Identifying the key of a passage

[canadianlight]

If you have the written notations at hand, what is the best (and most accurate) way to find out the key (and changes) in a piece/movement? Is the Schenker analysis still used? Is there software that does that automatically?

[Ogg Vorbis]

If you have the written notations at hand, what is the best (and most accurate) way to find out the key (and changes) in a piece/movement? Is the Schenker analysis still used? Is there software that does that automatically?

Look for phrase and/or section cadences (closing points) which come to "rest" in a particular tonal area.

Looking within the phrase runs the risk that you'll get caught up in chromatic red herrings which are either secondary dominants or other types of transitory chromaticisms.

The caveat about phrase or section cadences is that the cadence might be a half cadence (closing on the dominant of the tonal area) or a deceptive cadence (closing on the "surprise" VI or vi).

Your ears ought to be able to tell you whether the above is the case or not.

I heartily recommend that you hear what you're seeing in addition to analyzing with your mind. The two senses should be partners.

[canadianlight]

Can phrases or sections be too short; or modulations happen too frequently (like twice, thrice per bar), that this method is impossible?

[Ogg Vorbis]

Can phrases or sections be too short; or modulations happen too frequently (like twice, thrice per bar), that this method is impossible?

Hey CL,

A modulation is really the establishment of a tonal area (transitory tonality or more "permanent" tonality). Establishment means that, going backwards in the cadence, you have the resolved cadence that says, "this is home...it is stable."

Prior you will have a preparation of the new tonic which usually contains dissonances with the tonic that need to be resolved. This is usually the dominant harmony in traditional tonal music, but other things can serve to prepare it also. Then before this, there is usually some sort of preparation of the preparation (like iv to V or i 6/4 to V or V7/V, etc., etc. ,etc.

As you can see, it takes a little while to prepare the ear for the establishment of a new tonal area. Yes, modulations can take place inside a phrase. But two or three inside the span of a measure is probably too short of a time for the audience's ear to get something established. Even if there are 2 or 3 secondary dominants that each resolve within a measure, the ear probably won't accept them as stabilized.

If you have things that are going on that look like multiple modulations inside a bar, then in all likelihood it is some sort of transitory chromaticism that is hopping around like frogs on ecstasy and all heading to the "real" destination somewhere down the phrase.

Again, your analytical mind might identify a cadence, but what do your ears say? Is it terra firma or is the frog still hopping from one squishy lilly pad to the other?

[jancivil]

Can phrases or sections be too short; or modulations happen too frequently (like twice, thrice per bar), that this method is impossible?

Yes. There can be moments of such ambiguity that it's so hard to 'establish' a firm center that may be useless to do so. Historically this doesn't happen until a late romantic period, with notable exceptions.

[canadianlight]

Can phrases or sections be too short; or modulations happen too frequently (like twice, thrice per bar), that this method is impossible?

Hey CL,

A modulation is really the establishment of a tonal area (transitory tonality or more "permanent" tonality). Establishment means that, going backwards in the cadence, you have the resolved cadence that says, "this is home...it is stable."

Prior you will have a preparation of the new tonic which usually contains dissonances with the tonic that need to be resolved. This is usually the dominant harmony in traditional tonal music, but other things can serve to prepare it also. Then before this, there is usually some sort of preparation of the preparation (like iv to V or i 6/4 to V or V7/V, etc., etc. ,etc.

As you can see, it takes a little while to prepare the ear for the establishment of a new tonal area. Yes, modulations can take place inside a phrase. But two or three inside the span of a measure is probably too short of a time for the audience's ear to get something established. Even if there are 2 or 3 secondary dominants that each resolve within a measure, the ear probably won't accept them as stabilized.

If you have things that are going on that look like multiple modulations inside a bar, then in all likelihood it is some sort of transitory chromaticism that is hopping around like frogs on ecstasy and all heading to the "real" destination somewhere down the phrase.

Again, your analytical mind might identify a cadence, but what do your ears say? Is it terra firma or is the frog still hopping from one squishy lilly pad to the other?

