Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Question about minor keys

Some of you managed to elaborate on my actual question. But I think I'll have to clarify:

I know how the natural minor scale relates to it's relative major and vice versa. You can make up so called modal scales based on other degrees on the diatonic scale; three of these contain a minor third as one of their intervals between the root note and the third note.

All of these examples refer to the Aeolian mode, the natural minor scale.
- In the book Scales, intervals, keys, triads, rhythm and meter by John Clough, he illustrates the series(same as the circle, but not a circle; but a line) of fifths in the "minor" keys after the major one.
- A lot of members are talking on here how they are learning the circle of fifths for the minor keys.
- On the wikipedia page showcasing the Well Tempered Clavier by Bach, it says "He gave the title to a book of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys", note the mention of "minor keys".

^point of this is simply showcasing the focus on the natural minor scale by some people, instead of simply mentioning it's major relative.

I am not talking about the harmonic or melodic minor scales.

Considering that we use the natural major scale(Ionian mode) as our "base" scale or whatever, I find it weird that anyone would mention a key signature by it's natural minor relative.

I know that the quality of the sound of each scale differs, but so does all the modal scales. Why is it that the natural minor scale that is 3 semitones down from the major scale gets so much attention relative to the other modes?

I'd understand it's would be good to learn the circle of fifths(for the sake of piano playing) if there are different fingerings(even though they are the same key and contain the same tones) starting on either scale. But then why aren't we learning the circle of fifths for all the other scales you can create from the diatonic scale?

Edit: I appreciate all of your efforts to help me though

The only keys we have are major and minor keys. They are not major and minor scales, they are major and minor keys. Scales and keys are not the same thing. Unless I misunderstood.

Good explanation. It makes sense with the modulation thing, but then why are we leaving out all other modal scales(as they also contain "different sounds"?

To me it would make more sense by only utilizing the "base" scale that we already have, the major scale or Ionic mode. And then you would simply visualize the minor scale along with all the other modes whilst still referring the major scale.

As for the melodic and harmonic minor scales though; wouldn't it make more sense to still refer to the major scale and write the accidentals where they are supposed to be without referring to the natural minor?

I guess my question could come down to: why do we have minor keys when we could just refer to the major key with the same notes?
You gave an explanation about modulation in one of your other posts, but then why the natural minor scale instead of say, the Phrygian mode/scale?

I would think the reason is this:

The major scale pattern is different from the minor scale pattern; and in addition has a different feel and sound to it.


Function- , I think the modes are more aural and “ancient” and hard to learn without knowledge of notation and of the “base scale”.
Music creation and composition, at least I’ve read, was pretty well limited, previous to the learning of notes and scales (not modes) .

It’s not , because to recreate the composition, you would need to know if was a relative minor to use the correct final base note . Otherwise you would have to figure it out by “ear”.

Keystring, I think this might be the exact answer to the OPs question. However, when you say the only "keys" we have, do you mean the only key signatures? So for example, the key signature with no sharps or flats is either C major or A natural minor. All the other un-natural minors and modes require accidentals on top of the these two key signatures. (Please note, this is really a question, not an answer because I share the OPs confusion.)

We have two types of KEYS: major keys and minor keys (example: C major, A minor, both having the same key signature).

We have many kinds of SCALES. Typically we learn to play harmonic minor, melodic minor, and natural minor scales. We tend to learn them around the same time that we play music in minor keys, so I think the two concepts get mixed up. There is no such thing as a "melodic minor" key, for example.

I'm thinking that they way it's presented also creates a confusion. Typically it starts with the idea of C major scale, the A natural minor scale being like C major a third below, and then key signatures are explained via scales. I think this creates a false association, where we mix up scales and keys. (Never thought of it before).

So (thinking about it).
Western music is an interlocking structure, somewhat like we have hearts and lungs, and the circulatory and respiratory systems work together while being separate: they intermesh. The Western music has tonality, structures of harmony (chords that move somewhere). It took a many hundreds of years to develop.

In our system we tend to have music that is based on a major key, where the tonic also starts off a major scale of you play from degree 1 to degree 7 diatonically - or minor. We have the typical diatonic notes of that key. The SIGNATURE for the KEY then ensures that we play those diatonic notes, so that we don't have to use accidentals all over the place. Within the music itself we can and do digress to non-diatonic notes that aren't part of the signature. Music in a minor key will have more accidentals, because of the melodic minor and harmonic minor, which are standard in minor keys, but the signature doesn't allow for it.

The system we have is cobbled together by history. We went from modal music with no concept of chords or harmony, and not the idea of tonality (as a loose expression) that exists now, to what we have now. (And music has moved on from there as well). One thing grew from the other.

