"In the Key of"

[Rockhouse]

This came up in another thread as a mild derail, so I wanted to give it its own thread.

 

Some folks use the term "in the key of" interchangebly with "using a particular scale." This confuses me.

 

For example, if a song is in the key of Am, few people would say the song is in the key of C Major. Same scale, different key.

 

But, if the song is in the key of D (dorian) it is also based on a C Major scale. "No Quarter" by Led Zep comes to mind. Some folks call this the key of C Major because that's scale that is in use. The song, however, is obviously rooted on a D.

 

So, here's my question: Why is it alright to say a song is in the key of Am, but not to say a song is in the key of D Dorian? Isn't minor just a popular way to rename Aeolean?

 

The goal of this thread is not to start an argument, but for me to better understand why some people name the key based on the scale, and why some folks name the key based on the obvious root.

 

Also, feel free to consider the ramifications of your answers when dealing with other musicians such as bar-band guitarists who would think I was quite mad if I called for No Quarter in C Major.

 

Perhaps its my overexposure to barband culture and my seemingly insignificant BA degree that leads me to this quandry . . .

 

Thoughts?

[BluMunk]

You could definitely call "No Quarter" and add the qualifier of the mode (dorian). No worries there. But, you can't call it in 'C'. Call the tonic.

 

To expand, would you ever call 'No Quarter' in E phrygian? That's just as useful as calling it in C major(ionian). It gives wrong information to the band about what the harmonic structure of the song will be.

 

If I don't know the song (which, while I'm sure I'd recognize 'No Quarter' if I heard it, I can never remember those Zep tunes by name), and you call it in C Major, I'm playing a C chord as the opener, and the bass player is playing a C as well.

[JeffLearman]

When you say "scale" you mean "key signature". A minor and C major have the same key signature, but they're different scales since you start a scale with the tonic.

 

IMHO, it makes perfect sense to say "D minor" or "D dorian".

 

Anyway, I agree with BluMunk. But a lot of folks with a lot more credentials than I have would say nope, it's in C -- based on the key signature. This despite classical pieces like Bach's BVW 538, "Toccata and Fugue in D minor", often called "Dorian Toccata and Fuge" (and no, it's not the famous one). Why? I sure don't know; it makes no sense to me.

 

Nashville cats would chart it in C, because that's how they chart stuff. It works well for country music, where even when playing in a minor key, the enharmonic major is right there waiting (and often resolved to).

 

Playing blues, you'd just say "minor" and let the folks figure out dorian/aeolian (and it's usually dorian). If your ear doesn't tell you, you shouldn't be there.

[SpaceNorman]

Unlike many of the forumites here - I'm NOT a school trained musician. Over the years however, I've listened to tons of debate like this ... and have concluded that these sorts of debates are essentially "chicken and egg" type arguments. As long as YOU have a framework that YOU use to keep YOUR approach to a given song's structure straight in your head - it's the RIGHT approach for you! I see the only advantage to being able to define a given song's structure using multple frameworks - is the be able to better understand how the musician standing next to you thinks in the hopes that you'll be able to better communicate with them.

 

[theGman]

If you play live in a band, and a song is in A Minor, and you want to hear it played properly, just say "A Minor", and all is well. The musicians will fill in the blanks.

 

[yannis D]

unless you're an ancien greek musician, a song in the key of c means that the song's scale is c major (or minor)

 

[JeffLearman]

Unlike many of the forumites here - I'm NOT a school trained musician. Over the years however, I've listened to tons of debate like this ... and have concluded that these sorts of debates are essentially "chicken and egg" type arguments. As long as YOU have a framework that YOU use to keep YOUR approach to a given song's structure straight in your head - it's the RIGHT approach for you! I see the only advantage to being able to define a given song's structure using multple frameworks - is the be able to better understand how the musician standing next to you thinks in the hopes that you'll be able to better communicate with them.

Right, except it's not just YOU, it's you and the people you play with.

[dazzjazz]

This is an example of modal harmony, so, the key is D Dorian.

For comparison, other harmonic styles are Blues, Diatonic, Jazz .

[SpaceNorman]

Right, except it's not just YOU, it's you and the people you play with.

 

I'm not sure I under your point. I'm of the opinion that as long as each person in the band has a framework to keep a given song's structure straight in their head - I don't think it's important that we all use the identical framework (as long as the net results (i.e, the notes we play within our individual frameworks) end up being the same.

 

I'm guessing my next comments may draw smirks from some of the more musically educated forumites. I've worked with guys who've called out chords that included all sorts of what for me were "off the beaten path" tones. I'd have to stop, think, map it to my keyboard ... and then have a "I could have had a V-8!" moment when I realized "Oh, that's just a ____ Chord with a __ in the bass! How important that I think of that chord by what may be a more technically accurate chord name - when my mind is more comfortable thinking of it as an "_____ /___" chord.

 

As long as we all end up in the same place (in terms of the notes/chords we play) - how important is it that the theory we use to organize those notes in our heads be labelled using the identical labels?

 

 

[Joe Muscara]

As long as we all end up in the same place (in terms of the notes/chords we play) - how important is it that the theory we use to organize those notes in our heads be labelled using the identical labels?