Can you briefly explain the relationship between keys and chords/modes? The terminology is getting ambiguous for me.

Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_%28music%29#See_also

"Roman numerals indicate the root of the chord as a scale degree within a particular major key as follows:"

So when I see roman numerals in upper and lower cases getting tossed around, I don't know what the writer is talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_%28music%29

Here is another example, it says

"a melodic or harmonic configuration that creates a sense of repose or resolution [finality or pause]."

Then it goes right on and starts talking about chords, but what about the melodic part where chord progressions are up for grabs? Like how one tune can be harmonized into different chord progressions.

Thanks.

Edit: The purpose of these questions is that for orchestration I need to add in the chords for given monodic tunes.

It almost seems like learning counterpoint is easier than this mess.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Howdy,

I would try to answer all these, but I would write all night and all next day only to confuse you in the end. This is probably not a candidate for a forum post but more of a community college course or private teacher (or at least a book).

Do you have a way to get your hands on a basic harmony course?

I recommend jetting out of that orchestration course until you've picked up the first part. You are trying to perform calculus for a moon shot and you haven't got add, subtract, multiply and divide down.

Theory isn't too difficult though...it's so easy a musician could understand it!

[canadianlight]

Howdy,

I would try to answer all these, but I would write all night and all next day only to confuse you in the end. This is probably not a candidate for a forum post but more of a community college course or private teacher (or at least a book).

Do you have a way to get your hands on a basic harmony course?

I recommend jetting out of that orchestration course until you've picked up the first part. You are trying to perform calculus for a moon shot and you haven't got add, subtract, multiply and divide down.

Theory isn't too difficult though...it's so easy a musician could understand it!

I am a math student in fact, that's why this fuzzy stuff troubles me.

Orchestration courses at my college are not for equipping amateurs like me, they are not open to non-music students.

The Idiot's guide didn't go deep enough, and hardcore theory books are meant to accompany a course, not for auto didactic purposes.

[Ogg Vorbis]

.

The Idiot's guide didn't go deep enough, and hardcore theory books are meant to accompany a course, not for auto didactic purposes.

I understand. Finding the goldylocks book that is just right is hard. Perhaps someone here can make recommendations.

Personally, I do not recommend "musictheory.net" or Music Theory for Computer Musicians which get mentioned here sometimes.

In the best case, a teacher can give you regular lessons and answer questions, etc. I believe I can tell that you are one of those curious and deep thinkers that have lots of questions...how...how...how? why...why...why?

[lingyai]

I just got and read this


http://www.amazon.com/Chord-Wheel-Ultim ... 568&sr=1-1

which in less than 15 very clear pages answers a lot of your questions... So many questions I had about basics, including not only large and small roman numerals, but also about a basic context for understanding music theory -- about which the hard-core music theory folks have said, "Ooooh... you'll have to study for years and master an instrument to understand" -- this book answered.

I realise -- as the book points out -- that mastering music theory is a long long road; but it least it got my shoes on, and me out on the pavement. The book won't begin to answer every "why" you might have, but it does fill you on a lot of essential "what". In so doing, it gives a great framework on which further learning can be layered.

It is also amazingly and immediately practical, in that it gives you a device -- an expanded version of the circle of fifths -- which provides a great start for devising chord progressions. I used it straight away, and came up with a few, quite pleasing to my ears anyway, which would have taken me forever by trial and error, or by struggling to teach myself from longer but less effective theory books.

Note that many of the Amazon reviwers say that while the device is great, the text is poorly written. I must have gotten a revised edition, as the writing's fine to me

Anyway, have a look.

[jancivil]

a basic context for understanding music theory -- about which the hard-core music theory folks have said, "Ooooh... you'll have to study for years and master an instrument to understand" -- this book answered.
.

I'm glad you got something out of a book like that, I really am.

I have not seen anyone say that here, however. I believe that to get the fullness of context of theory it is crucial to have a practical basis playing music. I believe that to get to the point one is writing songs or composing music one will gain more from playing and/or singing songs other people have made, than following a chart.

