Does the song key matter?

[tapper mike]

But I used him as an example because he didn't have thorough knowledge of music theory in a 'standard' sense.

Who's standard are you referring to? Pop/Rock/Folk/Blues/Gospel/RB all have a commonality of progression based music. Something which is rare in classical music.

He didn't squirrel away for years studying music and, I'm speculating but I would be willing to bet that, he wrote, played and composed more from instinct than from intellect or analysis.

He did sit down and study several hours a day for years. Read the link. He would watch shows constantly practice and take tips from other musicians. He knew how to play progressions because he studied them in songs he knew how to play over progressions because he studied them. He copped phrasing from other players and applied them.

About Practice
Something not amazing but common happens when you play with others who are good and study alone....you get better.
Sure Jimi had some talent. But he developed his skills they didn't fall from the sky.

Practice is serious biz if you take it that way.
Steve Vai practiced 12 hours a day.
Yngwie Malmsteen practiced 8 hours a day.
You want to be good or do you just wanna fk around?
Wishing with a little bit of natural talent does not greatness make.
Nature and nurture walk hand in hand. One finds the tools and makes the most of them. If it means sitting down and transcribing the works of others then one does it. If it means talking advice from other musicians one does it. If it means trying to cop the feel of a favored player one does it.

Back to Jimi
He started young and got to work out his ideas early but fame didn't happen for a long time because he didn't have his act together.
Once again read the link.

He did have uke experience before playing the guitar. Picked up the guitar at 15 and Didn't write his first major song till 8 years later. He had plenty of time to develop his writing skills and plenty of resources to draw from.
Any magic he had was due to hard work, embracing concepts that were not his own in origin (because he backed other song writers on the chitlin circut) and applying the same concepts found in popular music (blues, r&b, soul, rock, folk)

[cobzilla]

Who's standard are you referring to? Pop/Rock/Folk/Blues/Gospel/RB all have a commonality of progression based music. Something which is rare in classical music.

Any standard. The comment I was responding to talked about the 'rules' of music in general. Any sort of rules.

He did sit down and study several hours a day for years. Read the link. He would watch shows constantly practice and take tips from other musicians. He knew how to play progressions because he studied them in songs he knew how to play over progressions because he studied them. He copped phrasing from other players and applied them.

I hear you and I stand corrected, Hendrix was a bad example. Based on the handful of interviews and articles I read, I grew up with the impression that Hendrix was a player that didn't study music theory, but mostly improvised by ear. But I see now that he did in fact have quite a bit of understanding of musical knowledge to go along with his raw talent.

Thanks, now I need to go find a valid example of someone who composed great music without having studied the existing knowledge contained within the tomes of music theory. Maybe there are none? Maybe that was really the point all along?

[tapper mike]

If you are looking for the heroic story about no or little formalized music education check out Irving Berlin

(Berlin never learned to play in more than one key and used a custom-made piano with a transposing lever to change keys.)[8][9].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin

Also see - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... he-compose

[DrawMusic]

Yeah, but if you're playing piano keys in the key of C but the lever has moved you up to the key of Eb, then what color key are you in?

[Musicologo]

I've just composed a popular Portuguese march in G. But I couldn't sing hit, the high note was a little to high, so I had to transpose it down to F. It worked fine.

The problem was: when a REAL singer was going to record my demo he couldn't sing it in F, because he was a baritone. He asked me to drop in to C!!.. I had to put that in C, and it worked.

But now when I hear both versions it is strange: I like best the instruments in F. It sounds pretty, light, if feels nice. But I hate my voice.

When I hear it in C, I really like the singers voice, the march sounds real nice, but the instruments sound pretty heavy!!... It all sounds way too dark. So the Key does really matters.

Still, I don't know exactly what I had to do, to keep the singers lovely voice in C, and to have the beautiful instrument tassiture in F. The brass orchestra doesn't seem to work fine so low. Probably I would have to re-write the whole thing just because I changed the range of the voice.

Instead of having the voice F4 and the brass C2-A2-C3-F3, and then voice C4 and the brass G1-E2-G2-C3 Probably I should write the brass kinda C2-G2-C3-E3, to make it more closer to the original...

