Remote Keys

Anything musical that will not fit into the above fora
Post Reply
M.J.E.

Remote Keys

Post by M.J.E. »

Arjuna wrote:
Timtin wrote:One very effective method of musical torture is to transcribe a simple C major
piano piece into the key of A triple-sharp major. Here's its key signature.
Better yet, skip the key signature and write an accidental for each note.
     I don't know about A triple-sharp major: that's going to be excruciating to read, no matter how it's notated; but if you consider slightly more ordinary but still rather remote keys - like Ab minor, with 7 flats - if I were learning a piece in this key, I would rather read it from a copy with a 7-flat signature than one where there was none, and every flat note was an accidental. And the editor of my edition of Beethoven's piano sonatas changed the 7-flat sections of the Sonata no. 12 in Ab major, Op. 26, to 4 flats, similar to the major-key portions of the work. There is a footnote explaining that it was done for easier reading - which I vehemently disagree with. I think the correct signature is always best for easing the reading as much as possible, no matter how many sharps or flats it has.
     But I have heard that the Finale music notation program can use key signatures of up to 127 sharps or flats. It boggles the mind to think what the designers had in mind when they designed that feature. It might be fair enough to provide a few more than 7 (I have seen a brief passage in an 8-flat key signature (Db minor), and it's quite readable); but 127 seems like a touch of overkill.

Regards, Michael.
Timtin
Pianodeity
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:36 pm
Instruments played, if any: Piano40
Music Scores: Yes
Contact:

Re: Music as torture...

Post by Timtin »

Here's an idea. Instead of us being given yet another
edition of Bach's 48, which includes some relatively
easy preludes and fugues in almost impossible keys,
may I suggest that some bright spark publishes the
complete set transcribed into just 2 easy keys, such
as C major and A minor?
HullandHellandHalifax
Site Admin
Posts: 822
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:19 pm
Instruments played, if any: piano organ harmonium
Music Scores: Yes
Location: Zeist, The Netherlands

Re: Music as torture...

Post by HullandHellandHalifax »

Timtin wrote:Here's an idea. Instead of us being given yet another
edition of Bach's 48, which includes some relatively
easy preludes and fugues in almost impossible keys,
may I suggest that some bright spark publishes the
complete set transcribed into just 2 easy keys, such
as C major and A minor?
and whilst you're at it can we restore the tuning system used so that the pieces are for once in the last 200 years played at the right pitches.
User avatar
fredbucket
Site Admin
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:51 am
Instruments played, if any: Piano, Harpsichord, Organ, Piano Accordian, Button Accordian, Anglo and Duet Concertinas, Oboe, Cor Anglais, 6 & 12 string guitars, 5-string banjo.
Music Scores: Yes
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Extreme key signatures.

Post by fredbucket »

M.J.E. wrote:But I have heard that the Finale music notation program can use key signatures of up to 127 sharps or flats. It boggles the mind to think what the designers had in mind when they designed that feature. It might be fair enough to provide a few more than 7 (I have seen a brief passage in an 8-flat key signature (Db minor), and it's quite readable); but 127 seems like a touch of overkill.
Finale certainly has some weird non-standard key signatures, most of which I do not understand, but I don't think it was ever intended that those limits actually be tested in practice. I suspect it was a matter of saying 'this is how we programme it, and hey, we can go up to 127!!! I bet Sibelius can't do that..."

Sometimes notating a piece can be a torture in itself...

Regards
Fred
User avatar
fredbucket
Site Admin
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:51 am
Instruments played, if any: Piano, Harpsichord, Organ, Piano Accordian, Button Accordian, Anglo and Duet Concertinas, Oboe, Cor Anglais, 6 & 12 string guitars, 5-string banjo.
Music Scores: Yes
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Music as torture...

Post by fredbucket »

HullandHellandHalifax wrote:and whilst you're at it can we restore the tuning system used so that the pieces are for once in the last 200 years played at the right pitches.
For a digital organ or keyboard that's quite straightforward, but I suspect it's not practical for an acoustic instrument. I've had one piano a few years ago tuned to Young 1799, and the difference in sound was quite noticeable, but for modern more atonal (or perhaps keyless) music it's not really on the cards. I worked out an acoustic tuning method for virtually any temperament but given the fact that it takes some hours to tune a modern concert grand _properly_, and also that it takes more than one tuning for the piano to equilibrate into its new temperament, it is obviously not a decision that is taken lightly. So as much as I don't like it, my piano is equal(ish) temperament.

Regards
Fred
M.J.E.

Remote keys.

