The Character of the Key Signature

Posted by: Florestan on 03 July 2010

As I grow older I have noticed that my fondness for music continues to grow. Perhaps, it would be more correct to say that I have always been fond on music since my earliest recollection but it is my understanding of it on different levels that is evolving and changing over the years and this is adding the dimensions and making it all quite interesting. So it is probably a combination of an innate, universal understanding of human emotion through music with the added intellect as one ages and works at it. It is a complicated subject that has eluded mankind forever so there is no fear that I could ever reach a point where I would be able to stop, thankfully.

There have been many discussions here about some of the elements of music such as melody, harmony, rhythm, for instance. Recently, I’ve started focusing on the importance of the key signature of a piece and the role it plays in the music. Now, more than ever, I am convinced that the key signature plays a pivotal role in making a piece of music what it is. So this is a journey for me in exploring and putting into words these ideas that I might have felt over the years but never really connected the relationship formally until recently.

I would like this discussion to be in regards to all music. My vocabulary and knowledge is limited to classical music but I would value other perspectives and inputs, too (Jazz, all contemporary music etc). Also, I will apologize in advance for the length of this post. For the benefit of those who may feel intimidated by all this talk of music theory I would like to dispel this fear and be inclusive of all, especially those with zero knowledge but have at least some curiosity. So from time to time, I may introduce some basic concepts in music theory and hope that this will be appreciated and aid in the appreciation of this topic.

For those who do not wish to read on perhaps I could just state some of the main premises and thoughts I am thinking about.
1) Does each key have a predetermined or assumed character?
2) When a composer writes a score, is the key arbitrary or did the composer have a specific intent by choosing that key?
3) Does the key offer any insight or provide queues on how to interpret a piece?

When I was a child and through the various stages of learning how to play the piano and studying theory, I do believe that if someone had asked me about the key signature of a piece I would quite simply have given a reply in terms of the number of sharps or flats or the lack of them. More sharps and flats somehow equated into “harder” to play.

I am generally going to talk about Western Art music. Its heyday was from around 1600 to the early part of the 1900’s, I suppose. It was this period that really developed Tonal Music and this means we are basing our sound concept on Major and Minor keys. Outside of this, most music in the world to this point would be referred to as modal. I’m only going to talk about tonalism.

In tonal music, we essentially have 12 pitches that repeat the same pattern from low frequencies to higher frequencies. From these 12 pitches we have developed 24 keys; a major and a minor for each pitch. If you are familiar with a piano keyboard you can name these pitches easily by pressing every note from, say, middle C to the next C an octave higher. Specifically, these are named as follows:
1) C (white note)
2) C sharp (or D flat) (black note)
3) D (white note)
4) D sharp (or E flat) (black note)
5) E (white note)
6) F (white note)
7) F sharp (or G flat) (black note)
8) G (white note)
9) G sharp (or A flat) (black note)
10) A (white note)
11) A sharp (or B flat) (black note)
12) B (white note)
13) C (same pitch but an octave higher – this pattern will repeat ascending or descending)

For the notes that are shown in two ways, this is known as the Enharmonic. It really means this is the same note or pitch (ie. C sharp (or D flat)) but it is named differently depending how you want to view it. Each pitch is considered to be a half step between each other and two half steps is a whole step.

Also note that the 12 pitches have been chosen and standardized for tonal music. In reality, there can be an unlimited amount of pitches. For example, between the note we call C and D we can play many different pitches but in a tonal system it doesn’t sound right. Our ear can tell when for instance a singer sings slightly above or below the exact pitch it should be.

All Major and Minor scales can be defined as follows:

Major Scale:




Harmonic Minor:




Melodic Minor:




The other point worth mentioning is that a Relative Minor key is found by going three half steps lower than the beginning (Tonic) note of the major scale. The first note on the Major scale above is (middle) C. The first note in the minor scales above is A (which can be like counting backwards from #13 to #10 on the pitches listed above). C major and A minor share the same Key Signature. Also, note that in the Melodic Minor scale the two sharps would be removed when playing the scale descending.

Now for some practical information to those who listen to Bach’s Well Tempered Clavier, Chopin’s Preludes or even Shostakovich’s Prelude & Fugues. When talking about studies of Keys, these works are probably the most appropriate place to start because they specifically set out to cover all the keys but of course I intend to show that the same principles apply just the same way to all composers in this period.

Now that you know that there are 24 major and minor keys it should be clear that this matches the number of Preludes and Fugues in Book 1 of Bach’s WTC and also, the same in Book 2 (48 in total). Chopin’s Preludes have one piece per key again for a total of 24 and for that matter so do Shostakovich’s Preludes.

The only difference between Bach and Chopin / Shostakovich is in the order in which the pieces are placed within the book.

Bach proceeds chronologically. In other words, he first writes a Prelude and Fugue in C major, then a Prelude and Fugue in C minor, then a Prelude and Fugue in C sharp major, then a Prelude and Fugue in C sharp minor, then a Prelude and Fugue in D major, then a Prelude and Fugue in D minor and so on up to B minor.