 

You're right - to a point. The thing is, getting to that point would be much faster if you all used the same or at least similar methods.

 

If you know six ways of naming a chord but your guitar player only knows two of those, you would tell him one of those two, right?

 

The other day at rehearsal, we were working through this tune that I realized was in Gb. At one point, the bandleader tells us that one of the chords was a B. I realized that was actually wrong, the chord was a Cb, and I said so out loud. Then I said, "but if it's easier for you-all to call it B, go ahead."

 

The point is, if everyone in the band uses the same terminology to learn the tune, they can then think about it in any way they choose. Learning the tune will be much faster if you all use the same terms at the beginning.

[Nillerbabs]

The drummer with whom I play the most, and who is an excellent musician, composes some pretty darn strange music to begin with... and the fact that his way of naming the chord often makes me scratch my head a few times before 'figuring it out' or suggesting that he make a new sheet with chord names that actually fit the harmonic context - or making one myself. He is beginning to take a few piano lessons now, and my hope is that they will give him a better understanding of harmonics, thus making playing his weird music easier. A clear, unambiguous sheet is important!

 

Regarding scales... one of my bands - a couple of years ago, when we were really young, one of our tunes had this cheesy funk groove //: Em7 __ A7 :// thing going on, and although this ridiculously common pattern obviously comes off as dorian and rooted in E, he persistently referred to them as IIm7 and V7 - I was every bit as annoyed every time, because he would just confuse me by bringing these up, not knowing what he was referring to. I know the deal. It's strange, man.

[Sven Golly]

At one point, the bandleader tells us that one of the chords was a B. I realized that was actually wrong, the chord was a Cb, and I said so out loud. Then I said, "but if it's easier for you-all to call it B, go ahead."

 

Did he then turn to you and say "you mean 'all of you', but if it's easier for you to say 'you-all', go ahead."?

 

(I'm hoping the irony of this isn't lost on everyone... )

 

 

[SpaceNorman]

You're right - to a point. The thing is, getting to that point would be much faster if you all used the same or at least similar methods.

 

If you know six ways of naming a chord but your guitar player only knows two of those, you would tell him one of those two, right?

 

....

 

The point is, if everyone in the band uses the same terminology to learn the tune, they can then think about it in any way they choose. Learning the tune will be much faster if you all use the same terms at the beginning.

 

I think we're on the same page. If I know 6 ways of naming a chord by the guitar plays only knows to - I would absolutely express it using terminology I know he understands.

 

I'm also in complete agreement about the benefits of using the same (or at least similar) methods.

 

This sort of brings us full circle ... and back to the point I was trying to make originally - which was essentially, if we all know there are multiple ways of describing a given musical scenario - why do so many players insist on debating which of these descriptions is more right than another when they're both describing the same thing? So much of that debate strikes me as esoteric argument that's purely for the sake of argument.

 

Funny you mention the Cb - B chord thing.... I'm definitely a "B" guy. When it comes to remembering chords, I remember C#'s (not Db's); I remember Eb's (never D#'s), I remember F#'s (never Gb's) ... and it's ALWAYS Ab or Bb (Never G# or A#). Whenever I'm presented with one of my "never" chords - I have to go through a mental translation process that never crosses my mind when I deal with my "remember as" chords.

[drawback]

When you say "scale" you mean "key signature". A minor and C major have the same key signature, but they're different scales since you start a scale with the tonic.

 

IMHO, it makes perfect sense to say "D minor" or "D dorian".

 

Anyway, I agree with BluMunk. But a lot of folks with a lot more credentials than I have would say nope, it's in C -- based on the key signature. This despite classical pieces like Bach's BVW 538, "Toccata and Fugue in D minor", often called "Dorian Toccata and Fuge" (and no, it's not the famous one). Why? I sure don't know; it makes no sense to me.

 

Nashville cats would chart it in C, because that's how they chart stuff. It works well for country music, where even when playing in a minor key, the enharmonic major is right there waiting (and often resolved to).

 

Playing blues, you'd just say "minor" and let the folks figure out dorian/aeolian (and it's usually dorian). If your ear doesn't tell you, you shouldn't be there.

 

The key is the tonal center of the melody.

 

I encountered a situation where a number chart was rooted in "C#" and the first chord of the tune was a 1minor. Actually the tonal center of the song was "E," where the C# is a 6. Talk about needless complexity wrapping your head around that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joe Muscara]

Did he then turn to you and say "you mean 'all of you', but if it's easier for you to say 'you-all', go ahead."?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt010.gif

 

 

This sort of brings us full circle ... and back to the point I was trying to make originally - which was essentially, if we all know there are multiple ways of describing a given musical scenario - why do so many players insist on debating which of these descriptions is more right than another when they're both describing the same thing? So much of that debate strikes me as esoteric argument that's purely for the sake of argument.

 

Funny you mention the Cb - B chord thing.... I'm definitely a "B" guy. When it comes to remembering chords, I remember C#'s (not Db's); I remember Eb's (never D#'s), I remember F#'s (never Gb's) ... and it's ALWAYS Ab or Bb (Never G# or A#). Whenever I'm presented with one of my "never" chords - I have to go through a mental translation process that never crosses my mind when I deal with my "remember as" chords.

