Talk:Key signature

7+sharps/flats, Modes

The article explains that the seven-sharp and seven-flat key signatures are rare but they have nonetheless been used. Why have they? Also, the article doesn't explain how modes play into the whole thing. I would imagine that F lydian uses the same key signature as C major, right?

--Furrykef 05:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to explain here: Lets assume that a large scale piece is "in A major". If a section of that piece takes place on the mediant, and is in major, it would "correctly" be notated in C# major, with seven sharps. However, this is fairly rare, and more rare still considering subsidary key areas are often not notated with a change of key signature and that this change could be notated or enharmonically ("incorrectly") as Db major. Hyacinth 20:55, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

There may also be more mundane reasons; the Bach prelude and fugue cited in the article, for example, is notated in C sharp major rather than D flat major because (if I remember rightly) Bach took an old piece he had written in C major and just stuck seven sharps in the key signature to put it in the required key - much easier than re-notating the whole thing in D flat major.

Incidentally (a bit off-topic this), I've been looking at Chopin's mazurkas for fun, and noticed that in Opus 6, No. 2, there is a passage which is notated in G sharp major - eight sharps, that is, seven sharps and then F sharp again making F double sharp. This happens because G sharp major is the dominant parallel major of the piece's home key, C sharp minor. Of course, this isn't expressed in a key signature, but it's sort of interesting anyway, I think. --Camembert

Proposed outline

1. Intro: In music and musical notation, a key signature is a series of sharps or flats placed on the musical staff.
2. Indicates:
   1. A key signature indicates which notes or pitches are to be played one semitone sharp or flat. The "standard" against which notes are raised or lowered are the natural or white keys of the musical keyboard.
   2. Despite being called the "signature" of a "key", or tonic, it does not indicate, by itself, the Key, mode, or scale. However, if one knowns the key or tonic and the key signature then one can deduce the scale or mode.
   3. Accidentals are flat, sharp, or natural signs outside of a key signature. They may appear throughout a score. These override the key signature for the duration of the bar they occur in. Thus a written F, in key signature with F#, will be played F# unless it has an accidental natural sign immediately preceding it and any written Fs in that octave will be played as F#s until the next measure.
   4. During a modulation or change of key, the key may be temporarily different than the one still indicated by the key signature, or the key signature may change also.
3. History
4. Purpose: The purpose of key signatures is to avoid having to write sharps and/or flats before every note which would require one. The lines and spaces of the musical staff represent the white keys of a piano. This represents the C major and A minor scales and all modes beginning on the appropriate pitches. However, if one wishes to write in another scale, such as G major, one would need to write a sharp sign before each F that one used. Rather than do this, a key signature consisting of one sharp on the line for F, is added to the beginning of the score. Thus key signatures are a convenience of notation in tonal music, but are less usual and thus less frequently found in atonal music.
5. Design
   1. Standard:
      1. Key signatures are generally written immediately after the clef at the beginning of a line of musical notation, although they can appear in other parts of a musical score.
      2. They contain only sharps or flats and only in the order of the circle of fifths
   2. Non-standard: Nonstandard key signatures not included in the chart below are sometimes used by composers. One example being the key signature to Frederic Rzewski's song "God to a Hungry Child" (lyrics by Langston Hughes), which features Bb, Eb, and an F# in one key signature but which starts in the key of D with a D major chord.
6. misc: from F to B, the set of notes used in C Major or A Minor scale.

list of songs?

Perhaps someone should include in the articles for each key a list of songs or pieces in it? I know some do but it's not ocmprehensive enough.

That's not very logical. Most songs can be arranged in various keys by various arrangers. Look in a few songbooks that you think have at least one song in common. Look up the song in each songbook. Are they in the same key?? If the answer is yes, then try either another song or a third songbook with the same song. Georgia guy 00:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is is logical!! List the songs in the recorded keys beside the artist who made it most popular. This would be an excellent resource to vocalist and music teachers who are trying to teach Guitar or Recorder to elementary kids (my situation) and you are limited on time and what they can retain. A list like this would allows folks like myself to teach a tune with A D E to 3rd through 5th grade class on the open strings of the Guitar. Since music is one of the biggest problems in public school being worked into the schedule reasonably, we are forced to utilize as many tricks as we can to improve retention, attention and cover the National Music Standards all at once.

