Yet another ignorant question - Keys

[Luke]

Not in classical, though, it hasn't (those powerchords at the beginning of Brahms' D major Serenade, huh!?    ) A two note chord - and it is still a chord, BTW - is called a dyad, just as a three note one is a triad.

[Palmetto]

"In a key" means that a melody is centered/focused on one scale.

Okay, that explanation is the one I've come closest to comprehending.  I grasp scales as being an ascending pattern of whole and half tones, as measured from the note the scale (and thus key) is named after.  It appears to the ignorant eye that all scales are the 'whole, whole, half, whole, whole, whole, half' series, just starting at a different spot in the series depending on the starting note.  Stop me if I'm wrong.

The only confusing part remaining are the terms 'centered' and 'focused'.  Are these terms interchangeable with what some have described as 'home' and 'being pulled toward'?  I assume 'centered' doesn't mean there are an equal number of notes to the high and low side of the note that the scale / key is named after.  Apparently my listening skills haven't developed enough to feel any 'pull'.

I also assume a work in a specified key isn't limited strictly to the notes that make it up; that a piece in C major isn't limited to CDEFGABC.

Am I close to being half-right on any of these statements / assumptions?

[Palmetto]

I would certainly mod the post up if the forum had such a system in place.

What is 'modding a post up'?

[Palmetto]

One thing that should help makes sense of some of this stuff is to get your hands on a chordal instrument like guitar or keyboard so you can see and hear how it works.

...

Learning theory helps you become a better listener and musician, so it's worth it in the long run.

In order to be a BETTER musician, I'd have to first BE a musician.  I wouldn't know what keys produce which notes on a keyboard, or where to start at all with a guitar.  That kinda hampers your suggestion of laying my hands on an actual instrument, even if I had one available.

I'll revisit the online keyboard that westknife linked to and see if it has chord capabilities or if it is limited to a single note at a time.  At least there, the notes are clearly labeled on the keys 

[DavidW]

What is 'modding a post up'?

Talk Classical has this feature, it's awesome.  Beneath each post is a button called "I like this" and if you click on it, the poster will know when they log in that they have new likes.  And other readers of the post will know who liked the post.  There is no dislike button, only like.  It encourages interesting and friendly posting.  And it also eliminates the need for "me too" posts.

[Scarpia]

Okay, that explanation is the one I've come closest to comprehending.  I grasp scales as being an ascending pattern of whole and half tones, as measured from the note the scale (and thus key) is named after.  It appears to the ignorant eye that all scales are the 'whole, whole, half, whole, whole, whole, half' series, just starting at a different spot in the series depending on the starting note.  Stop me if I'm wrong.

The only confusing part remaining are the terms 'centered' and 'focused'.  Are these terms interchangeable with what some have described as 'home' and 'being pulled toward'?  I assume 'centered' doesn't mean there are an equal number of notes to the high and low side of the note that the scale / key is named after.  Apparently my listening skills haven't developed enough to feel any 'pull'.

I also assume a work in a specified key isn't limited strictly to the notes that make it up; that a piece in C major isn't limited to CDEFGABC.

Am I close to being half-right on any of these statements / assumptions?

If a piece is in a certain key, say C-major, it will start with the C-major scale and use that scale for a while, but will then venture off and use different scales.   Often it will switch to G-major (which only differs from the C-major scale in one note, F-sharp instead of F), and perhaps wander off into a great variety of different keys (using the corresponding scales).  But before ending the composer will return to the original scale, and do it in a way that you feel "now we're back where we belong." Finally the piece ends in the original key using the original scale.  As time went on, composers felt it was less and less necessary to stick close to the original key, and more modern works may give only a hint of the main key/scale before wandering off and jumping around between different keys/scales.     

Here's a pretty clear-cut example, Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, which is in G-major

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb_jQBgzU-I

At 0:28 the main melody is introduced in G-major
at about 0:57 Mozart starts to migrate towards D-major
at 1:14 there is a cadence on D and the following melody uses the D-major scale
at 1:58 there is a cadence in D-major to close the "exposition" section.
Then the entire thing is repeated. 
The melody in G-major is repeated, the shift to D-major, the melody in D-major and the cadence in D-major are played exactly as before.  This finishes as 3:25.

Starting at 3:25 is the part where the key changes frequently.  You may notice there are more unexpected twists of melody and harmony, but then it returns to the original key. 

