Key and Character
Let me remind you of the original post of this thread (from Brumas):
"I've never been able to spot any difference in the mood of a piece based upon the key it's played in. Of course I hear a difference in pitch, but the difference in character that some perceive escapes me completely. To my ears, it's major or minor etc that matters, not the key. Are there people here that do hear a connection between mood and key, and if so, how does this work for you?"
[My italics]
That's what I and others have been discussing. Your definitive proof will be forever elusive, if that's all you want. But don't deny that there are people, including some of the greatest composers, who can hear it, and in the latter case, respond to it.
Chris A.Gnostic
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
"That's what I and others have been discussing."
As you wish.
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Dear Eliza, since you believe none would notice any difference, why don't you record some famous Piano or Violin Sonatas (depending on which is your instrument) on different than their original keys (without mentioning it) and see if the general public would be fooled.
For your information, because I work also with musicians, there is a huge fuss for observing the original keys even in transcribing popular songs (and, by all means, they hear any difference when a musician moves to a "wrong" key). The other day, I witness how a popular song transformed to a (simple) aria, when from the original A major was transposed to D major (above the stave) and to an alienated stuff, when was transposed to F sharp major (a third below).
Another very interesting example is the second and last movements of Schubert's "Trout" Quintet. Both movements consist of two equally divided parts, the second repeating the first part entirely, but with some temporary transpositions along the way. Most of the audiences did not notice any difference, but, as our musicians claim, this is the magic of Schubert's transpositions: the public couldn't be bothered by the entire repeat of the first part! They enjoy the piece as there was no repeats! As a unified movement. Needless to say that the very competent ears of the musicians could notice and "enjoy" the differences and the ingenious character of each transposition.
Parla
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Would the notes C, D and G played one after another in isolation sound any different in any key if they where the only notes in a strange modernist piece. Maybe the piece would have no key signature, maybe by 'Parla's law' it would have to have one. I don't know. How many different moods would these three notes evoke depending on the key signature. C D G happy, C D G sad, C D G angry, C D G bad.
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Another very interesting example is the second and last movements of Schubert's "Trout" Quintet. Both movements consist of two equally divided parts, the second repeating the first part entirely, but with some temporary transpositions along the way. Most of the audiences did not notice any difference, but, as our musicians claim, this is the magic of Schubert's transpositions: the public couldn't be bothered by the entire repeat of the first part! They enjoy the piece as there was no repeats! As a unified movement. Needless to say that the very competent ears of the musicians could notice and "enjoy" the differences and the ingenious character of each transposition.
Parla
However competent the ears of the musicians may have been, what leads you to believe that "most of the audiences did not notice any difference"?
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Parla
I am done with this thread. It turns out I have been discussing the wrong thing all this time.
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
I am done with this thread. It turns out I have been discussing the wrong thing all this time.
Argh, the very nature of internet forums caught in one brief passage.
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Decided to come back to the thread. Sorry for getting stroppy (Chris).........
I have been doing some reading and it turns out we have been reeancting a long standing dispute. Some people maintain keys have characters, some are sceptical. Composers and theorists have taken different sides through the ages. The classic work here appears to be: Steblin, Rita (1983), A History of Key Characteristics in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. It is far too expensive to buy at the moment, but I did come across a good article (a master's thesis) which summarises much of it and covers much of the same territory (Ishigurolink). It is quite long - eighty odd pages - but well worth reading.
Quoting selectively:
To an anonymous article in Journal de Trevoux (1718), Matteson claimed that the affective properties of keys were caused by two elements: 1) the pitch level (higher or lower pitch) and 2) a slight difference in the size of intervals due to unequal temperament systems. The latter theory had been supported by many scholars until equal temperament ended it in the eighteenth century. Mattheson, however, insisted that the former was the primary cause of key characteristics because the latter argument could easily be defeated by a number of different circumstances: the slight difference in the sizes of intervals could easily be disturbed by mistuning, or by the natural variation between instruments.
And: Unequal temperaments, which created various sizes of semitones, have commonly been considered the cause behind the different affects found in keys. This argument was supported by number of theorists and composers such as Rameau, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francesco Antonio Vallotti, Johann Philip Kirnberger and Heinrich Christoph Koch.
However, with the abandonment of unequal temperament, the central explanation for the affective key properties became irrelevant. Furthermore, the entire concept of key characteristics themselves was beginning to fall apart.
Once unequal temperaments were abandoned as a valid cause, various suggestions were raised by theorists and composers as alternative possible causes for the phenomenon of key characteristics.
In the nineteenth century, the second most common explanation for the affective properties of keys was based on the acoustic properties of orchestral instruments. Connections between various timbres of instruments and key affects were supported by a number of leading nineteenth century theorists and writers, such as E.T.A. Hoffmann (1776-1822), Gottfried Weber (1779- 1839), F. G. Drewis, Wilhelm Christian Mueller (1752-1831), Georg Joseph Vogler (1749-1814), Joseph Riepel (1709-1782), Henrich Christoph Koch (174901816), and Hector Berlioz
With regard to the equally tempered keyboard: Marpurg’s disciple, F.G. Drewis was an advocate for the theory which the mechanics of the piano explains the origin of key affects-- an argument gained popularity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Pianos, which contain black keys with a shorter leverage and white keys with a longer one, are asymmetrical in their construction. Drewis argued that the difference in the length of leverages creates a variety of striking forces, which in turn brings about a difference in the tone quality of pitches. Additionally, Drewis maintained that because every fifth string on pianos was thinner and produced a softer tone the harmonic balance in each key was not uniform.