Mr. Kreston Smith Munford Elementary Munford TN

Bartlett Music Academy and Store CEO and Private Teacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.168.5 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-diatonic key signatures

Anyone know of a widely used non-diatonic key signature not in the table?? Georgia guy 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Freygish key signatures are non-diatonic, although some musicians trained in "standard" western music prefer to see Klezmer music written in a familiar diatonic key signature with accidentals throughout the piece. The key of A Freygish, for example, may be written with one flat (B) and one sharp (C), but not all music notation programs support this. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Key signature with 1 flat in

I am trying to arrange a piece of music using the music software Sibelius, and am having trouble with the key signature. The music shows a key signature with a G flat in. I was wondering if anyone knew the name of this signature so I could enter it in Sibelius? Thanks! Hawk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.31.38 (talk • contribs) 23:36, July 8, 2006

Well, a key signatre with one flat has to be B. G-flat is the fifth flat in key signature order. Georgia guy 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Late response, but a B flat on a bass staff could look like a G flat to someone automatically assuming G-clef note placement. Noteworthy Composer allows "custom" key signatures. I haven't found a way to get GNU Lilypond to do that. __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, the OP didn't identify the clef. The key sig chart shows the treble clef only, so would it be possible to answer the question by reading the article? --Jtir (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with diligence. Clef is linked in the lead, as it was in July of 2006. The Relation of signature to key section now shows (although it didn't back then) key signatures with two flats, B and E, on a grand staff with both clefs.

(I'm probably not the only person who has missed seeing an alto clef, and wound up playing more or less a minor second seventh away from where it's supposed to go, mindlessly assuming it was a treble staff.) __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you added a sentence about notation software in addition to the example image. Why isn't there a clef in the the Freygish example? ISTM, the article is still a bit POV wrt to clefs, but I guess you don't need to be told that. :-) --Jtir (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing clef? Not any more... no problem limiting the presentation to treble clef, since that's the one most folks are most familiar with. We're not here to educate the reader exhaustively on every page; there are links, for those who care to follow them. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with this sentence

"...if you see a piece with a one-sharp key signature,
you cannot be certain it is in G major."

The composition will be in either G major or E minor. Of course it may fleetingly move elsewhere, but if it were not principally in G maj or E min it would have a different key signature.

Relative major / Relative minor, could be better explained on this page.

If the piece is tonal it will will be composed around a tonic note, which is G if major, E if minor or some other note for other mode.

Karl 10 July 08:35 UT

Karl, it seems you have little experience with Baroque music, where the key signature often doesn't match the tonality. Many pieces with two flats are in C minor, with the A-flats added as accidentals throughout. Bach's famous Dorian toccata is in D minor with no key signature (here, too, the B flats are present as accidentals). One can find examples like this as late as Haydn. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here in the 21st century we have a living tradition of fiddle tunes, with new ones still being composed, sometimes even written down on treble staves. One sharp? Most probably G major, or E minor, or D mixy, or A dorian, until the next mode comes along. It's not uncommon to see tunes such as Flop-Eared Mule in two key signatures, one each for the A and B parts (1st & 2nd turns, or strains) or a tune like Da New-Rigged Ship which starts somewhere around A major and finishes in the neighborhood of A minor, unless I'm thinking of a different one... __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And similarly (though this is really a better example), if you see a piece with no key signature, it doesn't have to be in C major or A minor: it could be in another key, and the key signature is omitted for some other reason (e.g. it modulates very frequently, such as Mozart's K.475 Fantasia). Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(Or, even more obviously, it could simply be atonal.) Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Exotic key signatures