At 4:00 the original melody in G-major is repeated
at 4:28 the passage that previously led to D-major starts, but this time the music remains in G-major
at 4:40 the second melody (which was in D-major the first time) now appears in G-major.
The music proceeds to the end, sticking to the G-major scale with only a few brief deviations.

Music reader scan consult
http://erato.uvt.nl/files/imglnks/usimg/5/57/IMSLP01776-Mozart_EineKleineNachtmusik_Score.pdf

[karlhenning]

. . . I also assume a work in a specified key isn't limited strictly to the notes that make it up; that a piece in C major isn't limited to CDEFGABC.

A piece in C Major could be limited to those seven pitch-classes; but it surprises you what a challenge it is, to limit oneself to those seven, and make the piece interesting.

OTOH, there is a great deal of historical plainchant in the "church modes" which (basically) do not deviate from that palette of seven pitch-classes.  The modes pre-date the major/minor system, so the actual pitch which is centered upon depends on factors other than just the collection of pitch-classes.

That's an aside, though . . . to your question: the other pitches of the chromatic octave (F#, C#, G#, D#, A#) are to a greater or lesser degree "foreign" to C Major, and in Common Practice may be employed temporariliy to suggest another momentary 'center of tonal gravity'.  Those raised scale degrees often serve as what we call a "leading tone," the seventh degree of the scale which so frequently "leads" to the tonic, B to C, Ti - Do. Thus within a piece which is overall in C Major, F# may in a given passage suggest a diversion to G Major; C#, to d minor; g# to a minor. From here, it is a short step to discussion of close and remote keys . . . .

[Palmetto]

Here's a pretty clear-cut example, Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, which is in G-major

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb_jQBgzU-I

at about 0:57 Mozart starts to migrate towards D-major
at 4:28 the passage that previously led to D-major starts, but this time the music remains in G-major

at 1:14 there is a cadence on D and the following melody uses the D-major scale
at 4:40 the second melody (which was in D-major the first time) now appears in G-major.

Barone, I truly appreciate your efforts at documenting this.  But when I jumped back and forth between these grouped passages repeatedly, the D-major member of each pairing sounded identical to the subsequent G-major passage!  Aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!

I can detect the changes in melody and volume (dynamics?) around 0:44 and when they happen again later at 2:14, but I can't tell you if the key changes or remains the same at those points.  I don't any recognition of what notes belong to each key.

I tried a shorter chunk, comparing about five seconds beginning at 1:25 with 4:52.  The latter passage sounded lower in pitch, but I couldn't tell you the key of either segment.

The good news is that the on-line keyboard does have a chord capability.  westknife, thanks again for the link.

[Scarpia]

Barone, I truly appreciate your efforts at documenting this.  But when I jumped back and forth between these grouped passages repeatedly, the D-major member of each pairing sounded identical to the subsequent G-major passage!  Aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!

I tried a shorter chunk, comparing about five seconds beginning at 1:25 with 4:52.  The latter passage sounded lower in pitch, but I couldn't tell you the key of either segment.

Try comparing with the on-line keyboard that was linked earlier.  When it the music comes to a stop just before the second melody at 1:14 you will notice it matches the "D" key.  But when the music comes to rest just before the final version of the second melody at 4:40 you will see it matches the "G" key instead.   The first note of the piece is a G and the final note is also a G, the piece visits other keys in the middle, but returns to G.

In any case, it is not necessary to recognize all of these specific features to enjoy the music.

[Palmetto]

In any case, it is not necessary to recognize all of these specific features to enjoy the music.

Yeah, I lose sight of that.  Forget I asked this question; it's becoming too much like studying for a class.

[eyeresist]

In order to be a BETTER musician, I'd have to first BE a musician.  I wouldn't know what keys produce which notes on a keyboard, or where to start at all with a guitar.  That kinda hampers your suggestion of laying my hands on an actual instrument, even if I had one available.

Learning the basics of an instrument would make the whole issue much clearer to you. Get a cheap guitar and a chord chart, or a Casio keyboard with the notes written on the keys.

[Palmetto]

Learning the basics of an instrument would make the whole issue much clearer to you. Get a cheap guitar and a chord chart, or a Casio keyboard with the notes written on the keys.