Again, you're right, to a point. Some of it *is* esoteric. But, B is not in the key of Gb, Cb is. I've had bandleaders tell me a song's chords as a mix of sharp and flat chords, and that's more than technically incorrect. It makes it harder for me to determine the key of the song. Once I see the chords as all flats or all sharps, it's way easier to know how the chords all relate.

 

At least, that's what works for me. I don't have "never" chords, though I admit to having "huh? Oh yeah, that" chords.

[Moon Zero Two]

sometimes during these kind of conversations my drummer says "this next song is in the key of DRUM".

 

PS - I have never played a Cb in my life. I hope I never do.

[Joe Muscara]

Open yer mind, man!!!!!!

[Rockhouse]

I've had bandleaders tell me a song's chords as a mix of sharp and flat chords, and that's more than technically incorrect.

 

It's rare but it is possible. In a progression of Gm to A, the resulting scale is D Harmonic minor which contains Bb and C#.

 

True, Major scales either contain sharps or flats but not both, minor variants do not follow that law.

 

I'm nitpicking. Sorry.

[Joe Muscara]

I've had bandleaders tell me a song's chords as a mix of sharp and flat chords, and that's more than technically incorrect.

 

It's rare but it is possible. In a progression of Gm to A, the resulting scale is D Harmonic minor which contains Bb and C#.

 

True, Major scales either contain sharps or flats but not both, minor variants do not follow that law.

 

I'm nitpicking. Sorry.

That's okay. Most of the music I get to play in these bands isn't so "complicated." I'm sure you know that was my point of reference above. (IOW, I was dealing with guitar players! )

[MAJUSCULE]

I think the point Joe was trying to make was that the chords of a tune are either sharps or flats. Individual notes can have whatever accidentals they want, but the chart won't have a G# chord and a Bb chord next to each other.

 

Either way, I agree that standardised notation is a very, very good idea. This, however, is a utopia. We can still manage to get pretty close, though. As long as players don't refuse a little minor education, which I find infuriating.

[MuzikTeechur]

Key is Key, Mode is Mode.

 

Best to stick to keys, major and minor. If a song is in G Minor, the musicians will figure it out. If you say "The song is in F Dorian" you'll get a lot of puzzled looks.

There are many ways to describe what you're hearing (or what you want to hear), but accepted practice is far more limited.

"Eleanor Rigby" is an example of a song in Dorian mode, but one would describe it as being in the key of E minor (I think that's the accepted key?). When one hears it, THEN it becomes obvious that it is in Dorian mode.

Don't confuse key and mode. The former is absolute, the latter is taste.

[Rockhouse]

I disagree with the above.

[Sven Golly]

PS - I have never played a Cb in my life.

 

Wanna bet?

[mikecorbett]

Key is Key, Mode is Mode.

....

Don't confuse key and mode. The former is absolute, the latter is taste.

 

This. Major or minor not enough, well its off to jazz school with ya

[Tusker]

Did he then turn to you and say "you mean 'all of you', but if it's easier for you to say 'you-all', go ahead."?

 

 

Of course 'you-all' can be a singular pronoun, when you live in Texas. It's the long version of 'y'all', is both singular and plural. If you are certain you want to go plural the only safe expression is ... (wait for it)

 

'all-y'all'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%27all

 

(I'm hoping the irony of this isn't lost on everyone... )

 

 

Good catch.

[MuzikTeechur]

I disagree with the above.

 

Disagree all you want. I have a whole bookshelf of college textbooks on Theory that say I'm right. I'm not making this stuff up as I go along, you know.

[Theo Verelst]

Most of the "disagreement" probably are due to actual errors when considering classical harmonic theory. I mean taking a single dorian scale in a song to "change the key" probably goes wrong in the dominant 7th department. Isn't it reasonable to at least suggest there are changes in a song, and therefore adaptations to the "main scale". If that means nothing to you, then don't bother trying out songs in strange keys or "modes" because that science is normally pretty accurately defined, and encompasses a whole lot more theory ,thank you very much.

 

[JeffLearman]

Right, except it's not just YOU, it's you and the people you play with.

 

I'm not sure I under your point. I'm of the opinion that as long as each person in the band has a framework to keep a given song's structure straight in their head - I don't think it's important that we all use the identical framework (as long as the net results (i.e, the notes we play within our individual frameworks) end up being the same.

Right, but we also want to be able to communicate with the other musicians.

[JeffLearman]

The key is the tonal center of the melody.

Roger that.

 

The classic case is "Sweet Home Alabama", which I originally learned on Guitar and would have said it was in D, without giving much thought. Later I learned it on piano and was surprised to learn it was (or seemed to be) in G, yet it still resolves to D.

 

Only reading posts on this board did I learn I was (nearly) right the first time: it's in D mixolydian. Aha! Now, THAT makes sense! Not that I'm sure how to spell mixolydian ...

[CEB]

It depends on the transcriber and what key they choose.

 

Do they write out in the Key of G or do they do it the way I would and write in the key of D and place accidental flats on all the 7s.