that ALL the modes in a parent scale are in the same key,
irregardless of the keynote.
You mix up your information to suite what you want to be true with out
any regard for consistency!
Sorry, but enough is enough. You may continue with your fantasy
theory, but until you settle on your set of facts to support your
argument and stop changing them with every response, I have simply had
enough of this non view of theory according to DAVE.
LJS
LJS
See, you now change your facts again! Now you are saying that key is
tonality (the key note) and the mode. Earlier you said that it could
not be a mode! How can one address your "moving target" view of key?
Every time one points out your errors, you change your view?
LJS
LJS
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:58:39 -0700, LJS wrote:
> >> That's the problem with "minor-major-tonality". Better to just consider
> >> "key of C" to be short for "key of c major or a minor", but you can't
> >> do that yet. daveA
>
> > Now I start to see. You are talking about fantasy theory! Well now it
> > makes sense. In fantasy theory, C major is the same as A minor.
>
> It is the same key signature. You don't have to analyze a piece of
> music to play it, you just have to know what the notes are. That is
> not fantastic. daveA
>
> --
> DGT: The very best technical exercises for all guitarists:http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html. Original easy solos at:http://www.openguitar.com. :::=={_o) David Raleigh Arnold
No, not fantastic, FANTASY! Existing only in the imagination! Maybe it
is a language thing. You are saying that A min and C major are the
same key. They are not. YOU have said over and over that the Key note
is the important factor and now you are saying that it doesn't matter
AND you are ignoring the Major/Minor concept to do it!! If the
relative keys are the same key, there is no "minor"! The A min that
shares the same signature as Cmaj is Aeolian! Without the G# for the V
chord, you do not have the CPP maj/min system at all! So now you are
saying that the Aeolian Mode is the same Key as C maj. They are not.
They have different tonalities. The keynote is different!
Yes, the clef was known as the KEY with one definition. Key or "clave"
is also used to denote a "key" rhythmic element in Latin American
music. It is also that little brass thing that opens up locks on
doors. None of these alternate definitions have anything to do with
what is the keynote and tonality that establishes the key of a piece.
LJS
LJS
Your piece does not set up either tonality very clearly in my ear. It
takes melodic movement and/or harmonic implications to establish a
key. Your piece may serve to express the notion of bi modality to a
beginner, but will not hold up to more careful scrutiny. I realize
that this is written for a beginner and it may serve a purpose that
you feel is needed that they can play. I still hear it as the open E
tuning and notes picked out of the 2nd position. It may suggest these
keys if you listen for them specifically, but all I hear as
established is the open strings of the guitar.
And NO. You used the non signature of C when you wrote and added the
accidentals as needed for your composition. You did not establish the
key of C by any means. Even by your own calling, you say that it was
in E and G. (Both single letter named Keys, btw that you said was not
possible when referring to key) and you even pointed out the Minor and
Major would not fit in these cases. You can say what key it is in, but
that doesn't mean that you are correct even if you did write it. Well,
maybe in your own rules of Fantasy Theory!
That last part about writing serial and ploytonal (do you actually
mean atonal) music in C is just not why they use "no signature". This
is actually what it is! NO SIGNATURE! Composers use 'no signature'
because they are writing atonal pieces and the signature implies a
specific set of notes that can suggest possibilities of keys. They are
not writing in keys or trying to set up tonality so they don't want to
confuse their music with something that uses the ancient concept of
tonality of either modal, or major of minor. Atonal and serial music
is NOT in C. It is only written without a signature! Where are you
getting this stuff? Really, if you paid for this information, try to
get a refund!
LJS
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
It accounts for the definition of "key" and exclusively so. Before then
a key was only a clef.
It simply isn't so.
>
>
>
>> In fact, there are many examples of Classical and
>>
>> > Baroque pieces that used modes.
>>
>> You mean other modes than major and minor.
>>
>> There was even debates as to weather
>>
>> > aeolian or dorian was the minor mode.
>>
>> Aha! *The* minor mode. daveA
>
> Yes, some of those early CPPers though that Aeolian was "the Minor mode"
> Others though it was Dorian. So if I follow you, if it is written in
> dorian it is not in a key but if in Aeolian, well maybe.
Exactly.
But if it is in
> major and it has a raised 4^ or a lowered 7^ then it has no key either.
It is in the key it's written in. Why not?
Something using notes ef#gabc#d I can say is "Mode I" in a sense, but
I can write it in Em or C if I want to.
> I still fail to see any consistency in your assertions.
Not my fault. I did not invent the "Key signature of C major or C minor".