Chopin and Shostakovich’s Preludes follow the order of the Circle of Fifths. This mean the first Prelude is in C major, the second in A minor, the third in G major, the fourth in E minor and so on. The easiest way to understand the Circle of Fifths is to follow the chart below and work your way clockwise around the circle. Essential C to G is a fifth (the Dominant) as is A to E etc.

Circle of Fifths:




Note that Bach wrote, for example, his piece in C sharp major and Chopin wrote in D flat major. While these are essentially the same thing I would argue from a psychological point of view these are different things (sharps vs flats).

The reason I wanted to present this much detail is it is the only way you might be able to understand the next points which will build toward my main premise here.

When I play a major or a minor scale on the piano the pattern and sound is equivalent or generic for all. Assuming that a listener is ignoring the pitches (ie. Cannot hear perfect pitch) a C major scale will sound exactly like a G major scale or E flat major and so on BUT a piece written in C major can never or will never have the same character as a piece in G major or E flat major.

From this generic pattern, music is created when a composer infuses the main elements of music, which are namely melody, harmony, and rhythm. But it is the key signature of the piece that puts everything into context though. It sets the stage or atmosphere, so to speak.

In some way, I believe that Bach really defined this expertly in his two books of the WTC. It is like he defined the musical equivalent of some natural law like gravity for us. From this point forward, these principles were carried forward by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and onward. The question is as to whether we are assuming Bach set the tone with each key or whether he was the first to actually understand what key is? Did he just happen upon some universal principle by chance or did he discover these principles and use them to his (and our) advantage?

So, if this is true, I am suggesting here that in a broad but real sense, a piece written in E flat major or C minor by Bach will convey the same feeling and sense of emotion as a piece in E flat major or C minor by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and so on. By extension, this suggests that we can break down the walls and stigma of saying this is Baroque or this is Classical or this is Romantic etc and focus solely on the emotive nature and character of the music. I believe we can rely on these dominant patterns. Later, I could show this pattern does hold true by comparing pieces in the same key, which might span over 200 years.

As an aside, I believe that for each individual there are certain keys that are more natural or suitable to that individual. This is why when I listen to the WTC, I will be attracted to certain pieces more so than others and everyone will probably tend to certain keys (moods) that are in alignment with their character in general. If you go through the WTC and just note the ones that you relate to the most I’m sure you will see a pattern here.

I’ve noticed this in myself since I was a child. In general, I gravitate toward minor keys. There are very few major keys that please or satisfy me. But in fact, they mostly disappoint me and make me feel uneasy.

One example of this for me is late Schubert’s C minor Sonata. In the last movement, it is centered on the key of G major, a key which is quick, light, and carefree in character. I can’t stand this and it makes me feel unsatisfied. Then in the middle section it is developed and returned back to C minor by a pianissimo (almost like a whisper from God). C minor is the key that the whole piece is moored on. So this return is such a glorious moment it is hard to fight back the tears here. It is a key of longing, solitude, of desire for things unknown and resolve to carry on. But we only get a very small taste of this as when Schubert reiterates the theme a few bars later he sadly does this in C major. For probably everyone on the face of this planet this is really symbolic of some hope or the silver lining. From a listeners perspective it will feel like the pitch is raised (as we eliminate the flats). Moving higher always symbolizes something positive (heaven) and moving lower always symbolizes something more ominous (the other place), This may be true but for me, leaving this place of magic and beauty is the tragedy.

Listening to and learning the WTC does teach us much about key. When we understand that a certain key brings along with it many givens about what the composer intended by setting the piece in this key, I think this also directs us in a proper interpretation of the piece. The other descriptions and musical descriptions written into the piece will likely correspond with the general feeling of the key.

For those interested, listen to the WTC, or any other composer and write down the emotions you feel from the piece and also note the key. Over time, pay attention to the key your favorite pieces are in. See if you are drawn to specific keys and ask yourself if pieces of a similar key put you in a similar mood.

Exploring the 24 keys on the piano is fascinating but for other instruments I think just by the nature of the instrument this limits the full exploration of the keys (at least naturally or easily). I’m thinking of the string family, guitar, certain wind instruments etc.?

I know, for example, a cello is based on the A, D, G, C strings. So it is more natural to play in these primary keys? Maybe someone can explain these other instruments better than I. For instance, what keys do most pieces played on a guitar fall in? I kind of doubt that there are any pieces in D sharp minor that are written or played? But the same is true of piano. The dominant keys get the most pieces written for them.

To help me keep focused on the importance of key I often try to think of pieces now by key. In other words, in of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, I try to think of it as Beethoven’s C minor symphony. Same thing as with Beethoven’s last piano sonata as it is mostly referred to as No. 32 or Op. 111 but by thinking of it as the C minor sonata we can readily understand what it is all about. If I have time in the future I’d like to create a list of keys and provide descriptions of how these keys present themselves. Then, we can pick pieces by any composer and see if these attributes carry through.

I've run out of time but wanted to somehow throw the idea of Transposition into this. In theory, we could transpose any piece. So we don't think Bach knew what he was doing by writing his first Prelude and Fugue in Book 1 in C major. So we rewrite it in D major. Sure, it will sound vaguely the same but I would argue that the character that was intended by Bach will be lost.