We really should include a section on modes expressed through key signatures (e.g. D flat and A flat = ahavo-rabo mode) and acknowledge that these exist. Amber388 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is an exotic key signature?? Georgia guy 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The most common definition seems to be a key signature that cannot designate a major key (assuming of course that the key signature is correct for the key). (I don't say minor key, because a key signature with only G♯ might reasonably be deemed to designate the key of A minor.) Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"In-between" key signatures

How do you decide the key signature of a piece tuned between e.g. C and C-sharp? (Well, to be pedantic, a piece tuned a quarter-tone over C...) 85.228.206.181 12:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because key signatures only affect the 12 notes of the scale. You're discussing an issue of tuning, which key signatures have little control over. You could either simply notate in C major and make a note that the instrument should be tuned a quarter tone sharp, or you could make really unnecessary use of the quarter- and smaller-tone notations mentioned in the microtonality article. Amber388 16:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This probably won't answer your question, but the Accidental article has some quarter-tone examples. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Semitones"

The start of the page says that a key signature denotes that each note is played a semitone higher or lower. This is inaccurate, a key signature shows that a note is played one half step higher or lower, not a semitone (quarter step). 72.70.158.183 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Dan

I think you're confusing US notation with British: semitone is correct, half-step is American. — Gareth Hughes 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in America, a semitone and a half step are two different things. A semitone is a quarter step, located between two half steps (i.e., the pitch between C and C#). I asked my music theory teacher about this, and she confirmed the difference. 72.95.15.198 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Dan

Not to speak for all Americans, but I've always been under the impression that a semitone and a half-step are the same thing. See any number of American-English dictionaries on the matter for confirmation. I believe you are confusing the word semitone with smaller tonal subdivisions, such as those found in microtonal music. 71.199.186.236 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My 1965 Merriam Webster's presents 'half-step' as a synonym for 'semitone'. However, the only relevant definition of half-step in the same dictionary is "the pitch interval between any two adjacent keys on a keyboard instrument --- called also semitone". That said, I have always been taught that a half-step has the size of the interval between B and C, namely one-twelfth of an octave.CountMacula (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Key signature graphics

Who deleted the key signature graphics? unsigned comment by User:71.174.72.72 —Wahoofive (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't know what that comment means, I wonder why the article doesn't start with an example of a key signature. Instead, the first graphic is a B major scale. Even in the second graphic, there's really no explanation describing what part of the graphic is the key signature. It would be great to have a key signature example with the key signature in red to emphasize it. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is well again...

The comment was posted because, for a time, several of the images were missing.

Now they are back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.71.23.54 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Key signature characteristics of 430Hz tuning?

I am curious about which pitches Christian Schubart actually heard when writing of characteristics for each key signature. Modern musicians hear A to be 440 or higher, but the standard tuning of most keyboard instruments of Schubart's time (1806) was around 430. If so, would these characteristics be best heard when centered around 430, or are the characteristics "transposable"?

I'd say this is in the ear of the listener; various writers throughout history have made associations between various keys and various emotions, and they haven't agreed much. But part of our feelings for various keys stems from associations with music that we've heard in that key. For example, music in D major historically tends to be majestic and triumphant, music in F major tends to be more pastoral (or Christmas carols), etc. These are just historical associations based on the literature and have nothing to do with pitch level, although in some cases the "feel" of a key comes from the fact that string instruments play with more open strings in some keys. This factor would be transposable. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"For any number of sharps, take the last sharp and go up one semitone to get the (major) key."

This turned out to be wrong so I changed it to whole tone. It's not helpful when you are trying to learn this stuff and wikipedia tells you things like this :P WikiLlama 15:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Semitone is correct. For example, in the key signature with 3 sharps, the last sharp is G♯, and you go up a semitone from G♯ to A, not a whole tone from G♯ to A♯. Georgia guy 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realised my mistake, thanks anyway. WikiLlama 15:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I added an example to make it clearer. WikiLlama 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Accidental (music)