Post by M.J.E. »

Timtin wrote:Here's an idea. Instead of us being given yet another edition of Bach's 48, which includes some relatively easy preludes and fugues in almost impossible keys, may I suggest that some bright spark publishes the complete set transcribed into just 2 easy keys, such as C major and A minor?
     Well, that would make the music incredibly dull to have everything in just a few keys. Also, you change the feel and sonority of a piece if you transpose it to another key, and I am really never in favour of transposing music to a key other than what the composer wrote it in.
     Not a good idea, I don't think. Music in remote keys is not really inherently difficult to play, as can be seen as a generality if you do the mind experiment of taking an easy-to-play piece in an easy key and transposing it to one of those "difficult" keys. Although the pattern of black and white keys is going to change (with keyboard music), it is not likely in most cases to make the piece hugely more difficult to play from a physical point of view: indeed, if it does change the difficulty somewhat, it it just as likely to make it physically easier as to make it more difficult. In fact, some people have said that keyboard music using more black keys tends to be easier to play than music using mainly white keys. I have heard that Chopin taught beginning piano students the scale of B major first, not C major as would usually be done - presumably for this reason.
     The only difficulty with remote keys comes with trying to read and process those keys, and I would argue that this is mainly due to the fact that one encounters those keys relatively seldom, so many performers are not used to reading music in them. I think the remedy for that is for musicians to practise playing in those keys more, rather than to transpose music written in them to "easier" keys. I would even recommend relatively inexperienced or new performers to play in those keys, and not put everything into the half-dozen or so "easy" keys for them. The ability to read music in all 30 key signatures is, in my opinion, one of the tools of the trade that all musicians ought to have - all key signatures should be firmly fixed in the mind and all should be equally easy to read, if one gets sufficient practice in reading the less-common keys.
     I am a pianist, so I am speaking from that perspective; and I have read that remote keys are more likely to be found in piano music than any other kind. And maybe some keys are genuinely and significantly harder to play in for certain instruments, and the possible techniques far more limited. So I don't know if this view would be fully applicable to all instruments; but I think the principle of it is valid, at least.
     I think different keys have their own feel or atmosphere in some sense, and I would find it rather dull if almost all music were written in keys with no more than (for example) two, or three, sharps or flats. I believe it needlessly limits variety and diversity if certain remote keys are arbitrarily ruled out of consideration most of the time.

Regards, Michael.
User avatar
fredbucket
Site Admin
Posts: 2045
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:51 am
Instruments played, if any: Piano, Harpsichord, Organ, Piano Accordian, Button Accordian, Anglo and Duet Concertinas, Oboe, Cor Anglais, 6 & 12 string guitars, 5-string banjo.
Music Scores: Yes
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Remote keys.

Post by fredbucket »

Astute readers will no doubt recognise that these messages have been hived off into a new thread which is perhaps more on-topic than the previous location. I have no idea who did this.
M.J.E. wrote:I am a pianist, so I am speaking from that perspective; and I have read that remote keys are more likely to be found in piano music than any other kind. And maybe some keys are genuinely and significantly harder to play in for certain instruments, and the possible techniques far more limited. So I don't know if this view would be fully applicable to all instruments; but I think the principle of it is valid, at least.
There is always a balance between ease of reading and comfort of playing. To me, the most difficult key of all to play is C major, for the simple reason that modern pianistic technique as distinct from baroque or rococo technique is much more wristy and percussive. Additionally, there are many examples of pieces made 'easier' by so-called simplification of keys. Two examples that come to mind are Schubert's Impromptu in G flat which is 'simplified into G, and Gottschalk's Le Banjo which I have a copy in F Major from its original F sharp. Both 'simplification' are a damn sight more difficult to play than the originals, and is not helped by the fact that...
M.J.E. wrote:I think different keys have their own feel or atmosphere in some sense, and I would find it rather dull if almost all music were written in keys with no more than (for example) two, or three, sharps or flats. I believe it needlessly limits variety and diversity if certain remote keys are arbitrarily ruled out of consideration most of the time.
One of the aspects of equal temperament as distinct from well temperament is that in the latter keys have much more variation in sound and feel than in the former. Nonetheless, there is really no such thing as 'true' equal temperament - there are still some subtle differences in the way each key sounds as well as the more obvious differences in pitch. Each key still has its own unique sound on the piano. Schubert in G Flat is totally different to Schubert in G, and the same goes for the Gottschalk. Overall, I much prefer keys with flats than keys with sharps, they fit better under my fingers and the sound is richer to my ears.

Regards
Fred
Timtin
Pianodeity
Posts: 2002
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:36 pm
Instruments played, if any: Piano40
Music Scores: Yes
Contact:

Re: Remote Keys

Post by Timtin »

Whilst I wouldn't dare disagree with any of the above observations,
as someone who is tone deaf (and doesn't really understand about
different temperaments (other than happy, sad, relaxed, angry etc.))
and not too keen on sequences of notes containing 3 or more
successive double sharps or flats (the sight of them confuses my
feeble brain), I'd perhaps like to present to the jury exhibit A:-
http://sarahoutloud.com/2012/11/19/quot ... y-c-major/
(A world without the Waldstein Sonata or the 33 Diabelli Variations
would be a poorer place, would it not? So let's not be too unkind to
C major. After all, it's given us far more great piano works than
F sharp major or its aurally identical twin G flat major.)
Post Reply