So in summary, I would say that the importance of key of often overlooked. I believe the use of key is totally intrinsic to the music itself. You cannot defy the laws that are universal and you cannot fool the key by writing something against or foreign to its nature. The key lends itself to suggesting how to interpret works of music. The key is what puts a piece of music into context.

Agree or disagree? How do you feel about the key in a piece of music? Does key have any affect you in your listening? What keys engage you the most? Maybe, the key is the least of your concerns in music?

I look forward to your thoughts and opinions on this.

Regards,
Doug
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by BigH47
As I wouldn't know if a piece was in E sharp, F flat or H natural.
I'll apply my normal criteria if I like it, I like it, If I don't, I don't.

I choose not to analyse but listen.Then as a non musically trained listener, I'll just risk missing something.
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by mikeeschman
I have spent a good deal of time in the WTC of late, and they (especially the preludes of Book 1), pop into my head unbidden when listening to other music in the corresponding key. This happens most often in D minor, as that prelude in Book 1 is my absolute favorite.

So as a listener, for me at least, each of the major and minor keys has a distinct emotional cast.

On the trumpet, all of the major and minor keys are accessible, and they have different tonal color, as they make use of different lengths of tubing to make scales and arpeggios.

It's hard to say if these reactions, which have become habits, are self imposed, or if they hint at some universal truth. In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter.

Key awareness does seem to breathe more life into what you hear, at least in my experience.

.....

Just gave a few repeated listens to the WTC D Minor preludes, Books 1 and 2. To my ear, they both have a restrained, even mellow, sense of joyful playfulness. I guess those are qualities I associate with D Minor, because the WTC gave me my first sense of the sound of D minor.

I had never thought of this before.
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by Florestan
Speaking of H natural: In German this is the equivalent of our B natural. Bach often used a specific motif based on the notes of his family name B-A-C-H. On a piano you would play a B flat-A-C-B natural and this represented Bach. You can find this motif throughout Bach's music including one of the last things he wrote in the last Contrapunctus of the The Art of Fugue.
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by mikeeschman
How about comparing the Chopin Op. 28 D Minor prelude to both the WTC D minor preludes?

Time to go listen.

...

The Chopin is darker and more foreboding than either of Bach', but there are signs of sunlight breaking through.

Is that the signature of D minor?
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by Florestan
Mike, I think you have the right idea. D minor to me has what you said but also a drive and energy and relies a lot on rhythm.

Just offhand, I think of Beethoven's D minor Piano Sonata (The Tempest) or Mozart's D minor Piano concerto (he only wrote 2 in minor keys: d-, c-), Brahms' D minor Piano Concerto, Chopin's D minor Prelude. I think all these pieces share these similar characteristics.

My main point in the original post was that the character and the key are related. If you listen to the profound E flat minor Prelude in Book 1 of the WTC you could never imagine the feeling of that given by D minor. Another way of saying this is that I cannot think of any D minor pieces that can elicit the profoundness heard in pieces written in E flat minor.
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by mikeeschman
Florestan, thank you for providing a listening list for the evening.

I will report back tomorrow :-)
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by Florestan
Mike,
About a week ago I was listening to Helene Grimaud's latest Bach album. This is what I wrote of it at the time:

quote:
Currently right on the centerpiece of this album: the Busoni arrangement of the Chaconne from the Violin Partita no. 2, BWV 1004 in d minor. Simply divine.

I really do not think it is a mere coincidence that this album rests firmly in music of minor keys. The order in which they are presented is important to note, too. Bach's WTC, in particular, are really the first place to start in a study of how key and character relate. To me the sense of the keys is palpable as Grimaud leads us through C minor (determined, dramatic, fateful), C sharp minor (dark, sad, meloncholy), D minor (unrelenting, dynamic, wild, kinetic), A minor (chromatic, restless, impulsive), and then finally she releases with E major (light, airy, innocent, affirming).


Maybe you have this CD but after listening to this album for months now it just seemed to crystallize for me. If you listen to the mood of going from C minor to D minor to A minor and then E major it is unmistakable. You can listen to Hewitt doing theses Preludes and Fugues and see what you think. If you don't have the Busoni transcription you may have the d minor Partita played by a violinist.

Enjoy...
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by mikeeschman


I went ahead and ordered this. I think it is the disk you were speaking of. It is all Bach, with a number of transcriptions, some by Busoni.

My wife and I watched the Barenboim masterclass on Beethoven's "Tempest" sonata, followed by his performance. When it's not endless torrents of diminished chords and is actually in D minor, I do believe you hear the character of the key shine through.

That was great Florestan :-) I think to continue in this vein all weekend.

