What emotions are assigned to Keys?

[lukeottevanger]

Don't know. Anything to do with this? (in an earlier incarnation, natch)

[hornteacher]

But, er, your Fa is different from an, uh, American Fa. In England, are Fa and Far homonyms?

Here in the Southern US we say "yonder".

[btpaul674]

http://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/courses/keys.html is an interesting account.

Plus, I've leafed through this book in the OSU Music Library.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Characteristics-Early-Centuries-Second/dp/1580460410

[op.110]

This topic reminds me of a few words from Aaron Copland's What to Listen for in Music.

"How close should the intelligent music lover wish to come to pinning a definite meaning to any particular work? No closer than a general concept, I should say. Music expresses, at different moments, serenity or exuberance, regret or triumph, fury or delight. It expresses each of these moods, and many others, in a numberless variety of subtle shadings and differences. It may even express a state of meaning for which there exists no adequate word in any language. In that case, musicians often like to say that it has only a purely musical meaning. They sometimes go farther and say that all music has only a purely musical meaning. What they really mean is that no appropriate word can be found to express the music's meaning and that, even if it could, they do not feel the need of finding it."

I am a strong believer in classical music as a way to convey emotion which cannot be explained in words; thus, to some extent, I certainly do agree with Copland, although I feel it almost natural to at least pin some feeling or emotion onto a piece (usually not with word(s) but with inner thought and feeling) as a way of relating with composers.

The same theory can be applied to the idea of keys conveying particular types of emotion. It's apparent that composers frequently use particular keys for certain compositons; for example, symphonies, requiems, and concertos with mysterious and dark color were sometimes written in D minor (Brahms D minor VC, Beethoven's Ninth, Mozart's Requiem). Bright and sometimes heroic pieces are written in the key of C Major (Schubert's Ninth). But these generalizations, inherently, are contradicted by such pieces as Bach's Violin Sonata No. 3 in C Major, a piece with dramatic tension and a lack of heroism.

I admit its interesting to examine the commonalities between compositions/composers, and key is one such topic which one can observe many similarities between the tone of a piece and its home key. I don't think that emotions have been "assigned" to keys, but rather that keys have an inherent color to them and composers have similarly utilitized these natural qualities of certain keys. And because of the many pieces by composers, we can observe how these choices manifested into a pattern of choosing and using certain keys to convey emotion.

[lukeottevanger]

http://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/courses/keys.html is an interesting account.

Yes, that first one is very interesting. It shows how precisely these things were thought of at the time, and the mania for pinning down and labelling things which is characteristic of the period, and which we also see, for example, in Mathesson's descriptions of the Affekts. These designations are at the same time overly-precise and, therefore, inevitably, lacking in realism - after all, these are trends that can just about be traced in some, but enough, pieces of the period (and some of them are new to me).

These descriptions are also overly-precise in that they focus, necessarily, on their own time; it's most interesting, for me at any rate, to see how the associations changed by becoming divided into 'subsets' over the years (as with my C major example earlier).

To delve more deeply into the text:

C and D majors chime exactly with what has been said:

C Major
Completely Pure. Its character is: innocence, simplicity, naïvety, children's talk.
D Major
The key of triumph, of Hallejuahs, of war-cries, of victory-rejoicing. Thus, the inviting symphonies, the marches, holiday songs and heaven-rejoicing choruses are set in this key.

C's description includes the key words 'pure', 'simple' and 'children' which interestingly correspond to the divisions I ascertained in an earlier post. In later years the 'childlike' quality of C major, for instance, became used in works of a didactic nature, or works which referenced didacticism, such as Dr Gradus ad Parnassum. D is the one everyone always talks about - a key of earthly triumph ('war', 'victory', 'marches'...) - because it is so clearly assignable to instrumental fact - open strings of a violin and all that.

I'm interested to see the designations for E major and F# major:

E Major
Noisy shouts of joy, laughing pleasure and not yet complete, full delight lies in E Major.
F# Major
Triumph over difficulty, free sigh of relief utered when hurdles are surmounted; echo of a soul which has fiercely struggled and finally conquered lies in all uses of this key.