(wrote too much (sigh) )

It's set up this way to help musicians make sense of actual music. Try playing Greensleeves (aka What Child Is This) and you will quickly discover that often, but not always, you need to raise the sixth and seventh degrees of the scale. Starting on A, you'll need a fair number of F#s and G#s, and also quite a few G naturals. And C won't sound like the home note, A will. So it's useful to think about an A minor key distinct from C major, and it's convenient to learn a couple different scale patterns to get used to navigating the shifting sharps at the top of the scale.

Sure, you could learn Greensleeves pretending it is in C major but you'd have to deal with the presence of frequent sharps, not to mention E major chords, which don't normally go with C major.

As for the Phrygian mode etc., it makes sense to think that way if you're playing music structured in that way. People do write in the other modes (Bartok) but not as often as major and minor.

Any scale degree could be the center of tonality, can't they(I guess that what the teachings of modal scales insinuate)?

There's no such thing as writing too much.


Yes, I can see if it somehow implies that there is more frequent use of the accidentals that characterize the other minor scales then I can see the point.

But still, I personally would prefer to only have to bother with major signatures. From what I've read, it seems like more of a tradition thing.

Why?

1. No.
2. Don't go by what you read. Go by what you hear and what you play. Understanding comes from experience. Otherwise all you have is intellectual knowledge from reading things, and that is not how music works.

You can limit yourself to playing music in major keys if you want to. There's plenty available. Seems a silly restriction to place on oneself though.

Silly, and also severely limiting. Much and even most of the greatest piano repertoire is written in minor keys.

Considering you can express any diatonic collection of notes(key) with a major signature, I fail to see the importance of expressing them in another way.

I'm not experienced, so maybe understanding will come in time



My point wasn't to restrict myself to play pieces that which have been written on paper with a minor key signature. I meant that I'll simply think of the given key as C major instead of A minor. Maybe I expressed myself weird....

A "major" signature?

There are only 15 possible key signatures from seven flats to seven sharps, less than the number of letters in the alphabet, and each signifies just one major key or one minor key. A brief perusal of the score will show up any sharpened seventh suggesting the minor key and the harmonies should make it pretty clear which is being used.

If you're playing in three flats and the first few B's are naturals then you're probably in C minor, if the first accidentals are A naturals you've probably just moved from E flat major to the dominant B flat. If the first slew of accidentals chop and change from bar to bar it's probably just chromaticism.

And when you've lighted upon the key, at least until your theory has caught up, what difference does it make what key you're thinking of? Our notation system accommodates but seven letter names and it's a very practical thing to know which of those seven notes will default to the black keys and which will be white. Whether the piece is in major or minor has little immediate consequence.

I already figured out that you did not intend to restrict yourself to music in major keys, but rather relate to major key signatures in some ways. So in other words, if a piece is in A major, you will think of it as being in C major.

Music is sound within context, which gives it meaning. Right now you have intellectual facts gleaned from a lot of reading and study. On the basis of the facts that you learned, what you write makes sense. You've gone at it backwards, and you have to get at the other side of it. (Trying to bridge the gap in the next paragraph)

About major and minor keys: I don't know where your hearing is at presently. This is something that evolves. When you hear a piece of music, can you hear that it is major or minor? Ditto for when you play it (assuming you are at a playing stage). Does your ear get a sense of the Tonic - meaning the "home base note" that the music wants to settle on? These are essential things that give the music meaning and direction for the listener. As you become an experienced player, these are your orientation, and will also guide how you express the music.

Continuing with the thought: A piece in C major will settle on C as the Tonic, while a piece in A minor will settle on A - each revolves around the Tonic and your ear will sense it as home base. This alone is a good reason for not thinking of all music that has a key signature of no sharps or flats as being C major - with A minor merely being a modal deviation. Your orientation will suffer (home base).

Continuing again: The scales themselves are not what make a piece be in a major or minor key. Even the fact of the last note in the melody settling on the tonic - that alone does not give us this "A minor feel to the ear" or "C major feel". What DOES do so are chord progressions. The primary thing is the progression of I (IV) V I and even more strongly I (IV) V7 I. Other chords can and do dance around and come in between, but this is the heart of the matter. Music is movement; it moves toward the tonic. Our ear has an expectation to "land on the tonic" because of the way these chords interact. It's almost a chemistry: drop vinegar into milk and it curdles. Milk and vinegar themselves are just two separate things. The non-musician will get the effects of this movement. He won't know why he feels this "settling toward the Tonic" feeling - he just knows that "this is the last note and the music has ended" because it "feels right".

Continuing with the above thought: In C major, your I IV V7 I chords will be C major, F major, G7, C major. In A minor those chords will be A minor, D minor, E7 (the G in the signature is raised to G# which you will see in the music as an accidental), A minor. Note that V7-I which "brings you home to the tonic" in C major are G7-C; while the same thing in A minor are A7-Am. You lose all that if you try to think of the music modally, as you are trying to do, by "considering everything to only be major".