[outbackyak]

Keys make colors in my mind. G minor is golden green, G major is more like a pine forest green. e minor is dark blue (bono of u2 said it was red to him). b minor is red. a minor is whitish/orange, and C major is really orange. Oddly enough, so is c minor. d minor is purplish. I could see E major being white.

What you are describing here is synaesthesia:

a neurologically-based condition in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

More specifically what you are experiencing is sound-colour synaesthesia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesi ... ynesthesia

Synaesthesia is relatively common, and for synaesthetes different keys will inevitably have very real emotional connotations. For most of the rest of us I suspect that different keys don't have inherent emotional connotations (at least if we are talking about equal temperament). Instead we respond to the altered tone colour of instruments when played in different keys, and it is this that creates the perception of some keys having different emotional qualities.

Play a tune in B flat major in the first octave of a clarinet and the sound is rich, dark and mellow and the notes take a little longer to sound than in higher registers (i.e. there is a slower attack); we may perceive this key as being "restrained", possibly as being "warm", perhaps "melancholic", or similar descriptors. Shift the same tune up a sixth to G major and the tone colour of the clarinet changes: it is much brighter and clearer, the notes take less time to sound (i.e. the attack is quicker); we may perceive this key as being more assertive, perhaps more martial, or more vigorous.

But I don't think that this is due to the particular key - it's to do with the particular instrument (or combination of instruments). Since the spacing between notes is identical in equal temperament if is hard to see how just changing keys can create inherent emotional qualities.

Selecting keys is probably more to do with placing the tone qualities of the particular instruments in their proper register to create the required emotional effect than with trying to find a key which inherently has that effect in its own right.

Or at least, that's how I see it.

Cheers!

[Fragile_Frankie]

I wanted to ask something about this. I have a song where my leads, strings, basses, pretty much everything is in the same "key".

But what I wanna do is add a guitar part to see how it would sound in my track. I found a tab for a song I know and converted it to midi. Checking the midi notes, I could see it wasn't in the same key as my song.

So I loaded the midi notes into my DAW, ran them through an acoustic guitar VST, and it sounded decent enough. Put it in my track, and even tho it's out of key, it still sounds good. But I get the feeling that if it was in the same key as everything else it would sound so much better.

Should I bother trying to get it into the same key (which I don't think I can do, 'cause I'm not really good with notes and this is like a five-note chord) or does the "if it sounds good then leave it alone" motto really just explain it all?

[outbackyak]

Well, if it sounds good that's fine and if you're happy with it you don't have to change it just because it might be "wrong". But it may be that it is in the right key, and that the notes you are seeing that appear to be ouside the key are accidentals - notes from outside the root key that are often used to spice up melody and harmony.

Alternatively, if you want to see if you can get the midi part to fit better with your song you could try selecting all the notes of the midi part in your piano roll and move them all up a semitone, if that doesn't work, move them up another semitone ... and keep doing it till they sound right. If it doesn't sound any better you can always go back to your original midi part.

Since it sounds like the midi part you've used is unrelated (except by chance) to the music that you've written it's very likely that even if you can get them into the same key there are going to be places where the harmony of the midi part is going to clash with the implied harmony of the other parts you've written.

Try working out which parts sound good, and which parts sound "wrong" - then play around with the bits that sound wrong and see if moving that section up (or down) makes it sound better (this may not work, since it may be that the section should be a different sort of chord entirely, not just the same chord at a different pitch).

Whatever happens, you will come across some interesting sounds

Cheers!

[Fragile_Frankie]

Yeah that sounds good, I'll try that.

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

--Selecting keys is probably more to do with placing the tone qualities of the particular instruments in their proper register to create the required emotional effect than with trying to find a key which inherently has that effect in its own right.--

That makes sense.

[chj]

Keys make colors in my mind. G minor is golden green, G major is more like a pine forest green. e minor is dark blue (bono of u2 said it was red to him). b minor is red. a minor is whitish/orange, and C major is really orange. Oddly enough, so is c minor. d minor is purplish. I could see E major being white.

Drugs are bad for you kids.

[phankiejankie]

Well I am no trained musician, I love music, I know some theory but I never had in my life proper music education. Putting ego issues aside, the it sounds good to my ear attitude is a bit stupid. Your ears may not be that good as you think they are.