And finally, Donald Francis Tovey: For Tovey, it was the contrast between various keys, employed in a piece though modulations, that provided color effects in music as he claims that “what is not subjective at all is the effect of one key as approached from another.” Tovey closed his discussion on the subject by writing that the notion of key characteristics was a “kind of fantasy which many learned musicians still fail to confine to its proper place among psychological obscurities.”
But I should emphasise that the dispute is far from settled and there are still plenty of composers/theorists who side with the "old" view that keys have characters.......
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Couldn't resist this quote, too:
In Sinfonia Concertante in E-flat major for violin, viola and orchestra, Mozart used scordatura on the viola. The solo viola part was originally written in D, and while the key of the whole work is E-flat, the viola was to be tuned half-step up and played exactly what was written on the score, sounding in the key of E flat. The author suggested that Mozart had done so because of the characteristic color of key on viola: “ For E-flat sounds very characteristic on the violin and D major sounds very characteristic on the violin.” By re-tuning the instrument and having viola play in its D major, Mozart could obtain the characteristic sound of viola, which he loved. Also, it is only the viola soloist who employed scordatura. So that while the orchestral viola players were in key of E flat, the color of the solo viola stood out. By this means, Mozart successfully achieved the contrast of key colors between violin and viola as well as soloists and the orchestra.
I have to say that this is made me think again about the importance of instrumental colour/sonority when it comes to determining key choice. (Chris, you accused me under-appreciating this and I think you were probably right.)
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
I have to say that this is made me think again about the importance of instrumental colour/sonority when it comes to determining key choice. (Chris, you accused me under-appreciating this and I think you were probably right.)
If you sit there all alone for long enough you can probably talk yourself into believing anything.
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
So, Eliza, you may now start being done. Eventually, there are few things that the key choice can make a substantive difference (try to play the first movement of the Piano part from the "Trout" Quintet from A one third lower).
Parla
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Decided to come back to the thread. Sorry for getting stroppy (Chris).........
I have been doing some reading and it turns out we have been reeancting a long standing dispute. Some people maintain keys have characters, some are sceptical. Composers and theorists have taken different sides through the ages. The classic work here appears to be: Steblin, Rita (1983), A History of Key Characteristics in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. It is far too expensive to buy at the moment, but I did come across a good article (a master's thesis) which summarises much of it and covers much of the same territory (Ishigurolink). It is quite long - eighty odd pages - but well worth reading.
Quoting selectively:
To an anonymous article in Journal de Trevoux (1718), Matteson claimed that the affective properties of keys were caused by two elements: 1) the pitch level (higher or lower pitch) and 2) a slight difference in the size of intervals due to unequal temperament systems. The latter theory had been supported by many scholars until equal temperament ended it in the eighteenth century. Mattheson, however, insisted that the former was the primary cause of key characteristics because the latter argument could easily be defeated by a number of different circumstances: the slight difference in the sizes of intervals could easily be disturbed by mistuning, or by the natural variation between instruments.
And: Unequal temperaments, which created various sizes of semitones, have commonly been considered the cause behind the different affects found in keys. This argument was supported by number of theorists and composers such as Rameau, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francesco Antonio Vallotti, Johann Philip Kirnberger and Heinrich Christoph Koch.
However, with the abandonment of unequal temperament, the central explanation for the affective key properties became irrelevant. Furthermore, the entire concept of key characteristics themselves was beginning to fall apart.
Once unequal temperaments were abandoned as a valid cause, various suggestions were raised by theorists and composers as alternative possible causes for the phenomenon of key characteristics.
In the nineteenth century, the second most common explanation for the affective properties of keys was based on the acoustic properties of orchestral instruments. Connections between various timbres of instruments and key affects were supported by a number of leading nineteenth century theorists and writers, such as E.T.A. Hoffmann (1776-1822), Gottfried Weber (1779- 1839), F. G. Drewis, Wilhelm Christian Mueller (1752-1831), Georg Joseph Vogler (1749-1814), Joseph Riepel (1709-1782), Henrich Christoph Koch (174901816), and Hector Berlioz
With regard to the equally tempered keyboard: Marpurg’s disciple, F.G. Drewis was an advocate for the theory which the mechanics of the piano explains the origin of key affects-- an argument gained popularity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Pianos, which contain black keys with a shorter leverage and white keys with a longer one, are asymmetrical in their construction. Drewis argued that the difference in the length of leverages creates a variety of striking forces, which in turn brings about a difference in the tone quality of pitches. Additionally, Drewis maintained that because every fifth string on pianos was thinner and produced a softer tone the harmonic balance in each key was not uniform.