You just seem to
> pick and choose to ignore anything that you say to try to prove that
> ONLY your view is correct. Can you assemble an argument that accounts
> for all of your statements? LJS
Probably not, because key is two things, not one, and the modes in
keys are limited to major and minor. Not by me. Key is whatever CPP
says it is. Tonality OTOH is not concerned with notation so
exclusively. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Ray Johnstone
wrote:
>What determines the "key" of a work?
>r...@iinet.com.au
>www.iinet.com.au/~ray
I didn't wish to know about all these complex matters which have
followed my original post. Simply this: why, for example, when the
Beethoven 5th symphony, which Ibelieve begins in C minor and ends in C
major, is named as being in C minor. Yet not all works are named by
key after their opening.
r...@iinet.com.au
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
Joey Goldstein
> It is in the key it's written in. Why not?
Because "key signatures" and "keys" are not the same things.
Something written with a key signature of C maj/A min might be in any
key or no key at all.
LJS
No it wasn't. Before that "key" was also something to unlock a door.
There are many different definitions of key. The clef definitions has
nothing to do with the key definitions. They are seperate meanings of
the one word.
>
> It simply isn't so.
>
>
>
> >> In fact, there are many examples of Classical and
>
> >> > Baroque pieces that used modes.
>
> >> You mean other modes than major and minor.
>
> >> There was even debates as to weather
>
> >> > aeolian or dorian was the minor mode.
>
> >> Aha! *The* minor mode. daveA
>
> > Yes, some of those early CPPers though that Aeolian was "the Minor mode"
> > Others though it was Dorian. So if I follow you, if it is written in
> > dorian it is not in a key but if in Aeolian, well maybe.
>
> Exactly.
>
> But if it is in
>
> > major and it has a raised 4^ or a lowered 7^ then it has no key either.
This also contradicts your key signature aspect of key. If you use the
Cmaj signature but then insert the F# by writing in the accidental,
then according to your other Fantasy Theory set of rules, it is still
in Cmaj because of the Key signature, but if we put it in the key
signature (the same C melody with the F#) in the key signature of G
(one sharp) then your previous Fantasy Theory says that is now in G
maj. Can you not see the fallacy of this reasoning? Your definitions
of key have no relationship to tonality! This can only happen in
Fantasy Land.
>
> It is in the key it's written in. Why not?
You are right, it is in the key it's written in, but that has nothing
to do with the key signature. D dorian is NOT in C maj no matter how
you try to explain it. Now, in this statement you again seem to be
saying that the key note is not a part of key!! Please try to settle
on something that can be used in ALL of your posts and not have to be
taken out of some to make it so!
>
> Something using notes ef#gabc#d I can say is "Mode I" in a sense, but
> I can write it in Em or C if I want to.
>
> > I still fail to see any consistency in your assertions.
>
> Not my fault. I did not invent the "Key signature of C major or C minor".
>
> You just seem to
>
> > pick and choose to ignore anything that you say to try to prove that
> > ONLY your view is correct. Can you assemble an argument that accounts
> > for all of your statements? LJS
>
> Probably not, because key is two things, not one, and the modes in
> keys are limited to major and minor. Not by me. Key is whatever CPP
> says it is. Tonality OTOH is not concerned with notation so
> exclusively. daveA
No its not. The CPP concept of key is the only thing that is what the
CPP says it is. It does not speak for all the music that came before
nor does it speak to the music that came after. I don't know what is
so hard to understand about this concept. CPP is a subset of Music,
Music is much more than the CPP. Your definitions, even if they did
make any sense or have a basis in fact, still only account for CPP
situations. The do not address the larger considerations of key or
tonality.
And, sorry, but Yes, it is "by you" that these decisions have been
made. YOU are the one that chooses to see things in this rather
confused and contradictory manner. The CPP is quite clear that Major/
Minor are the primary modes that are used in this system. The earlier
contrapuntal style is quite clear that there are tonalities and
functional relationships that establish the mode's key note. The
latter periods are quite clear that they use things that are not
included in the CPP era. YOU are the one that is insisting that things
are in this confused and full of contradictions.
LJS
I understand Ray. Some of this is due to the way you phrased the
question, but most of it is because of some of the inane responses to
the misinterpretations of the terms that must be used. I had
understood you to mean what factors determined the key. I now see that
you just didn't understand why they named works by one key rather than
the other.
This is a much more simple question. They name them for quick
identification. I think someone did address this in one or two posts!