E major, as I said earlier, was traditionally a 'heavenly' key, as it used more sharps than any other commonly used key; here, I'd suggest, because all keys are being accounted for, the 'heavenly' honour goes to F# major ('echo of a soul which has fiercely struggled and finally conquered'), C# major being left to its enharmonic here.

There's an interesting distinction between F and G majors which we can observe in quite a few pieces but which is lacking here

F Major
Complaisance & Calm.
G Major
Everything rustic, idyllic and lyrical, every calm and satisfied passion, every tender gratitude for true friendship and faithful love,--in a word every gentle and peaceful emotion of the heart is correctly expressed by this key.

The accurate identification of G major as a pastoral key could be modified to include the fact that this is usually a pastoralism-without-humans, whereas the F major pastoralism I mentioned earlier is usually in the context of some merry peasants/dancing/hunting scenes etc.

F minor fits precisely the funereal implications that Mellers assigns to it; and this probably explains the fact that its relative major Ab is (unusualy in my experience) given similar conotations:

F Minor
Deep depression, funereal lament, groans of misery and longing for the grave.
Ab Major
Key of the grave. Death, grave, putrefaction, judgment, eternity lie in its radius.

Fascinating to see the more flat/sharp-laden keys (5 or more) given the most precise and overwhelmingly negative descriptions (majors as negative as minors, except F# major, probably for the reason I gave above), a fact probably not unrelated to their wolf-note-laden past in  pre-ET days:

Db Major
A leering key, degenerating into grief and rapture. It cannot laugh, but it can smile; it cannot howl, but it can at least grimace its crying.--Consequently only unusual characters and feelings can be brought out in this key.
D# Minor
Feelings of the anxiety of the soul's deepest distress, of brooding despair, of blackest depresssion, of the most gloomy condition of the soul. Every fear, every hesitation of the shuddering heart, breathes out of horrible D# minor. If ghosts could speak, their speech would approximate this key.
F# Major
Triumph over difficulty, free sigh of relief utered when hurdles are surmounted; echo of a soul which has fiercely struggled and finally conquered lies in all uses of this key.
Ab Minor
Grumbler, heart squeezed until it suffocates; wailing lament, difficult struggle; in a word, the color of this key is everything struggling with difficulty.
Bb minor
A quaint creature, often dressed in the garment of night. It is somewhat surly and very seldom takes on a pleasant countenance. Mocking God and the world; discontented with itself and with everything; preparation for suicide sounds in this key.
B Major
Strongly coloured, announcing wild passions, composed from the most glaring coulors. Anger, rage, jealousy, fury, despair and every burden of the heart lies in its sphere.

Great stuff to read, thanks for the link.

[lukeottevanger]

I am a strong believer in classical music as a way to convey emotion which cannot be explained in words; thus, to some extent, I certainly do agree with Copland, although I feel it almost natural to at least pin some feeling or emotion onto a piece (usually not with word(s) but with inner thought and feeling) as a way of relating with composers.

I think you are right, actually - I find tables such as the interesting one linked to above useless in the long run, because they tell us nothing about the music as it is in reality. And in any case, even if they did, there are far too many variables (temperament, instrumentation etc. etc.) to take into account to really be able to say anything. But they are a fascinating indication of the way these things were thought about - by composers too - at the time. And I think it is always a valuable and revealing thing to be able to get inside a composer's mind.

The same theory can be applied to the idea of keys conveying particular types of emotion. It's apparent that composers frequently use particular keys for certain compositons; for example, symphonies, requiems, and concertos with mysterious and dark color were sometimes written in D minor (Brahms D minor VC, Beethoven's Ninth, Mozart's Requiem). Bright and sometimes heroic pieces are written in the key of C Major (Schubert's Ninth). But these generalizations, inherently, are contradicted by such pieces as Bach's Violin Sonata No. 3 in C Major, a piece with dramatic tension and a lack of heroism.