One of my concerns from early in my exploration was that my complete lack of 'hands on' experience was going hamper my investigation of this music.  (Not just classical, I guess; I would be having the same questions with any genre I chose to look at in depth.)  Since no one had made your suggestion before now, I was beginning to think maybe it wasn't going to be a handicap after all.

I started investigating classical music as a potential source of future life-long entertainment.   If I'd wanted to learn to play an instrument, I would have taken that up instead.  If the ability to play an instrument is a prerequisite, I'm wasting my time and that of everyone else.  Anything that requires physical repetitive practice strikes me as too much like work to be an activity I would enjoy personally.  Experience has shown me I would quickly find it frustrating, with the potential rewards not worth the opportunity costs of the effort.  If that is interpreted as my not being willing to do what's needed to appreciate classical music, so be it.

I'm trying too hard to 'get' this.  It may be that my declining interest in popular music that turned me here actually extends to music in general, and I'm trying to force an interest where none is left.  I'm going to take a more relaxed approach, try to listen more and analyze less.  That may result in my not gaining full appreciation and thus deciding I don't have a future with this music, but the in-depth dissection I'm using now is definitely killing the appeal. 

[karlhenning]

. . .  but the in-depth dissection I'm using now is definitely killing the appeal. 

Oh, that were no good.  Have I been too technical in my posts?

[Palmetto]

Oh, that were no good.  Have I been too technical in my posts?

Gods, no.  It's definitely me.

From what I've read in other discussions, many people show up here as newbies because they heard a piece of music that moved them in some way.  Others have previous experience with an instrument, maybe from school or other genres, and are looking to expand on that.  They are inspired to look deeper into a piece, a composer, similar music, challenges to their skills, etc.

I'm coming at this from the notion that people have been enjoying this music for centuries, and that maybe there's something here for me too.  I've had no 'A-HA!' moment that drove me to investigate this; I'm looking solely based on the reputation, like trying a long-established, well-reviewed restaurant with completely unfamiliar cuisines.  But I'm concentrating too much on how the meal was prepared, on the theory that knowing will ensure my enjoying it.

[karlhenning]

. . .  But I'm concentrating too much on how the meal was prepared, on the theory that knowing will ensure my enjoying it.

Well, change ensure to enhance, and you're pointed in the right direction.

[Grazioso]

Okay, that explanation is the one I've come closest to comprehending.  I grasp scales as being an ascending pattern of whole and half tones, as measured from the note the scale (and thus key) is named after.  It appears to the ignorant eye that all scales are the 'whole, whole, half, whole, whole, whole, half' series, just starting at a different spot in the series depending on the starting note.  Stop me if I'm wrong.

The only confusing part remaining are the terms 'centered' and 'focused'.  Are these terms interchangeable with what some have described as 'home' and 'being pulled toward'?  I assume 'centered' doesn't mean there are an equal number of notes to the high and low side of the note that the scale / key is named after.  Apparently my listening skills haven't developed enough to feel any 'pull'.

I also assume a work in a specified key isn't limited strictly to the notes that make it up; that a piece in C major isn't limited to CDEFGABC.

Am I close to being half-right on any of these statements / assumptions?

Others have covered this now, but just fwiw, no, a composer isn't limited to the notes in the chosen scale; he or she can insert notes from outside the scale (those are the ones with sharp, flat, or natural signs--accidentals--right next to them in the sheet music) for different effects, such as giving a section of a major-key piece a minor-key atmosphere for artistic contrast. Countless folk and popular-music melodies stay strictly within the chosen scale, though.

Yes, all scales are fixed series of half and whole steps, and their particular arrangement determines whether you have a major scale, minor scale, or other type.

By centered or focused on, no, it doesn't mean an equal number of notes, rather that the tonic or home note (C in a piece in C major) exerts a sort of musical gravitational pull. If you listen to a simple tune like "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and stop it just before the last note/word, you'll probably feel/hear what I mean. Or sing/hum/whistle it and end on a different note and see if it feels finished/resolved properly.

(This, btw, is why guys like Wagner were revolutionary: some of their music defies gravity I.e., they blur tonality in the extreme, so it can be hard to tell what key you're in, what scales are being used, etc. You get this extremely unsettled, floating feeling in works like Tristan und Isolde.)

[Grazioso]

If a piece is in a certain key, say C-major, it will start with the C-major scale and use that scale for a while, but will then venture off and use different scales. 

If it's classical or jazz, often, though it should be said that many/most folk or pop pieces tend to stay in one key throughout.