Time to go out to dinner on the lake front. The oil is nowhere near the lake ...
Posted on: 03 July 2010 by Florestan
Yes, that is the one. Remember, in recommending this I was focusing on the mood and atmosphere of moving through different keys. When listening to the WTC in the usual order you get used to the order and forget about the contrast. This recording offers this. These keys suit me somehow and the recording gets me excited about music and life somehow. A bit of a warning though that if you are used to the pristine recording of Hewitt you might have to adjust to this as it will probably strike you as being different. If it is any consolation though I didn't like this totally on first listen but I kept at it and now I can't stop listening to it. After going through all the Bach and the transcriptionss of Busoni, Liszt and ending on the Rachmaninov I don't know how anyone could not get excited. It is one major key piece that absolutely does inspires me.
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by Florestan
One correction from the original post needs to be made. When I referred to the late C minor piano sonata that should have read the G major Sonata (D894). My apologies for this typo. I love those few bars in C minor so much I guess unconsciously I'll do anything to change the whole work to C minor Cool
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by Florestan
As BigH commented earlier that he likes what he likes, simple as that, and I couldn't agree more with him. Quite honestly, I am no different in this and I can't imagine anyone being very different from this either. I have largely spent my life searching for music that I like. I would never like something just because a friend is listening to something or just going along with the crowd and the charts. I would have to like it naturally and on my own terms.

The majority of the music I listen to today and still enjoy I would say I found growing up and certainly the core of it before I was in my mid twenties. I found it on my own. So what I like has been set and determined already. As I have aged though, I find a natural curiosity has guided me to ask questions and wonder about things. When I was much younger this was not necessarily the case.

When I was younger, I drank wine or beer just for the sake of it. Can, bottle, screwcap, cork-these weren't choices that seemed to matter. Now, I find it only natural to be interested in how things are made and perhaps some of the science behind this along with the nuts and bolts. So it is interesting to know the type of grape and where in the world it grown and why (soil, growing conditions/amount of sun/heat required etc). All these things translate into the final result / product and the quality and character. All this interest is partly due to wanting to do. I would like to make my own wine, cheese, sausage etc. You have to know how before you can start. If I didn't have this interest, I suppose I would simply be happy to drink and eat. This is OK too.

The same concept applies to music for me. Thirty or forty years ago I simply listened to notes and played notes. Over time and now I do ask questions. As a player, I think it is very important for me to know what a composer had in mind. Changing keys and development in music is a very important concept. The plot thickens in other words. As a listener, you can take this at face value or experience more closely what the composer is trying to convey. As a player, you can gloss over it (play notes) or you can lead and assist the listener and make it more meaningful and satisfying for everyone.

In the end, I'm just glad when someone does listen to music-period-no matter the reason.
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by mikeeschman
I had the appetite to listen yesterday, but no focal point. Then Florestan came along with his thread on keys. I ended up spending the day listening to works in D minor; listening for the character of the key itself.

What fun!

Music without musical curiosity is just half a loaf :-)
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by Florestan
Thinking more about keys and trying to relate it to the music I do enjoy. As was pointed out earlier, it was Bach who really set the stage for exploring all the 24 keys (major and minor). As a general comment, I have noticed that most Baroque composer's and even many Classical composers wrote predominantly in major keys; Bach being the exception. As time went on the exploration of major and minor probably evened out more?

For instance, when I look at many of Bach's works their seems to be a pretty even split between Major and Minor keys.

- Well Tempered Clavier
- Toccatas
- Partitas
- Two & Three part Inventions
- English Suites
- French Suites
- Violin Sonatas and Partitas
- Cello Sonatas
- Cantatas and Passions etc.

On the other hand, perhaps Händel, Vivaldi, Haydn may have been primarily focused on major keys. Haydn, for instance, wrote a massive amount of music and I can't help thinking the majority is in major keys. His Piano Sonatas and String Quartets each number in the sixties and I'm sure he wrote around 33 Symphonies. I would estimate that 80 to 90% of these works are in major keys.

Major keys are strong, stable, happy, joyous, non-threatening, straight-forward, pastoral.

Vivaldi's Spring from the Four Seasons starts out in E major.

Mozart's C major piano sonata, C Major Symphony (No. 41, Jupiter).

Händel's Harmonious Blacksmith Variations in E major

Beethoven: F major (Pastoral) Symphony, D major (Pastoral) Piano Sonata, F major (Spring) Violin Sonata etc.

Schubert: Wanderer Fantasy in C major, Symphony in C major (no. 9)

Haydn: Nearly everything


The nice thing about Bach and the majority of the composers going forward is that they seemed to exploit or focus more equally on the senses of both major and minor characteristic.
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by u5227470736789439
Sorry for posting, but this is too large a subject to simply ignore.

Certainly music composed is different keys tends to have a different character, and the keys employed by composers tend to have a similar expressive pallet so that for JS Bach F Major holds a bold expansive noble brilliance to be found in the Organ Prelude and Fugue, BWV 540, the Italian Concerto for harpsichord, BWV 971, the Second Brandenburg Concerto, BWV 1047, and the Forth French Suite for Harpsichord, BWV 815, for some exuberant examples. That list is very short indeed of exuberant works by Bach in F!

Bach reserves B Minor for much darker, perhaps more questing music. Such as the Harpsichord Partita known as the "French Overture," BWV 831, or the B Minor Mass.

But for Beethoven, F Major is a "Pastoral" key of relaxed style as exemplified in the Pastoral Symphony, or the relatively mild mannered Eighth for two lovely examples.