I have an ambivalent position. I don't think the key assocations apply to all pieces, that would be stupidity in the extreme; I also don't think it's important that we are aware of them when we listen, although it may be more important to know that the composer was aware of them. But OTOH, one argument that is often put forth against the key association is the one you make in your last line here  - essentially 'piece x doesn't subscribe to the association of key y with emotion z, ergo, the theory of key associations is weakened'. Three responses to that point:

1) the one already made many times: that not every piece has to follow the pattern for the pattern to exist. Indeed, even if only a small percentage of piece clearly follow a strong trend, that trend is there and is good to know of

2) the argument ignores the fact that the associations are more subtle than simple one-word linkages. C major, for instance, isn't really 'heroic' in association (certainly not as a one-word description) even if some/many heroic pieces are written in that key. C is more a key of bright simplicity and directness (which apply to both the Schubert and Bach examples, I think); it's also a key for purely musical play (hence its didactic associations - which are seen in Bach fairly often) - in the case of the C major violin sonata there is an evident puposeful concentration on musical basics suitable to this particular use of C major right from the beginning.

3) Because 'emotions' are of course in the ear of the beholder, it becomes impossible to say with certainty that piece x 'is' heroic (or whatever). In general, if we lack other evidence, the only way we can say with more certainty (though not complete certainty) what emotion/Affekt the composer himself meant the piece to subscribe to is: the notation of the music (which, like handwriting, reveals more than you might at first imagine); the way its shapes and gestures slot themselves into what Cooke meant by 'The Language of Music'; and, yes, the fact that we know incontrivertibly about the theories of Affekts (which depend on key, as we are discussing, but also on metre and tempo etc.) and the fact that we can also trace the way that once they were defunct, their influence filtered on down, ever-changing. IOW - your response to the piece is your own, and is its own justification, but if you are interested, as a purely intellectual pursuit, in inquiring into what the composer might have 'meant' (consciously or not) the only way to do so is through the notes themselves. To put it bluntly, if we are thinking about how the composer worked, it doesn't matter how you or I hear the resultant piece

I admit its interesting to examine the commonalities between compositions/composers, and key is one such topic which one can observe many similarities between the tone of a piece and its home key. I don't think that emotions have been "assigned" to keys, but rather that keys have an inherent color to them and composers have similarly utilitized these natural qualities of certain keys. And because of the many pieces by composers, we can observe how these choices manifested into a pattern of choosing and using certain keys to convey emotion.

This is an interesting point in the discussion. On the old board, Sean asserted vigorously that there was an inherent difference between F major and F# major, one not due to perfect pitch or the fact that in absolute terms F# is higher than F (indeed, Sean contested that the 'difference' was the same whether the F# major piece was played in a higher or a lower octave). I argued that this was patently impossible, since under ET all intervals are identical; what was more likely was that Sean was either 1) hearing one key in relation to the other through juxtaposition or 2) picking up on the different characters of the pieces themselves, which in turn could be down to the composers picking up, consciously or not, on an aspect of key associations. Interestingly, in Sean's example, he heard F# major as brighter than F major (one of Sean's favourite pieces, which perhaps is what he was listening to, is Messiaen's very heavenly Vingt Regards, a piece with more F# major in it than anything else, and certainly very bright-by-association, if nothing else). But, and again ignoring absolute height, we know that F# major cannot be 'brighter' than F major. However, in the key associations F# major is indeed brighter than F, because sharps were seen as screwing the music upwards - according to the above link, for example, F major is 'complaisance and calm', F# major is 'hurdles surmounted', and though these particular designations were subject to almost infinite change, the basic point - one is lower and more 'relaxed' than the other - remained pretty constant.