I started investigating classical music as a potential source of future life-long entertainment.   If I'd wanted to learn to play an instrument, I would have taken that up instead.  If the ability to play an instrument is a prerequisite, I'm wasting my time and that of everyone else.  Anything that requires physical repetitive practice strikes me as too much like work to be an activity I would enjoy personally.  Experience has shown me I would quickly find it frustrating, with the potential rewards not worth the opportunity costs of the effort. If that is interpreted as my not being willing to do what's needed to appreciate classical music, so be it.

That's not how I interpret it. Trust me, you can listen to and enjoy any type of music without formal study or instrumental training. It's just that those things can add a lot to your listening enjoyment by a) helping you understand more of what's going on and b) making you a better listener so you can hear those details in the first place.

I understand what you're saying about playing an instrument, but I wouldn't view it that way. Don't think of it as requiring or demanding some sort of rigid practice. An instrument is just a toy that you can goof around with or spend eight hours a day trying to become a virtuoso. And while you can get better with formal practice exercises, you can also get better and probably have more fun by just learning to play music you like or improvising your own.

Try a cheap instrument you can just fiddle around with--no pun intended You might like it. I'd recommend a tin whistle (aka penny whistle), a small, inexpensive ($10 or $15 USD for a decent entry-level one) flute-family instrument with a simple fingering system and no tricky embouchure required. It's easy to improvise and learn basic tunes on, but it can then be taken to considerable heights if you choose:

http://www.youtube.com/v/iAyENIYI328

I'm trying too hard to 'get' this.  It may be that my declining interest in popular music that turned me here actually extends to music in general, and I'm trying to force an interest where none is left.  I'm going to take a more relaxed approach, try to listen more and analyze less.  That may result in my not gaining full appreciation and thus deciding I don't have a future with this music, but the in-depth dissection I'm using now is definitely killing the appeal. 

Fwiw, I listened to and greatly enjoyed classical music for many a year before I knew much about its inner workings. Don't be discouraged. Rather be proud that you actually care enough to take the time to try to learn how music works.

[Palmetto]

This, btw, is why guys like Wagner were revolutionary: some of their music defies gravity  I.e., they blur tonality in the extreme, so it can be hard to tell what key you're in, what scales are being used, etc.

No problem; I don't know the key or scale when listening to anyone else's music either 

[Luke]

No problem; I don't know the key or scale when listening to anyone else's music either 

I know you're only being semi-serious with this post, but actually it's the use of the word 'know' here that contains much of the nub of things. Even a trained musician will very often not know what key a piece is in at any one time, if they don't have perfect pitch, and if they don't have the sheet musc in front of them. This is particularly true if they are listening to the central portions of a piece of music, which is the bit where keys tend to change frequently and where the writing on the CD label ('in C major') doesn't itself give you a definitive clue as to where the music is at that particular second. Put another way, any piece in C major will probably be in that key at the beginning and at the end, but it will almost certainly go to other keys elsewhere if it is more than a few seconds long - 'knowing' what those keys are by ear alone is a skill few people have, though you can train yourself to possess it if you really want to.

So when Grazioso says 'it can be hard to tell what key you're in' in e.g. Wagner, he doesn't literally mean 'it can be hard to know whether you are in G major or E flat minor'. What he means (I think) is that the music of these composers has a tenuous hold on its keys, it slips from one to another very easily and sometimes very quickly indeed. Your ear, even the untrained ear, hears this as a kind of ambivalence, a lack of a single centre point - it affects the style of the music very deeply indeed (in fact, it's possibly the main stylistic feature of this music). So the issue isn't an ability to consciously know what key you are in, its the fact that your brain, as much as any trained musician's, will react differently to music which is strongly in one key as opposed to music whose key-rootedness is less sure, as opposed again to music which is essentially in no key at all.

[Grazioso]

So when Grazioso says 'it can be hard to tell what key you're in' in e.g. Wagner, he doesn't literally mean 'it can be hard to know whether you are in G major or E flat minor'. What he means (I think) is that the music of these composers has a tenuous hold on its keys, it slips from one to another very easily and sometimes very quickly indeed. Your ear, even the

Exactly. Afaik, I don't have perfect pitch, so I can't know by just listening if a piece is E minor or B minor or whatever, but I think most listeners will be able to say it starts out minor and then maybe changes to major and so on.