This demonstrates the fact that the actual key signature is not very closely related to the expressive range and style of music that results Major to Minor key contrasts generally aside. The style of the music in any given key is at least as much related to the composer, who will frequently revisit a key for a given mode of expression. Different composers visited different keys for similar expressive styles that are individual to themselves as a rule of thumb. Mozart's expression in D Minor is different to Beethoven's or Bach's for example, and Beethoven’s F Major is radically different to Bach’s!

So why is there still this prevailing feeling that certain keys are dark and some bright, some tragic and some joyous, some Pathetique and some noble?

The keyboard is an interesting starting point, because the tuning schemes have changed over the period of what we might loosely call that of Western Art Music. Perhaps the late Sixteenth Century to the present day. In Bach's youth the keyboards were not tuned as today with modern equal temperament, but various schemes which tended to sound more and more out of tune in keys with greater numbers of sharps or flats. Thus the acutely musically eared person would soon be able to say what key the music was in from the degree of out of tune-ness of the result even without "perfect pitch." Now perfect pitch is another issue, as the absolute reference pitch for the tuning "A" has not been constant either, and there two schemes in Bach's time - Chorton and Kammerton - which were usually a Major Second [one whole tone] apart, with Kammerton being the normal pitch for instrumental music. Nowadays we have standardised this for Baroque music at "A" equals 415 cycles. This is a respectable average, though there is evidence that a range for Kammerton "A" was as large as [and possibly even larger than] 407 to 435 cycles.

So a range of approximately a Major Second even within Kammerton.

This is significant, because the character of the key for any music was as much given by the tuning scheme as the actual pitch of the tuning "A."

However keyboard tuning was revolutionised towards our modern even temperament keyboard tuning [where every semi-tone is of mathematically equal proportion] with Bach's devising of the Well Tempered Klavier, which would have been impossible to play on the old tuning schemes as the for example B Minor would have been intolerably out of tune to listen to.

The idea of even temperament tuning is that the keyboard can play all music in any key and preserve a single degree of perfection of tuning, thus robbing the key of any individual characteristics. This is very useful for the accompaniment of singers who may have a short range at one end or the other of their voice and may struggle with this high note or that low note in a song or group of songs, which can [with piano accompaniment] be transposed up or down as many tones as it is necessary for the comfort of the singer without in any way affecting the character of the music beyond absolute pitch. As we have already seen absolute pitch has never been a criterion for mood in music. Thus the piano tuned in even temperament may be seen as a very versatile instrument that essentially is neutral as to character of key - "of itself."

There is a group of instruments - almost as a widely used as the keyboards - which have unconquerable definite characteristics in given keys. The Violin family.

A string piece in G or D Major sounds the harmonics on the open strings in a way the for example B Flat Minor or D Flat Major will not, and the result is in the former two keys sound bright, resonant and fulsome, while in the latter case they are inevitibly softer, and sometimes almost veiled in quality. This cannot be altered so long as standard tunings are used for the open strings. Again this is independent of what the absolute reference tuning "A" may be.

At one time the trumpet came with additional lengths of tube called crooks to allow the instrument to play its harmonic series [in this form the instrument was not a chromatic one] in a variety of keys. Common for trumpets was to be set in D Major [also for B Minor], and this was the typical trumpet key in Baroque times. If the section had trumpets, then there is a big chance the key will be D Major or B Minor.

Thus D Major became a regular ceremonial key!

Many are the reasons why composers wrote in a characteristic style in any given key, but absolute pitch is not one of them, and neither is the effect on a modern piano, but what is crucial as Doug notes is key-progression, which yields harmonic tension and a sense of harmonic structure.

This is a very powerful expressive compositional tool, and is found in the larger [and very often small scale as well] works of all the Masters of Western Art Music as well thought out recitals and concert programmes such as [I imagine] the DG recording mentioned above.

ATB from George
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by mikeeschman
My wife has a book that attempts to document all the tuning systems for use on keyboards in the Baroque. Suffice it to say that the book is incomplete and weights in at over five pounds.

On a valve trumpet, the keys use different lengths of tubing, each with its own characteristic sound.

At any rate, listening for the character of a key as an entertainment gets high marks :-)

George, you have extended my listening list with your post. Good to see you back!

This is what I crave and enjoy on the forum!

I agree with George, that composers have characteristic ways of using the keys that are unique to each composer. Still, it is tantalizing to speculate that some universal principle underlies the character of the keys.

It certainly sharpens the ear to listen for that holy grail ...
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by Florestan
Hi George,
Thanks for your informative and insightful post. There is very little that excites me more than to talk about music and discuss it with others who are interesting and as interested in this subject!

As far as the question here, I have no idea if what I've suggested holds water or not. What you are saying is certainly true, too.

- The composer is in charge and can create in any style independent of the key
- Part of it is related to the nature of the instrument itself.
- Transposition effectively negates any presumed character of the key.


At the moment though I believe (or really want to believe) that most composers did choose the key based on a common association or character of a key. Perhaps it is the power of autosuggestion which we may perhaps blame on Bach. His 48 really seem to suggest a certain character for each key. We also know that most major composers after Bach revered the WTC and could play it from memory. I have no doubt that this could carry through as an influence to there own compositional education and style. So that's one aspect.

