About standing in key

[fmr]

Melody can start on any note... Key, tonality,scale topics can get confusing, because of how much Western notation and theory is based on the diatonic scale and meantone temperament. I find the sharp vs flats debates ******** unless they actually are supposed to mean anything meaningful- unequal systems like just intonation and similar. Still, atonal integer notation is superior for any edo.

You are unnecessarily mudding the waters here. And you are stating a lot of bullshit. Yes, you can notate alterations when they occur, instead of using a key signature, but if you always have Bb, Eb and Ab, why would you notate them when they occur, instead of using a key signature? Music notation is a convention and was created to allow musicians to "remember" and be able to reproduce a piece of music, instead of having to memorize it. Making things easier is not ********, it is a clever thing to do.

And tonal melodies don't start in "any note". They usually start with a note of the tonic chord (for example, in C Major they will most likely start with a C, a G or a E). If the melody starts in anacrusis, you may have a short cell starting with other notes, but that cell will land in a note of the chord in the strong beat of the bar.

In general, you may use any piano key, if you know what are you doing (JW had some nice 12note melody in one of the Harry Potter movies).

Theoretically you may, but it would be really stupid using the key of A# when you have Bb, wouldnt you agree? And a twelve note melody isn't what we are talking about here (I don't even know what is a twelve note melody... I know what is a twelve note "series").

Check which notes feel the most stable, are most repeated or with longest duration to determine the tonic. It may change from phrase to phrase - there are many such melodies (especially in older medieval/renaissance music; or even pop/rock).

WTF are you talking about? Medieval/renaissance melodies aren't tonal melodies.They may lead to some confusion in people who are not familiar with modes, but those that know modes (not the "jazz modes", which are no modes at all, but the real ones that were used in medieval and renaissance music, the so called "church modes"), know exactly what is the universe they are based on. That has nothing to do with modern key signatures.

"Check which notes feel the most stable, are most repeated or with longest duration to determine the tonic."??? Really? What if the melody has a repeated G, but then descends into C? Would you say the the G is the tonic? And that the melody then has a second tonic? WTF is that advice you are giving?

Regarding the modern atonal music, like the second Vienna school, or the music of Satie, Ravel, Debussy, Bartok, etc., when they don't use key signatures that's because the music doesn't follow a key (any key), therefore, a key signature could lead the musician to an erroneous impression, while it would still be meaningless and, most of all, useless, because many alterations would be still occurring outside of the key signature, and would have to be notated when occurring.

[anomandaris1]

What you call "alterations" may not be alterations at all... You are viewing music through quite conservative and narrow system. See my remark about Western notation and its historical development based on diatonic/meantone system. It may be super handy for certain types of music, but unpractical for others. (And it means nothing in systems with better intonation, because these lack the symmetries of 12edo.) Fortunately, these days we have DAWs and advanced notation software that can even use create notations (Mus2) and piano rolls (god bless Reaper).
I don't want to get involved in any mode/tonality/key debate, I've been there and it's not pretty (it's one of the favourite topics on some other forums like reddit music theory and talkclassical). I just want to say that most melodies will have a tonic (or more than one, if they modulate). The melody doesn't have to be in major/minor mode/key/whatever you call it to be "tonal".
(I've noticed that most electronic music "producers, djs and composers" use only sharp notation.)
Bartok used some unusual key signatures in some pieces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhemiton ... ure_system


" "Check which notes feel the most stable, are most repeated or with longest duration to determine the tonic."??? Really? What if the melody has a repeated G, but then descends into C? Would you say the the G is the tonic? And that the melody then has a second tonic? WTF is that advice you are giving? "

G may be the tonic... why not, it's all about the context. My advice was quite generic, what do you expect, to give him a short course in Schenkerian analysis or what?

[fmr]

(I've noticed that most electronic music "producers, djs and composers" use only sharp notation.)

Yes, but that's because they don't know more

Bartok used some unusual key signatures in some pieces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhemiton ... ure_system

And if you know something, you certainly know why he did that. Which kind of contradicts what you wrote about the limitations of western notation.