And finally, Donald Francis Tovey: For Tovey, it was the contrast between various keys, employed in a piece though modulations, that provided color effects in music as he claims that “what is not subjective at all is the effect of one key as approached from another.” Tovey closed his discussion on the subject by writing that the notion of key characteristics was a “kind of fantasy which many learned musicians still fail to confine to its proper place among psychological obscurities.”
But I should emphasise that the dispute is far from settled and there are still plenty of composers/theorists who side with the "old" view that keys have characters.......
Sounds like an interesting article, I'll give it a read! I must say, I've not been convinced so far of keys having a character (other than the practicalities of how convenient it is to play a melody in a certain key etc.) Now of course with just intonation, it would be a different question altogether...
aquila non captat muscas
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Glad you've returned Eliza, and thanks for your gracious reply. I must say I find these controversial topics by far the most interesting for discussion, even if tempers become frayed from time to time!
The example of the Mozart Sinfonia Concertante is most interesting. I had not heard that before. I wonder whether all viola players do as they are supposed to? But speaking of scordatura, do you know the Rosemary sonatas of Biber. Fifteen sonatas, in the course of which the violin is tuned differently in each sonata. In one of them two strings are tuned in octaves.
Following the frivolous (I hope) comment about transposing Beethoven's Fifth into E minor, and now Parla on Schubert's Trout, I've been trying to think of some 'real' transpositions that we could compare. I've just been listening to the last three parts of Bach's Christmas Oratorio (the Cantatas from New Year to Epiphany), and a very full source suddenly dawned on me. It is to be found amongst Bach’s extensive borrowings. Many of his works re-used earlier compositions, some more-or-less intact, others changed in instrumentation and some transposed into different keys. Two arias from the Christmas Oratorio belong to the latter group. The famous Lullaby in Part II was previously found in a Secular Cantata (BWV213). In the oratorio it is given to the alto, and is in G, accompanied by woodwind and strings. The original, in the secular cantata is sung by a soprano, in B flat, without woodwind. The atmosphere is completely different, surely as Bach intended! Only a tone different! It’s the other way round with the echo aria from Part IV. Here the oratorio has it for soprano (in C), in the same secular cantata the alto sings it (in A). Interestingly, both are accompanied by oboe, but whereas the soprano has an ‘normal’ oboe in C, the alto version has an oboe d’amore, which is tuned in A, so in both versions the oboes are playing in their home keys, but of course in different keys. Again the difference is clear to hear.
Then there is the Magnificat. Bach originally wrote it in E flat, but when he came to perform it again he revised it and transposed it down a semitone to D. He never went back to the E flat version and most commentators find the D major version preferable. I have recordings of both versions and certainly agree. Again to my ears the difference is very audible.
Finally there are the violin concerti, all of which later became harpsichord concerti, in each case transposed down a tone: E major to D major, A minor to G minor, and D minor (the double concerto) to C minor. Of course harpsichord is different from violin but the orchestral parts (strings only) are the same. Do they sound different? I know what I think, but try them!!
One general comment before closing for now. There is inevitably an imbalance between suggesting hypotheses and criticising them. It’s much easier to criticise an idea than to advance an idea. I will try shortly to do as you ask, Eliza, and put forward a suggestion that includes music played on equal temperament keyboard. It is based on things I’ve already written in this thread but I’ll try to put them together more coherently. But be gentle folks, (and if possible constructive) with your criticism please!
Chris
Chris A.Gnostic
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Looks like we can step back now Parla and leave it to the politicians to work out the peace. The war has raged hard and many good men have been lost, till we old mercenaries meet on the battlefield again, adieu.
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive


Chris,
But this is just not true! We haven't discussed numerous differences. So far, you have come up with just ONE - instrumental sonority. Some instruments sound a bit different in some keys for some of the time. And that is it. What are the others? Can you list them? (And what about the equally tempered keyboard? So far, you've had nothing whatsoever to say on this, either.)
Surely you recognise that the question isn't whether you or I can "hear" the difference. That is the very point in dispute. I don't believe you (or anyone else for that matter) can hear any difference because there isn't actually any difference to hear in the first place. If the question could be settled by claims about what we can and cannot hear, the test would have to be conducted at a much more rigorous level than that. We would need many participants, blind testing, control groups and so on. It isn't enough to say "Well, I can hear it's difference." It's just too easy to kid yourself that you can hear things that aren't there - especially if you already believe there is a real difference.
So once again: apart from instrumental sonority, what REAL difference can you point to which could account for the so-called character of each key? In addition: are you honestly claiming that you can hear this difference? (Can you be confident of that? Have you listened the same piece in multiple keys and so on?) Let me put it this way: if we transposed a well-known piece up half a step, are you claiming that you could hear the change in key-character?
Sorry you seem to be frustrated by this, but as far as I can see, you haven't yet made your case. (That case must surely apply to the equally-tempered piano, as well. Why not have a crack at explaining that? I get the feeling that you are ducking that because you know it can't be done.)