Previously I coined a crude metaphor about the circulatory system and the respiratory system intertwining to make our bodies work, since our hearts pump the oxygen when is fetched by the lungs. Music has intertwining systems that work together to have its effect, and the chord progression along with melody is one of these. If you think of everything as being in major, you lose the chord-part of it. That's just one aspect.

--- In your two hour commute, do you have any way of listening to things, and listening for things? When you are home again, try to include some exploration of what you hear as you practice piano.

Previously I mentioned a kind of core chord progression which moves music to its destination. This funny act brings the point home. Listen for the chords that the comedian plays over and over again while he rambles in the beginning. These are the same chords that he later names for the Canon in D. All of the songs that he whizzes through after that all have the same progression. It is at the heart of a great deal of music we hear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

This one is even better, because we have a cello that really brings out the bass notes of that same progression. The musicians digress to all kinds of other pieces in a more classical style, while that ubiquitous bass line drones on. It makes the point that this is what underlines so much music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4er9XjsrBtw

I didn't think about it when I wrote, but you're right. It doesn't really make much of a difference.



Yes, I am aware of that the tonic is considered "home" and I am aware of the concept of chord progressions and harmony(I haven't really studied it though).

It really makes more sense when we involve the roman numeral analysis method, I didn't think about that. But what if we choose another degree of the C major/A minor key as the "home", like the D tone(dorian)? Has that ever been done or can it be done at all?

Here is the same question formulated in another manner:
In this collection of notes: C D E F G A B, both the 1st and the 6th note can be considered as "home" depending on the tonality.
If I present the tones in another order, like here: A B C D E F G, the 1st and the 3rd note can be considered home, again, depending on tonality. From what I know, most pieces have either a major(Ionic) or minor(Aeolian) tonality(which obviously are expressed in the key signature), what happens if we assign the tonality in this collection of notes to D (which would be Dorian)? Why is this not as common(or is it)? Why haven't any classical pieces been written in D dorian?

Edit: A third way to state the question,
One version for this collection of notes is:
(Major tonality)
C D E F G A B
I II III IV V VI VII

Another is
(Minor tonality)
C D E F G A B
III IV V VI VII I II

So why not:
(using another tone in the diatonic collection of notes as a center of tonality)
C D E F G A B
V VI VII I II III IV

Edit again:Removed irrelevant text.

I see Dorian and Mixylodian modes used a lot in traditional western music - British Isles music mostly for me, and it's transportation to the U.S. I haven't seen one particular way to notate the "key" signature, and in fact, have seen different ways within the same collection of music.

The Fiddler's Fakebook lists the mode in words up above the top staff.

If, for instance, one is in G Mix (like G major, but with an F natural instead of an F sharp) I've seen it notated with one sharp, and then naturals on all the F's, or without a sharp, and one is left to figure out from one's ear that the tonal center is G and not C or A.

I've seen G mixolydian notated with a natural sign inclosed in parenthesis on the F at the top of the treble clef as the "key signature".

There are similar things going on with Dorian.

There's always a trade-off between a tonal center being recognized fairly quickly from the key signature, because we're used to music like that, or one that gets figured out from the way the tune sounds, or one that has lots of accidentals. Well, sometimes lots of accidentals. It happens fairly often that a tune in, say, D Dorian, simply has no "B" notes, flatted or otherwise.

I'm not sure how classical music handles it, tho I know there is some classical music that is "modal" (which is what many musicians who play traditional music say when they want to distinguish a piece as not being major or minor).

It is also true that many traditional tunes don't strictly fit *any* one mode. But if you play it a lot you get used to it

Any of the notes CDEFGABC, or any other collection of notes, can be a "home" or tonic. It depends on what the piece does harmonically. It's just that the major and minor keys are fairly easy to establish a tonal feeling in, harmonically speaking, which is more difficult in, say, EFGABCDE, where the E can easily sound like a leading tone to F, or BCDEFGAB, where there is no perfect fifth. Other natural modes are sometimes used, as well as modes far more exotic.

So, for the collection of notes, CDEFGABC, you can have seven different modes without having to bring in additional tones. It's what you do with the notes that brings about the sense of "key" or "tonality"--whether A minor, C major, or any other mode. Most modes aren't studied by adult beginners since so much of what has been composed has been in major or minor, but feel free to do it--when I practice scales, I tend to do it on every degree.

And feel free to experiment--you can have hundreds of different modes, each with its own particular character. There are symmetrical scales like CDEFGAbBbC or CDEbFGABbC, scales with 8 or more tones. Major and minor are the most common but by no means the only scales you can or should use.