"Check which notes feel the most stable, are most repeated or with longest duration to determine the tonic."??? Really? What if the melody has a repeated G, but then descends into C? Would you say the the G is the tonic? And that the melody then has a second tonic? WTF is that advice you are giving? "

G may be the tonic... why not, it's all about the context. My advice was quite generic, what do you expect, to give him a short course in Schenkerian analysis or what?

No, I would expect you to not say anything at all, if that's the best advice you had to give.

[IncarnateX]

The melody doesn't have to be in major/minor mode/key/whatever you call it to be "tonal".

Rubbish. Tonality is related to chords and harmony and thus it certainly matters which key you are in and whether it is minor or major to be called tonal. Ionian and aeolian are main modes of tonal music, however, you can (almost) turn any church scale into a tonal framework, that is chord structures with the usual I, IV, V functions. Locrian scale is particularly troublesome because of its diminished fifth, which also makes it a diminished dominant in phrygian mode. In mixolydian, the dominant will lack the 1/2 step lead tone from its third to tonic, which otherwise is the trick of the dominant in major scales. Still the main functions are there to create a tonal framework. But 1600th century modality is mainly about polyphony in contrast to later harmony and that is the core of the difference.

[jancivil]

I find the sharp vs flats debates ******** unless they actually are supposed to mean anything meaningful- unequal systems like just intonation and similar. Still, atonal integer notation is superior for any edo.

Well, something is spelled right or it isn't. Unless someone is basically incompetent in it, the distinctions are meaningful.
It's never a debate, it's a known quantity with the very rare exception and in this kind of outside example the person making the exception knows exactly what they're doing in all probability.

Just intonation is an 'unequal system'? What does that sentence even MEAN? "and similar" - really?
It's just bullshit.

No, I don't even want an answer, you're posturing like you've done in two threads I've contributed to already, it's gotten old.

[jancivil]

(I've noticed that most electronic music "producers, djs and composers" use only sharp notation.)

SO? Most of them, if not all, are not competent on the basic level. "A# D F; C D# G and so on trying to express Bb; rather than the rather simple matter of knowing key and that triads means thirds construction.

You don't seem to know where you are [...]
if you took a test on this material given by someone whose authority is unassailable and the rest of the people taking the test were expert in the matter, you would be exactly the subjects David Dunning found to have actually scored in the bottom quartile yet believed they knew more than the people who did in fact have the correct answers.

It's obnoxious. You aren't doing anything good here for anybody, it's argumentative to no point and it only muddies the waters where they can otherwise be perfectly clear.

[jancivil]

an example of the lamest sort of sophistry is 'a melody can start on any note'. Yes, but if it's a tonal melody, there is a TONIC. When there is a TONIC, when there is TONAL MUSIC, there is KEY. A key will have a basic scale, in the case of minor there are alterations to effect a drive to the tonic, because of the dominant-tonic paradigm. A basic seven note scale has seven letter names. This is not up for debate; this is something known, it's a perfectly useful convention which works because of consistency, first of all. Debating facts is a waste of time.

This is not conservatism, it's just using things in a consistent matter in order to remain coherent. It's SO BASIC.

When there is no drive to the tonic from the minor mode (I do not mean modalization, or modal music, I mean the convention from tonal music where we have 'major' vs 'minor' mode), no V chord created, it may be basically "Aeolian" and here the usage may comport with modal music of some form.

EDIT: let me get into modal vs tonal as it was brought in. Once you change a mode to get V-I it's tonal paradigm, the mode is out the window. Mixolydian mode as you might look for it in the Baroque is going to fit the tonal paradigm; if one notices the old church modes in JS Bach for instance, they're being tonalized (for lack of a word in the front of my mind atm). To use the term is really just an historical reference as far as I'm concerned.

OTOH:
Ionian mode can be modal, or it's just another name for major scale, 'Ionian scale' really doesn't sort much of anything.
An example of 'Ionian' mode working modally exists in Northern Indian classical music, in the Bilaval family; Bilaval Thaat being a parent to raags under the heading. It doesn't mean ^7 is a leading tone to 1 through itself, for instance. While there's no pressing concern for writing it out in the western system, I assure you that when Ravi Shankar created something for the western orchestra he knew what the spelling is because it's basically sampurna ('all seven notes'), ie, a heptatonic scale basis (or less, hexatonic, pentatonic) with a simple and OBVIOUS spelling using seven letter names.