The Beethoven 5th Symphony is really enough to identify this piece.
or The Opus number. But it opens in C min. so this is usually part of
the name. as in Beethoven's Symphony number 5 in Cmin. Op. 67. The
name is just usually the first key that is printed or indicated in the
score. Nothing mysterious, just because that is where it starts. It
MAY indicate a larger scheme of key relationships in a piece, but
certainly not always and certainly is not a requirement of calling it
that. It is simply a descriptive term that helps one to know what
composition is being referenced.
Your question of what "determines" the key of a work infers that you
are interested in WHY it is considered to be in that key over another
tonality that may be of importance in the larger picture. This is a
more complex issue, but unfortunately, this has not been addressed to
any extent in this thread. So far, people have just objected to
definitions of what is meant by KEY.
Maybe someone else will have a more detailed reason and other
considerations that guide the selection of the title of a piece that
includes the Key. As far as I know, it is simply because that is what
it is in the usually most recognizable section of the piece, the
beginning.
LJS
David Raleigh Arnold
Key is not tonality. Key is not mode. Key is tonality ***AND*** minor
or major mode. A key cannot be dorian any more than it can be a double
flat.
The final of a mode or any other attributes of a mode do not dictate key
choice. One may choose the key to write in by the mode, by the tonality,
or by any other means, because we have accidentals.
In that context, key *OBVIOUSLY* means key signature and nothing else.
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
David Raleigh Arnold
There were no triads in ancient Greece.
on the 7^ of major/minor or other modal tonalities. But
> key is not dependent upon harmony. It is entirely natural to have simply
> a melody and that melody can define a key just as well on its own
> without the necessity of harmony. A tonic can be established melodically
> and does not have to rely on the full tonic chord. I would think that in
> this case, the challenge would be to distinguish the locrian from the
> phrygian rather than the mixolydian.
You can't erase distinctions between modes by leaving out the factors
which distinguish them. The problem with locrian is not harmonic, it
is melodic, as was clearly stated. Glarean and his predecessors dealt
with the 'b' by changing it to Bb, which simply transposes the mode,
rendering it into another mode. It is silly to go there.
There were six modes in the Greek system, and mode II plagal, renamed
mode IV, was useless without Bb.
And Joey conflated the dim7 and the dim triad. A dim triad has one root,
and one root only. That argument made no sense at all. daveA
LJS
Still more contradictions. IYOW: Key is tonality ***AND*** minor
> or major mode.
Notice you said major MODE, which is correct. And Dorian is a MODE
just as is Major or minor or aeolian or Ionian or other artificial
modes. Tonality should be replaced by Key Note as you are using it in
that manner. You will be replacing this with a particular note that
shows the pitch on which the "tonality" is built. "tonality" would be
something like Major or Minor or Dorian or some other scheme of note
arrangement that created a particular relationship.
Again, you keep trying to force the CPP conventions on to all of
music. In the CPP, by definition, the tonality is limited to Major or
Minor (by some definitions) but this is for the Common Practice Period
and applies only to that period. Outside that narrow period, the
definitions are NOT limited to Major and minor. In short, You have a
keynote you have a key and if you have a descriptive word following it
that works, then that may be used as well.
> The final of a mode or any other attributes of a mode do not dictate key
> choice. One may choose the key to write in by the mode, by the tonality,
> or by any other means, because we have accidentals.
Because we have accidentals? Contradiction #2 in such a short
response. Here you describe how one can choose the tonality by the use
of accidentals. Well they can, of course, but then that negates the
relationship of key signature having anything to do with the mode that
the piece is in as this can be changed by accidentals. If the piece
uses the key signature of Bb but uses the accidentals of Bnat, Enat
and F# and has a keynote of G, then it is not in Bb. It is in G and
that is not the key signature.
So only in the context of Fantasy Theory does your next (and previous
statements made) statement make any sense:
>
> In that context, key *OBVIOUSLY* means key signature and nothing else.
>
> --
LJS
Actually, I must say that although I don't agree with Joey's reference
to the Imagined Root, it makes a lot more sense than your arguments!
There is no problem with locrian. It is a fine mode with lots of color
and a certain amount of ambiguity. Why would you want to look to the
Greeks for support on your quest to prove that there is no other
outlook on music other than the CPP? No one has said that we are
limited to the Greek modes! They simply are not a part of what we are
talking about. The same is true for your mis understandings and mis
applications of selected definitions that you keep changing when
defining KEY. Your argument doesn't even sit right inside CPP and
certainly has no relationship to KEY in general when you leave that
period. (Even in the CPP, the Key Signature is not the Determinant of
KEY. Key is determined by the conventions of that period. The key can
change inside the composition with out changing the key signature
several times and still is in those keys no matter what signature is
actually in use. Your arguments make Joey look like he really
understands classical theory by comparison. Joey may have his faults
(many as I see them!) but he does have reasons to think the way he
does. Many things don't translate from Jazz into the Classical
language very easily, and he usually gets into trouble trying to
explain something that he understands in Jazz in Classical terms. The
to of you do share the ability to totally be blinded to the larger
picture when you are claiming a narrow viewpoint to be universal.