Perhaps association with a certain emotional atmosphere or coloration first became widespread later on from the time of the Romantics onward. This I have certainly seen and can vouch for.

So here is a question for which there may be no good answer for then. If we can play a piece of music in any key without affecting the outcome or nature of it then why isn't everything simply wrote in C major (or A minor)? This would be the simplest way, right. For C major, we initially would have no sharps of flats to deal with. We could modulate in the intended way and always finish in C major.

I just came from the piano about 10 minutes ago. I sat with the score of the first Prelude, Book 1 of Bach. This is in C major and it is a very straight forward piece to play. I would guess that anyone could learn to play the first four bars in a reasonable way with some coherence within 10 minutes (this is not true of any other Prelude and Fugue of Bach - the C major Fugue right after it is very hard). It is a piece of profound modulation which most pieces after it have been based on. Bach originally wrote this in a chorded fashion (not broken as it is written in the score today). It was assumed you would play it that way anyway.

So I went through the exercise of transposing this to other keys. One can do this and if you play it this way regularly then I suppose you will get used to it. It does sound the same (as I noted playing scales in different keys does). As a player though, the biggest thing I would note is that it begins to present challenges in different key. It is harder to get around and play with the same fluidity when you have to deal with the black notes now. Not impossible but just different.

There is something about familiarity though. It just seems right in C major. When I'm away from the piano and hum this I believe I'm pretty close to C major because of this familiarity. Gounod based his Ave Marie on this piece and it feels right to me too.

I guess as a keyboard player, I'd like to imagine that what Bach wrote is what he meant and it wasn't arbitrary. Who knows? C major was the beginning entry way into the WTC.

Best Regards,
Doug
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by Florestan
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
How about comparing the Chopin Op. 28 D Minor prelude to both the WTC D minor preludes?

Time to go listen.

...

The Chopin is darker and more foreboding than either of Bach', but there are signs of sunlight breaking through.

Is that the signature of D minor?


Sorry Mike, I just saw this...

I guess my point here is that any two pieces will never be the same but some generalizations can still be made. If I could spend some time I could certainly find a d minor piece that has very similar qualities to those in the WTC etc.

You are correct in that the Chopin is darker and more foreboding. In these cases I'd say what the Bach shares is in the drive and need for motion. There is a certain insistence about it. The Chopin is of course more wild, dynamic. There is a drive or urgency about it that is driven home with vengeance when we hear those final three D's pounded in the ending. It is like a sledge hammer driving in the same tack not once but three times. There is a lot of energy and fury behind this.

Of course the style of Bach is quite different but the feeling and urgency and the need to move forward in a driving beat is still their (esp in the Book 2, d minor). That repeated ba, ba, ba, Baaa in the bass and then the treble is really no different to me than the daa, da, Daaaa in the opening them of Chopin's d minor. They both are stating imperatives.

I have to run now but I'd love to compare this in more detail or others too again.
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by u5227470736789439
I guess as a keyboard player, I'd like to imagine that what Bach wrote is what he meant and it wasn't arbitrary. ...

Dear Doug,

I don't think that it is any coincidence that F Major is such a bright and joyful key in Bach, and many of the Bach in F examples aI gave aove are for the keyboards! If one considers the WTC, the point is not the actual keys chosen so much as the progression of mood through the keys - the cumulative effect. If one tuned the piano a semi-tone flat and so in pitch started with the C Major P&F in effect pitch B Flat, would this make any difference? Of course this is the exact effect if one listens to a baroque pitch performance!

The mystery is not so much that Bach in B Minor is so often profound and probing and Bach in F is so full of joy as that he should choose F as his "bright" key whilst Beethoven so often chose D as his ...

Clearly this entirely intentional, and is part of the character of the composer as much as anything inherent in the actual effect of such keys on the listener as a whole from a variety of composers. Bach often transposed works as he recast them for different instruments. The problem is that in taking a Violin Concerto in E and making of it a Keyboard Concerto in D he was not content to simply make the transposition. He would recompose it, making significant thematic and rhythmic alterations, and even recasting the harmonic modulation structure [to a small degree and only rarely] so as to suit the character of the new instrumentation. There are very few random aspects to Bach. He did not let a mistake stand without correction.

But as the phenomenon of the modern orchestra emerged, then choice of key [because of the significance of the strings playing in different keys] really began to make certain keys sound different as alluded to above. The significance of the sound of a given key would govern its choice by a composer, though certainly it had done so for Bach in his music for the string family. Who could imagine the Thrid Brandenburg in a key like E flat, rather than the resonant G Major?

At one time trumpet and drum music [imagine the Sanctus from the B minor Mass in any other key than D Major!] would very often be in the ceremonial D Major, but D Major is rather ceremonial on a string orchestra as well!

The wind band is most resonant on the early flat keys [F, B Flat and E Flat], and the exception is really the clarinet where the clarinet in A [as opposed to B Flat] makes for greatest effect in an A Major/C Minor work such as Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto. The horns are either in F or B Flat as a basic tuning, the oboe and bassoon are in C and the flute also. Certain keys can be very awkward on these wind instruments. Often the choice of key is a question of making the technical issues easier for performance, as well as compass of notes available.