You cannot treat modes like keys, you destroy the character of the modes. I recognize the tendency to conflate them particularly steeped in Roman Church Music of the medieval and early renaissance periods as that culminates in tonality, but for a modern musician it's another matter.

Mixolydian has no dominant as in the tonal sense, clearly. One might OTOH think of VII in this (D in E mixolydian, eg) as [a sort of] dominant. Dominant-tonic paradigm doesn't suit modality so things which give the strong tendency to resolve* are a hazard if what you want is the character of the mode.
I am somewhat coming from the perspective of the east here, but there is usage in rock and jazz where this is a thing. More chords is not more music.

*: In explanation, the tritone in a harmony amounting to a V7, or a vii of a harmony; let's say you want Dorian for its dorianness. D E F G A B C; B F thru our conditioning is magnetized to C E. We have a dominant to a tonic and for Dorian to be effective the tonic is not C but D. Not saying it can't be avoided but one has to be cognizant of it.

[jancivil]

What you call "alterations" may not be alterations at all... You are viewing music through quite conservative and narrow system. See my remark about Western notation and its historical development based on diatonic/meantone system.

Yeah, that's absolutely meaningless. Diatonic system is as I put it just a moment ago. It's a narrow system because the definition of diatonic excludes things which can't be called that. For the sake of f**k, man.
again, literally I find this hilarious. These words meantone system change nothing about spelling BECAUSE of "diatonic system". Meantone was a step in the development of TEMPERAMENT but there is nothing exceeding tonal usage or triads working in keys. Total, no exaggeration at all, total incompetence on display here. I recommend you just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

[IncarnateX]

in the case of minor there are alterations to effect a drive to the tonic, because of the dominant-tonic paradigm.

Ye! Just change the bloody dominant to major, at least towards the end, so we can have our beloved conclusion.

[jancivil]

Full disclosure: I hate that beloved thing. I f**king hate V-I.

[Harry_HH]

Well, this is in all likelihood one of those threads where the OP has vacated so why not elaborate on 12-tone or anything.
...

The beauty of the Kvr is, that the thread can (and often will), start to live the life of its own. If the OP has just started learning pedalling with a tricycle, the thread may suddenly accelerate to the warp speed, with the intergalactic rocket.
I can only admire the amount of expertise and sophistication among Kvr members. I really do.

[IncarnateX]

Full disclosure: I hate that beloved thing. I f**king hate V-I.

Well, I have my obvious reasons to feel something in that direction too. This is among the things that made me neglect two centuries of development of harmony in favor of renaissance counterpoint. Choral harmonisation killed it. Only harmony study that really interests me is jazz harmony, especially backdoor progressions for the exact same reason as ^^^

Edit: Well, before trashing it completely, I can still enjoy V-I i hands of masters, though it strikes me that they drown in modern radio goo-goo and seem to get less and less noticed as the pile of non-masters grows.

[jancivil]

I tend to avoid tonal music, for the most part. Fortunately I know where to go to find the greatest exemplifications of it but it's a great big world of music (and a lot of it mind-expanding) and I have no recollection of living in that past, it's just not the wig I want to put on. I didn't neglect it, I took it very seriously and achieved a mastery of harmonic writing, but I guess I burnt out. I sure have no interest in it creatively. I once did, Chopin and so forth but I'm not going to say anything new in it, those were paltry efforts just trying to get my head properly around it. I find Chopin valuable in a jazz sense. I saw an interesting video where this old jazz pianist showed Chopin 'Playing the changes', it's just fancier 'playing' than most because of the talent and the knowledge. But I related the romantic chromaticism to jazz; eg., Tristan chord to flat five substitute dominant.

I hate pop where the harmony and the line is totally predictable, for the most part it's a product of mediocrity and conformity to a low common denominator.

[IncarnateX]

Agree about pop. It is simply boring. See my edit.

[IncarnateX]

they're being tonalized (for lack of a word in the front of my mind atm).

Works for me. A very suitable term to catch any kind of tonal twistings of modes, imo.