But your arguments are not even really arguments. You are constantly
stating "fantasy" as fact. You have at least one and often several
contradictions in even your short posts. Maybe if you started over
again and tried to separate the elements that you seem to associate
with key and decide on ONE definition that is appropriate and that has
relevance to all the elements in your "argument" in the way that they
are being addressed and then you stipulate that this set of
information applies to the CPP and not to all of music, then you will
have an "argument". As it stands now, you do not. You have a fantasy.
LJS
>
> --
> email: darno...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Joey Goldstein
> And Joey conflated the dim7 and the dim triad. A dim triad has one root,
> and one root only. That argument made no sense at all. daveA
Just because you don't understand something does not mean that it does
not make sense.
LJS
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > And Joey conflated the dim7 and the dim triad. A dim triad has one root,
> > and one root only. That argument made no sense at all. daveA
>
> Just because you don't understand something does not mean that it does
> not make sense.
True enough Joey, and in this case you are certainly correct. If you
could understand and apply that same statement when you make the same
kinds of comments about things that you don't understand, then true
learning might be accomplished.
LJS
Steve Latham
>
> Of course, since the process in question isn't necessarily a "musical"
> process, I'm somewhat reminded of the routine I heard many years ago
> between two African-American vaudevillians. Looking for a compliment on
> his conked hairdo (known as a "process" in those days), one comic asked
> "What do you think of my process? The reply: "Looks like your process
> took a recess!"
>
:-D
Steve Latham
"Ray Johnstone" <r...@iinet.com.au> wrote in message
news:iv6e24dd77o5nh267...@4ax.com...
Simply this: why, for example, when the
> Beethoven 5th symphony, which I believe begins in C minor and ends in C
> major, is named as being in C minor. Yet not all works are named by
> key after their opening.
I actually mentioned this in one of my responses, though I know you probably
didn't want to run through all of those extra issues.
Basically Ray, we call the key of a multi-movement common practice era work
the key of the opening movement usually. It's really as simple as that. It's
like "Have you heard Mozart's latest symphony? Oh, you mean the one [that
begins in implied] in A Major?"
During the Classical period, as time went on, composers more and more made
each movement related by key, so early Haydn movements might be something
like C fm D and em for the 4 movements, later, you had composers writing
movements in the same key, or closely related keys, like cm Eb gm and cm.
By that time, many works would begin and end in the same key.
However, Beethoven started doing something interesting and that is to use
what some people have referred to as an "enlarged Picardy 3rd" idea (a
picardy 3rd is when the final chord of a minor key work is Major) and the
final movement of a minor key multi-movement work would be Major. So the
"main" key of the work (and movements in related keys) is C minor, and it
ends in C Major. With Picardy 3rds, we don't say that the piece in C minor
that ended with the single C Major chord is in "C Major" - it's still in C
minor - so some of that thinking likely transferred - #5 is in C minor, even
though the last movement is in C Major.
HTH,
Steve
Ray Johnstone
wrote:
Thanks. But there still seem to be exceptions, like the Tchaikovsky
1st piano concerto.
r...@iinet.com.au
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
Steve Latham
What do you mean? It's in Bb minor. It begins in Bb minor. Mvmt is in Db
major (the relative major) and Mvmt. 3 is in Bb minor, it simply ends in Bb
Major. Again, this is the "enlarged Picardy" idea. If you like, *most* of
the work is in Bb minor, so that's what people have taken to calling it.
Steve
Ray Johnstone
wrote:
My mistake. I had misunderstood the following Wikipedia statement:
"The well-known theme of the introductory section to the first
movement is based on a melody that Tchaikovsky heard performed by
blind beggar-musicians at a market in Kamenka, near Kiev in Ukraine.
This, the best-known passage in the entire concerto, is notable also
on account of its formal independence of the movement as a whole. It
is not in the concerto's nominal key of B flat minor, but instead it
is in the relative major key of D-flat."
Jack Campin - bogus address
> or major mode. A key cannot be dorian
What compensating advantage can your scheme of things offer to people
who routinely use phrases like "this is in A dorian" or "we're in
Hungarian minor on G for this section" to communicate what to play?