So, in contradiction to your post, I'd say that, no, keys don't have an inherent colour to them - they simply can't have. However, in pre-ET days they did, and the interesting thing about the key associations is that they can be explained both in purely ET terms and in terms of the old temperaments.
Essentially, what we have is a circle of fifths that was seen, unwrapped, as a smooth progression along the line:

very flat --------------------------------C major---------------------------------------very sharp

In the pre-ET tunings, that effectively meant:

too-discordant-to-use---------------------fine---------------------------------too-discordant-to-use

which, association-wise, meant:

extreme, bizarre---------------------------well balanced, wholesome--------------------extreme, bizarre

In ET tunings, though, that same circle:

very flat --------------------------------C major---------------------------------------very sharp

sounded fine all the way round:

fine---------------------------------------fine-----------------------------------------------fine

however, because moving flatwards in a piece of music is generally a 'relaxing' or 'downwards' tending move, emotionally, and moving sharpwards a 'tension-building', 'upwards' tending one, the circle itself began, unavoidably to be symbolically seen in terms of its central point, C major:

relaxed, earthy/human------------------pure, balanced-------------------------a higher level, heavenly
(which, for instance, explains why one-sharp G major is often an idyllic, natural pastoral and one-flat F major balances it with its more rustic, human association, to generalize)

The minors, of course, take on related but different symbolisms simply because they sound, to put it simplistically, 'sadder'!

You can see, I think, how easily the two sets of associations

extreme, bizarre---------------------------well balanced, wholesome--------------------extreme, bizarre
and
relaxed, earthy/human------------------pure, balanced-------------------------a higher level, heavenly

came to be conflated. This was pretty much the position by the second half of the 18th century - ET more or less established, but the associations of the old tunings still hanging on - and this is the period at which the interest in Affekts was at its height. These are the roots of things, ET-wise, but of course everything changed over time.

One more thing - to repeat what I said earlier - these things were in the back of composers' minds, often subconsciously, no doubt. Sometimes they are audible in pieces, or even reflected in titles, programmatic devices etc; at many other times they may not be present at all; usually there is a complex mixture, a dialogue going on within the piece itself; we as listeners may or may not be aware of all this. In the end they are only a matter of interest, I think - though to me as a working, creating musician the ways composers think are a very personal interest.

[snyprrr]

i was looking through the history of string qrts and noticed the first appearance of Dbmajor in D'Indy's qrt. No3, written in the late 1920s.

haydn wrote a qrt in f#minor...beethoven wrote one in c#minor...taneyev's No.1 is in Bbminor...

i also noticed that Aminor for qrts didn't get popular until post-beethoven.

ARE CERTAIN KEYS HISTORICALLY LOOKED UPON AS DIFFERENT "STATES"? isn't Dmajor called the happiest key?, and so on?

anyone?

[snyprrr]

i have noticed that the key of Cminor can usually be garaunteed to be slightly uneasy and fast, like a chase. i'm thinking of beethoven's op18 and schubert's quartettsatz.

[Sean]

This has been done here in the past. Ask Luke (sul G)- he's the expert.

[Bulldog]

ARE CERTAIN KEYS HISTORICALLY LOOKED UPON AS DIFFERENT "STATES"? isn't Dmajor called the happiest key?, and so on?

anyone?

Yes, they are historically looked at as conveying different emotional states.  I think that D major was considered the key of glory during Baroque times.  It's certainly a great key for works for violin.

[Cato]

Yes, they are historically looked at as conveying different emotional states.  I think that D major was considered the key of glory during Baroque times.  It's certainly a great key for works for violin.

Yes: Check out some of the D major Trumpet Concerti by anybody!

Tuning has already been thrown in here, and that is the real "key" (he-he) for the question: "pre-ET" music expected more of a distinction among the keys.

There are various quarter-tone scales in 17 or 19 tones, which can give you the impression of a "double minor", i.e. they sound very gloomy and doomy. 

[Ten thumbs]

Whilst there is evidence that many composers had individual emotional responses to keys there seems to be little evidence that these responses are absolute. We must also bear in mind that there have been variations in concert pitch over time. Moreover in the field of song it is common practice amongst amateur singers to transpose songs to suit voice range. I have never found this to have any significant effect on the feel of the music (other than it sounding lower, or occasionally, higher).