One powerful key for the orchestra is C Major and it relative - A Minor - as well as of course C Minor in that they allow a cello section to play their bottom note of "C" with great power. This is compounded since about 1890 with the Double bass carrying five strings being available to double the "C" an octave lower! Think of the opening of Brahms's First Symphony!

Any Minor key would work, but C Minor allows the low strings to simply be thunderous at crucial moments!

So the instruments [except the modern keyboards] have their part to play in choice of key, and so after a while it becomes the association! C Minor is likely to involve orchestral thunder!

If it were B Minor then the bass-line would be "up the octave" much less thunderous! But B Minor is a very powerful emotional key as shown in the B Minor Mass, but it is chosen for its relation to the practical and easy to reach relative Major - "D" which is a bright and affirming key, not least for the way strings ring out so gloriously in this key which brings forth all their power from the harmonics on the open strings.

So of course the listener will associate certain types of music with certain keys. This works for the composers, but each composer will use key according to his or her own requirements, bearing in mind the possibilities on the chosen instruments and voices the music is designed to be performed by.

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but I don't think there is anything magical about the actual key as such, but rather that the issue is one related to performance practice and technique and therefore the effectiveness of the music for the listener.

Now writing for the piano or the keyboard generally is a different issue with no constraint as such on the composer beyond the virtuosity of the pianist, or keyboard player! The point is not so much the key, but the modualtion of keys in the piano piece, or set of pieces to be performed together.

The bottom note of the piano is by no means its most impressive! But the bottom "C" of an organ can be a mighty thing, just as sound!

Best wishes from George
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by u5227470736789439
I don't think that it is any coincidence that F Major is such a bright and joyful key in Bach, and many of the Bach in F examples I gave above are for the keyboards! If one considers the WTC, the point is not the actual keys chosen so much as the progression of mood through the keys - the cumulative effect. If one tuned the piano a semi-tone flat and so in pitch started with the C Major P&F in effect pitched B Major [not B Flat as stated in error above], would this make any difference? Of course this is the exact effect if one listens to a baroque pitch performance!

Apologies for that howler ...


ATB from George
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by Florestan
Dear George,
Your replies are genuinely excellent. I had a vague idea about the stringed instruments and the benefit of playing the open strings but your reply really reinforced this, made absolute sense, and has removed any doubt.

Only one thing I thought worth mentioning. You are correct in the comment about pitch and the fact that Baroque pitch was lower. We can assume that this is in essence a transposition already. I agree with you entirely on this point. Within a few degrees, the actual pitch though may not be of significance or concern here (in the case of a keyboard /organ etc).

What is important to note, in my mind, is that the relative position on the keyboard or manual is the same. You are still working around C major and not actually playing it in B major physically.

Admittedly, these are just technical issues and can easily be resolved through practice and technique.

Also, in a way I think the piano (or any instrument) does have preferred keys too and sweet spots just as a stringed instrument has certain strengths and weak areas. Certain keys just feel right to play. Some keys do lend themselves to give advantage to speed or others do sound big and bold on their own while others are melodious or unique.

If I have time tomorrow I'll name some pieces on the piano that I wouldn't want to play in other keys (ie. because technically they work ideally because you are playing mostly on black notes for instance). Change this and a host of new problems are introduced.

Best Regards,
Doug
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by u5227470736789439
Dear Doug,

Just to clarify,

It is not that the open strings [except the bottom ones] are really played open, but rather that the most structurally significant [in the harmonic sense] notes of the scale resonate with the unplayed other strings in the keys of F, C, G, and D. If you go flatter than F or sharper than A, then the resonance are less on the open strings because the maths make the key intervals of the key less or not even consonant with the fundamental or harmonics frequencies of the untouched open strings not actually being played. It is like the use of resonator strings on ancient styles of lute. Well tuned, but never actually plucked. They add a depth and splendour to the tone all the same!

As a non-keyboardist myself, I am prepared to believe that the piano and harpsichord do have sweet spots among the keys in spite of the efforts to neutralise these since Bach's time!

Also, I am certain that virtuoso piano music might well be unperform-able in a different key than it was written in! Considering the nice advantage that the physically raised black notes must have for the player in certain circumstances, this must assist in many ways in making certain things more playable and more effective in the "right" key!

Lovely to share thoughts with you!

ATB from George
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by Florestan
Thanks George,
I have to reread and think about your first paragraph. (I'm still trying to figure the string instruments out!)

I think you get what I was saying about certain pieces on a piano being set right. (ie. technically / physically it does assist you to be in certain keys)

I will vouch for these things on a piano however, I can't say exactly that it would be the same on a harpsichord or even an organ. First, off the top of my head I don't think I would want to guess as to the differences or sameness of the key dimensions, depth to depress etc. I do know that the touch is very different and this in it self would seem to give the biggest differences.