I made a lot of clueless guesses before I understood any formulae existed. When I did find there was such a thing, it occurred to me that people relied on this instead of their imagination and it dawned on me why so much music was indistinguishable from other music; it occurred to me the laziness and mediocrity of such an approach.

The first respectable group I was in was based in the songs of a friend who had no theory. Trial and error, and things that were simply wrong 'by the book'. We had a good time and between our nascent understanding, and the fact we both played a couple instruments we made more interesting music than I think we will have done with books in front of us. I began studying in the midst of this, and during it I asked questions of people I knew with classical lessons and what-not. And of people who'd started earlier than I on guitar. Before that I'd copped a lot of things off of records and strummed chords off of a fake book, singing badly.


Example given, the circle of fifths is a lot like a color wheel. A chart won't mix the colors for you. You get your hands on some paint first.


I would not say at 55 years of age and forty years at it, "I have mastered my instrument". I will say this, I became an adept at music theory (I mean at applying it and making things work well) in a short time as a result of working with music from a practical standpoint, instruments or drumsticks in my hands and trying to sing, first. I didn't learn about a mixing board from studying a picture of one; we scrimped and saved and took our teenage songs into a studio and once in there asked questions of the engineer.

I do not say this to anyone to tell them they should do what I did. What I did wasn't so efficient. It's a different world than when I came up; people are in more of a hurry, with a destination in mind more than an idea of enjoying the journey. There are pressures we perceive upon us leading us to believe we should be productive at once driving this trend. We think of 'this *producer* done this here...'; and the person is no musician and might really be as clueless as you... and people want the work done for them by complete strangers on the internet, rather than learn something themselves with a couple years fooling around on their own with a guitar, copying the music by hearing it, finding out by cause-and-effect. It shouldn't be so surprising that it takes a little time and some hands-on, but I guess computer culture, internet culture and instant gratification leads them to feel that way. You won't develop the muscles by relying on externals.

[como baila]

Personally, I do not recommend "musictheory.net" or Music Theory for Computer Musicians which get mentioned here sometimes.

FWIW I think Michael Hewitt's 'Harmony for Computer Musicians' is really his 'theory' book. I found it very helpful. I'm the kind of learner who likes to have an idea of the layout of the forest before I examine the trees. I think this book does it beautifully with respect to 'traditional harmony.'

http://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Computer- ... 1435456726

Como

[Ogg Vorbis]

FWIW I think Michael Hewitt's 'Harmony for Computer Musicians' is really his 'theory' book. I found it very helpful. I'm the kind of learner who likes to have an idea of the layout of the forest before I examine the trees. I think this book does it beautifully with respect to 'traditional harmony.'

http://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Computer- ... 1435456726

Como

Very cool, como. It's great that you gleaned an overview from this book. I think that's probably the right attitude...forest and trees. When I looked at this volume carefully it seemed to be pretty glossy and simplified, but perhaps it might give someone a foothold from which to scale the mountain.

[como baila]

FWIW I think Michael Hewitt's 'Harmony for Computer Musicians' is really his 'theory' book. I found it very helpful. I'm the kind of learner who likes to have an idea of the layout of the forest before I examine the trees. I think this book does it beautifully with respect to 'traditional harmony.'

http://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Computer- ... 1435456726

Como

Very cool, como. It's great that you gleaned an overview from this book. I think that's probably the right attitude...forest and trees. When I looked at this volume carefully it seemed to be pretty glossy and simplified, but perhaps it might give someone a foothold from which to scale the mountain.

I don't think I made it as clear as I intended in my post, so I'll try again. Michael Hewitt has written 3 'for the Computer Musician' books: Composition, Theory and Harmony.

In my view it is the volume on Harmony, not the one on Theory, that best reflects/ presents what most people would consider 'theory.' As someone with a smattering of knowledge about various trees from my autodidactic and peripatetic journey into music theory, I found this volume very illuminating.

I aspire only to huff and puff up small hills.

Como

[lingyai]

I aspire only to huff and puff up small hills.

Como

In which case the book I mentioned might be especially worth your while