[sul G]

Whilst there is evidence that many composers had individual emotional responses to keys there seems to be little evidence that these responses are absolute. We must also bear in mind that there have been variations in concert pitch over time. Moreover in the field of song it is common practice amongst amateur singers to transpose songs to suit voice range. I have never found this to have any significant effect on the feel of the music (other than it sounding lower, or occasionally, higher).

I don't want to get dragged into this type of thread again - it's one I've done dozens of times. But I do have to say that I've always found the pragmatic type of response above surprising - even though every word of it is spot-on accurate. Larry Rinkel used to give the same sort of answer in this sort of thread, too. We'd rehearse the same discussion time and again, never disagreeing - Larry was never, to my knowledge, wrong about anything musical! -  but with a fundamental difference in the way we valued key associations and what they imply.

The above sort of post suggests that because there is no universality to key associations, because nothing can be 'proved' and no general rule ascertained, they're not really that important and oughtn't to bother us too much. I disagree. and the reason for my surprise at this attitude is that in all other ways music lovers such as those we have at GMG are always desperate to know more about their favourite composers, to understand more about what made them tick, to get more 'intimate' with them. It's my contention that to a composer there is little more personal than their 'individual emotional responses to keys' - the fact that Beethoven felt B minor was a 'black key' (IIRC), is, IMO, far more interesting than what he liked best for breakfast or any of the other minutiae of his biography with which we often concern ourselves. It actually tells us about Beethoven's primal response to a pure musical fact; people spend time speculating on Beethoven's mentality, his spirituality, his religion, his politics, and yet routes such as this, which go straight to the heart and soul of him as a musician, are dismissed because 'there seems to be little evidence that these responses are absolute'. I should emphasize that knowledge that Beethoven thought B minor was black doesn't necessarily help us get much 'further' - but that it is a deeply personal and absolutely fundamental response to music from one of music's greatest brains is enough to make it truly valuable.

[Bulldog]

Whilst there is evidence that many composers had individual emotional responses to keys there seems to be little evidence that these responses are absolute.

Responses don't have to be absolute to have decent viability.

[Ten thumbs]

Responses don't have to be absolute to have decent viability.

Indeed not. They are often of great importance to individual composers but different composers have differing responses and should anyone want to compose tonal music, he should examine his own heart and not try to ape another's feelings.
Personally I love the use of C major to create a shaft of dazzling sunlight into a passage full of black notes.

[nut-job]

Odd that such a simple topic can be so controversial.

Back in the days before equal temperament the keys actually sounded different, and how different depended on who tuned your harpsichord.  There is no doubt that composers took advantage of that, and that composers views of different keys was partly subjective, and partly depended on what tuning method they used.  A list could probably be compiled of feelings associated with each key, but it would presumably not be consistent across all composers, and might vary with time of composition.

With equal temperament only changing keys conveys an "emotional" sense (modulating to the dominant, etc).  But there is no intrinsic difference between keys.  In orchestral music there may be a difference in sound of keys because instruments (particularly wind instruments) play some notes more naturally than others, and that can be a factor.   But ultimately, it is of interest how an individual composer felt about a certain key, whether or not this feeling is reflected in modern performance practice. 

On the other hand, maybe we should take into account the sense of anxiety the musician feels when he or she looks at the page and sees seven sharps in the key signature.

[sul G]

Apart from the last paragraph, which is really a different discussion - the amateur's fear of G# minor - that's pretty much what I've said all along. Except that I have put particular emphasis on what you imply when you say:

'But ultimately, it is of interest how an individual composer felt about a certain key, whether or not this feeling is reflected in modern performance practice.'

and that I also find is of interest that key associations over the years have in certain cases tended to have a central core which has been added to over the years (as in my C major example earlier in this thread, made a couple of years ago)

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't want to get dragged into this type of thread again - it's one I've done dozens of times. But I do have to say that I've always found the pragmatic type of response above surprising - even though every word of it is spot-on accurate. Larry Rinkel used to give the same sort of answer in this sort of thread, too. We'd rehearse the same discussion time and again, never disagreeing - Larry was never, to my knowledge, wrong about anything musical! - 