The main piano repertoire is very physically hard to play. I assume on an organ or harpsichord that pressing a note harder or softer or quicker or slower doesn't really get you what you need in the end. It's more about timing. On a piano, you deal with all these aspect constantly. Some composers I find harder even to play as maybe their style of writing makes it hard for me. Chopin really understood the piano and I benefit from this as most of his compositions fall nicely under the hand. Composers with giant hands are a bit of a pain in trying to play impossible, huge chords etc. with smaller hands.

By sweet spot I just mean that a piece sounds and feels right.

The reason I mentioned a possible importance of staying in the key that Bach prescribed, among the other reason already mentioned, is partly for the technical reasons. To play a keyboard work with 2, 3, 4, or 5 voices going on is really a feat (and I'm especially focussing on the genius of the composer here). To do it on a keyboard requires a great deal of holding, maneuvering and switching fingers silently etc. Sometimes the only way to play something (like an E and F together with one finger is with a thumb say). If this turns into an F and F# it becomes harder for sure. So I'm suggesting that this also must have been in the mind of Bach when he developed his ideas, drafts and scores.

The reason the Bach's WTC is referred to as the old Testament is largely due to the fact that it contains all the keys and secrets to play anything else. Those who can play it have completely mastered the independence of their ten fingers. The fourth and fifth fingers of a human hand are not very strong but with much practice the WTC attends to this and demands that all fingers become equal and have minds of their own. It has often been said that if you can play Bach's WTC, Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas and Chopin's 24 Etudes then you will have no difficulty playing anything else in the repertoire.

George I'm very glad you are sharing your thoughts too! It's very exciting...

Best Regards,
Doug
Posted on: 04 July 2010 by fred simon


For most of my life as a composer I have composed with no key signatures, and this has been a common practice among many other composers for quite some time now.

This is not to say that I compose atonal music ... my music is extremely tonal. It's not even to say that my music isn't in a particular key ... it often is, but doesn't stay in that key for very long, sometimes as little as a measure or so.

Especially among contemporary jazz composers, it's become accepted convention to write with no key signature and just add accidentals where needed, which apply only to one measure ... in other words, any subsequent C-sharps in the same measure would not need an accidental, but if they occur in the next measure they would.

One benefit of this is that the musician reading the music can more or less just play the specific note in the moment without being distracted by remembering which notes have been sharped or flatted.

This comes in handy in a passage such as this: 16 bars of a piece I'm just finishing up, its harmonic movement outlined here with only primary major or minor tonalities indicated, no extensions or color tones such as 9ths, flatted 5ths, raised 7ths, etc. ...

G#mi - F# - B - G#mi - F# - B - Cmi - F7 - Bb - Eb - B - E - Bbmi - Eb - C#mi - G#mi - D#mi - C#mi - B - Fmi - Bb - Eb - Ab - B - E - Bbmi - Eb

The first couple of bars could indeed be notated in the key of B major or G# minor, but then quickly becomes untethered, so to speak, briefly touching on Bb major, C# minor, Eb major etc.

I don't really hear my music in terms of a single key for very long, hardly ever for the duration of a whole piece. And there are many 20th century works by Ravel, Debussy, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, etc. which although nominally written in a key could just as easily (and in some cases, much more easily) have been notated with no key signature, just adding accidentals where needed, if only the convention of writing in a particular key had been as relaxed as it is today.

All best,
Fred



Posted on: 04 July 2010 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:

I'll apply my normal criteria if I like it, I like it, If I don't, I don't.

I choose not to analyse but listen.


If I like it, then I like it, but I like it even more when I come to understand why I like it.

Analysis and listening are not mutually exclusive. I don't know whether you believe it to be the case that they are or not, BigH, but very often comments similar to yours arise from folks who do believe that they are mutually exclusive.

Education and analysis are certainly not required at all for musical enjoyment, but neither do they dampen musical enjoyment as too many believe. Again, I won't assume that you do believe that, BigH, but then again I never see comments from the opposite perspective, that a lack of musical education precludes enjoyment.



Posted on: 05 July 2010 by mikeeschman
George, while listening to the B Minor Mass is an unparalleled musical experience, and while I enjoyed it tremendously, I find it too grand in scope and rich in detail, not to mention the gravity of the libretto, for the simple sleuthing of seeking out the character of a key.

May all diversions you offer give up the copious enjoyment this one did :-)

The fundamental dilemma for me is how much weaker in memory music is, compared to writing. Plots and scenes reside intact in every detail of my memory, most often as a first read. Music seems not to offer itself up so easily.

Certainly, part of this is training and exposure, where reading easily has a 10 fold advantage, and was begun at a much earlier age.

But it seems it is possible to change this. On first listen to "Gnu High" I thought, "ah, typical 70s jazz.", and quickly fell into boredom. This week, I hear harmonic motion in "Gnu High" that completely escaped my attention earlier. (I can hear it, but not identify it.) Now the music is interesting, and I look forward to another listen.

I begin to think key is like clay to a sculptor. Who can say what lurks in a lump of clay?

In the end, in my experience, it is always a struggle to maintain a focus. Every time I learn something new, I have to use it over and over again, till it becomes habit, before anything fruitful to listening makes itself apparent.

Maybe I'm a bit slow.

Whatever.

I have to work with what I have. As long as things get better, I am content.