From real life experiences every time I stripped down a song, take a look at notes and then worked on my scales and harmony almost 99.99% the final result was better than the previous one even so I really liked the original in the first place.

Regarding the rules issue, yeah rules are meant to be broken but in order to do so properly you need to have extensive knowledge of how the system works. As much as I love computers and technology I think it led to a point that mangling a waveform for 30mins via modular environments is considered art where as it's just plain crap music. In no way I claim that making sonic soundscapes is crap but I think it is really difficult to separate the good from the bad.

In order to do the tonal experimentations of Xenakis or Stravinsky you really need to have deep musical knowledge. It's totally different having a vision of how you are about to break the rules than twiddling knobs and picking samples and randomly doing it.

The problem lies in my humble opinion that things are so easy these days and people forget the basics on top of being arrogant. Music technology is a fantastic thing but we still need to respect the knowledge of yesterdays and leave the (fake) artistic approach of ultra abstract crap that passes as music these days.

To cut the long way short, you may have the talent but knowing your theory will make you and your tracks better, it's just that simple.

[outbackyak]

Well I am no trained musician, I love music, I know some theory but I never had in my life proper music education. Putting ego issues aside, the it sounds good to my ear attitude is a bit stupid. Your ears may not be that good as you think they are.

From real life experiences every time I stripped down a song, take a look at notes and then worked on my scales and harmony almost 99.99% the final result was better than the previous one even so I really liked the original in the first place.

Regarding the rules issue, yeah rules are meant to be broken but in order to do so properly you need to have extensive knowledge of how the system works. As much as I love computers and technology I think it led to a point that mangling a waveform for 30mins via modular environments is considered art where as it's just plain crap music. In no way I claim that making sonic soundscapes is crap but I think it is really difficult to separate the good from the bad.

In order to do the tonal experimentations of Xenakis or Stravinsky you really need to have deep musical knowledge. It's totally different having a vision of how you are about to break the rules than twiddling knobs and picking samples and randomly doing it.

The problem lies in my humble opinion that things are so easy these days and people forget the basics on top of being arrogant. Music technology is a fantastic thing but we still need to respect the knowledge of yesterdays and leave the (fake) artistic approach of ultra abstract crap that passes as music these days.

To cut the long way short, you may have the talent but knowing your theory will make you and your tracks better, it's just that simple.

Well. I don't disagree with you - I'm certainly no theory-master, but the little I do know has helped me immensely with the music I make, and I'd like to know more. I agree that "knowing your theory will make you and your tracks better" not least because it cuts down the time one spends desperately searching for the right chord or cadence. You spend more time creating, and less time beating your head against a brick wall.

But on the other hand there are many many fine musicians who know no formal music theory, and yet who write music that is moving and involving and original - and infinitely better than anything I've ever done. Knowledge of theory doesn't guarantee that a person will write great music - though it does make it more likely that it will at least be acceptable to an educated listener.

And learning theory takes time - should a person not try to write music at all until they are thoroughly versed in music theory? I don't think so (though I'm not suggesting you are arguing that they should - merely that some people argue this).

I wrote my first song when I knew how to play only two chords on guitar: G and D7. It wasn't original, it wasn't very good, and I had absolutely no idea why those two chords worked from a theoretical perspective - but it set me on a path that has given me immense pleasure over the last forty years. If I'd waited until I knew "enough" theory I might never have gone on to write anything!

So yes, learn theory - it helps with creating interesting music, it's interesting in it's own right, and it's not hard to find good tuition material. But it's worth remembering that music existed before music theory existed, and that theory is secondary - in the end what counts is the music, and whether it sounds good.

Cheers!

[Ogg Vorbis]

Is it true that the circle of fifths goes the opposite way in Australia?

[KrisM]

Do people honestly not hear the difference between a major and minor scale? They sound vastly different. Equal Temperament or not, Bb Major does not sound anything like Bb minor. Anything written in, and sticking with, a minor key versus a Major sounds very different. The intervals between notes in the scale aren't the same.

Surely they know they are hearing something, even if they don't know what or why it is.