I always heard he was something of a pompous fool myself ("the Rush Limbaugh of classical music," as a friend put it), especially if he said such things. But although there's no doubt that composers have personal and/or cultural associations with keys, they are also not tied dogmatically to those associations if practical reasons intervene. Bizet in Carmen doesn't mind indicating a transposition to F# minor from F minor if the Card Song is too low for the singer; Beethoven when arranging the "heavenly" E major (with middle movement in "melancholy" E minor) sonata for quartet didn't hesitate to transpose it to the "pastoral" F major (with middle movement in "funereal" F minor). Why? to change the character of the music? Not a bit, and I doubt anyone hears it that way - but because by transposing it to F, he could use the low C open string of the cello as the dominant. And note both these transpositions are just by semitone, to keep the overall registers of the music intact.

But another interesting question is what all these key associations should do for the listener. One of the peculiarities of musical conventions is that works of absolute music are almost invariably identified by their keys — Beethoven's 7th symphony in A, Brahms's 4th in E minor, etc. — while program and vocal music is never so identified. We don't as listeners think of Mendelssohn's MND Overture in E minor or Wagner's Meistersinger in C or Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel in F, perhaps unless we are so informed. And it would sound downright silly for a composer to write, for example, a piece called "Christmas" in A major. So does it do the listener any good to know what key a piece is written in? If I lied and told you the Jupiter symphony was in D rather than C, would you hear it differently?

[(poco) Sforzando]

On the other hand, maybe we should take into account the sense of anxiety the musician feels when he or she looks at the page and sees seven sharps in the key signature.

We certainly should! when doing the C# major p/f from WTC 1 I had to write the "actual notes" above all the double sharps because they were so damned hard to read.

[sul G]

I always heard he was something of a pompous fool myself ("the Rush Limbaugh of classical music," as a friend put it), especially if he said such things.

I kind of liked the old curmudgeon....

But although there's no doubt that composers have personal and/or cultural associations with keys, they are also not tied dogmatically to those associations if practical reasons intervene.

Completely agree

Bizet in Carmen doesn't mind indicating a transposition to F# minor from F minor if the Card Song is too low for the singer; Beethoven when arranging the "heavenly" E major (with middle movement in "melancholy" E minor) sonata for quartet didn't hesitate to transpose it to the "pastoral" F major (with middle movement in "funereal" F minor). Why? to change the character of the music? Not a bit, and I doubt anyone hears it that way - but because by transposing it to F, he could use the low C open string of the cello as the dominant.

Funny, that was always Larry's favourite example in this sort of thread too!

And note both these transpositions are just by semitone, to keep the overall registers of the music intact.

Absolutely. As I'd have said to Larry (and did), that sort of practical consideration always comes first, and so it should. But all it shows is that, once the original piece was complete, 'stuff' could be done to it to create new versions. The key association, if it was important, was mostly important only in the very initial stages, the point at which the composition began to from in the composer's mind. But you see, it's precisely these mysterious early stages of the composing process, when we are closest to the composer's subconscious, in which I, personally, am most interested - in this case, then, we're talking about the initial urge which led to Beethoven's 'choice' of E for the original piece. Given that the questions of range aren't quite as important in a piano piece as in a string piece, Beethoven was free to 'choose' his key according to his own predelictions - and the result was a sonata in which the traditional key symbolisms are quite important, I think (witness the appearance of C major in the centre of the movement - how does C manifest itself? With the placid E major of the opening reimagined as 'technical', didactic-style scales a la Czerny....). Now this is what interests me, because it suggests something about Beethoven's mind nearer to the source of inspiration than does the later, pragmatic transposition for the quartet version. As I said before, I find it strange that we listeners who are supposed to be fascinated by the mental workings of the great composers seem happy to put give fairly brief attention these fascinating scraps of evidence before moving on to more pragmatic concerns. Why this keenness to put aside these little traces of the way great minds have worked? Do people feel embarrassed by the fact that Beethoven (or whoever) was not always strictly logical? I don't get it...