> The final of a mode or any other attributes of a mode do not dictate key
> choice. One may choose the key to write in by the mode, by the tonality,
> or by any other means, because we have accidentals.
>
> In that context, key *OBVIOUSLY* means key signature and nothing else.
You lost the argument on that one with the jazz and ethnomusicology
communities before you were even born.
David Raleigh Arnold
Tonality is tone center, not mode. daveA
--
email: darn...@cox.net (put "poisonal" anywhere in subject)
Steve Latham
>>Steve
> My mistake. I had misunderstood the following Wikipedia statement:
> "The well-known theme of the introductory section to the first
> movement is based on a melody that Tchaikovsky heard performed by
> blind beggar-musicians at a market in Kamenka, near Kiev in Ukraine.
> This, the best-known passage in the entire concerto, is notable also
> on account of its formal independence of the movement as a whole. It
> is not in the concerto's nominal key of B flat minor, but instead it
> is in the relative major key of D-flat."
>
I like the way they used "nominal" there to leave themselves an out :-)
Probably the best thing to say Ray is, we place a little too much emphasis
on "Key" as being this over-riding thing that somehow dictates the music -
it's as if the Key determines the music when in fact, it's the music that
determines the Key. We just - largely for educational purposes - tend to
treat "key" in an oversimplified manner, which cause the confusion you see
in some of the other threads. For example, many people simply look at the
key signature. But even any one key signature could be 1 of 2 keys - and
potentially modes as well. So it's merely a notational device. So typically,
we (those of us who understand the specific and non-specific uses of the
word) discuss the "key" of a piece in much the place where it was written -
"Have you heard Mozart's latest symphony, it only has 3 movements!" "Oh, you
mean the one written in Prague?". So the "key" of a larger, multimovement
work is usually the "overall" key, and most especially of the first
movement. You even notice how we don't hear "Fidelio in C", or "The
Nutcracker in Bb" (sad, but I don't even know in what keys those begin,
though with Beethoven, odds are Fidelio begins in C minor, and with
Nutcracker, I think it's G). That's because it's really something that's not
all that important to the work as a whole (though it might be) - just in
those cases a descriptor. Now when we talk about the middle movement is in
the Parallel minor, and modulates to its dominant, etc. etc., the key
structure becomes a little more important.
Best,
Steve
Steve Latham
"David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05...@cox.net...
[snip]
>
> Tonality is tone center, not mode. daveA
>
You're allowed to snip.
Steve
LJS
Still another self contradiction. Wasn't it daveA that stated that
BOTH the tonal center and the mode was necessary? Or was that just
another fantasy? Do you just forget what you said in your previous
posts? or do you think that we forget what you said?
LJS
Jim
A question for those who want to make "key" and "key signature" the
same: what do you make of a key signature like the B flat and F sharp
that together constitute the signature in works like Howells'
"Lambert's Fireside" or Bax's "Valse" for harp?
Jack Campin - bogus address
> same: what do you make of a key signature like the B flat and F sharp
> that together constitute the signature in works like Howells'
> "Lambert's Fireside" or Bax's "Valse" for harp?
A bit like Rast on G in Middle Eastern music (though the B would not
be flattened that much). Were these pieces intended to evoke the
Orient? Usually Western composers use Hijaz to do that.
Look at any text on Turkish music theory and you'll see the idioms
"<mode> on <tonal centre>" or "<tetrachord> on <tonal centre>" on
almost every page. It's essential for describing how the system
of modulations works (a bit like jazz in that these modal keys
are often transient, though no Turkish musician would get through
them as fast as a contemporary jazz improviser).
LJS
Thanks Jim, I believe that Bartok and maybe Kodaly and others used
that type of signature. That is a perfect example of the use of a key
signature.for its indented purpose; to indicate the tone set for a
particular work. I doubt, however if it will convince people that
think that everything must be seen through the eyes of the CPP
composers. Some seem to only consider this period and just can't
imagine anything past or prior to this period. The early CPP may have
helped to limit music to the major/minor system and create a great
system of functional harmony that was and still is a very important
part of music. It is still, however, a subset of "music". All of music
is not a subset of the CPP!. This is a distinction that daveA doesn't
seem to quite understand. Of course, even in the CPP, there is a
definite difference of key or mode even with the two selections that
he acknowledges. A minor and C major are not the same "key" even in
that period even though they share the same signature and it also
doesn't matter if they are written in the the key of Gb with
accidentals that show C maj or A min. The key signature just simply
doesn't indicate key or modality. It only defines the way the tones
are read from the score.
LJS