See the discussion at Talk:Accidental (music)#Inflections vs accidentals concerning the definition of "accidental" and its relation to sharp and flat signs and key signatures. Hyacinth (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

example showing a key sig following a double bar

This article could use a sheet music example showing a key sig following a double bar. This image does that, but it seems a bit large for the purpose. --Jtir (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It could also use an example showing key sigs with other clefs in modern notation (I'm not sure if the Victoria example could be called modern.) Such an image would fit nicely in the lead. --Jtir (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Tone

Is this just me, or does this article sound less like and article and more like a how-to guide, with all the mnemonics etc? Fairweather01 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just you. It doesn't read well at all and is misleadingly inconsistent in places. I'll try and get around to tidying up some of it. I've already deleted a raft of rather silly "my favourite" mnemonics, which weren't even in the section called 'Mnemonics". Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten one section. I hope that is an improvement, especially with the inline "circle of fifths" diagram. There is doubtless room for further improvement. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Table of Keys

I've added Table of Keys, which I believe is valuable as it clearly shows all the key signatures with appropriate changes in sharps and flats. I'm not sure about the name of the section, however. I've settled for Table of Keys but maybe some other name would be more appropriate. Feel free to post any thoughts about the table. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 04:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't all of this information already provided in the circle of fifths diagram earlier? TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. However, I presented it in an alternative layout, which in my opinion, may be considered easier to read and/or memorise. There is another table similar to this one here, which presents yet another alternative approach but is fairly basic for obvious, article-related reasons. I do believe that the table I included is valuable to the article. However, if this is not the case from an objective point of view, I'll be happy to participate in a discussion about it. My one and only concern is improving this article and Wikipedia. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 05:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your preference for the table and we have the same goal, I think. I am not fundamentally opposed to the table. However, I believe the circle of fifths historically is used since it indicates not only the relationship between each key signature's keys, but also the intervallic relationship of neighboring keys in the circle. This is not as apparent in a table presentation... IMHO the student of music would be better off understanding the relationship of keys rather than simply memorizing signatures & related keys by rote. Perhaps a more prominent presentation of the circle is in order but that's neither here nor there TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that the Circle of Fifths is much more valuable. I am in no way undermining it (I would be an idiot if I did). I simply added an alternative layout to help in memorising the signatures. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 08:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Layout Improvements

I've made a number of layout improvements and edits. I believe the article is much clearer now and simply looks better. The most important changes are:

• Increased size of the Circle of Fifths picture. It is the most important part of the article and should be more prominent.
• Addition of the new section Memorising Key Signatures as providing an alternative key signatures table is supposed to help in exactly that. Mnemonics sub-section also fits this aim perfectly. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 08:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in external link

Reference 2 at the bottom of the page, when the page is viewed in Print format, includes extraneous material which prevents the page from printing correctly. My editing skills aren't good enough to fix this. Could someone with better skills than mine fix this?RegT (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd notation in article

Why are flats notated as question-marks in the article text? In some places sharps also appear as question-marks, making the text very confusing to read.

Also, the Circle of Fifths chart shows that F# is equivalent to Gb, but it fails to show the enharmonic correcpondences for Cb/B and C#/Db. ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.241.2 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of style (music)#Accidentals.

The chart does show the enharmonic equivalence between B & C flat and D flat & C sharp in their key signatures, to the right and left (counterclockwise and clockwise, respectively) of G flat & F sharp, but then quits demonstrating enharmonic equivalence. The circle of fifths chart doesn't show the equivalence between C double-sharp & D or G triple-flat & E. It would get overloading with examples and one wouldn't be able to see the pattern in the three examples provided (just counting major keys). Hyacinth (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you seeing question marks in the article or just when you edit the page? If the former is the case please supply information about which browser, version, and operating system that you are using. --dbolton (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing to CM/Am

The article's good.

Suggested improvement - show how key signatures of naturals are used to change from the current key to CM/Am during a piece of music. Don't need to give examples of all sigs. I'd do it, but don't have any software to make the graphics.

Kevgermany (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Image added under Relationship between key signature and key. Hyacinth (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, but how about this:

Showing a key signature change from a key with more sharps/flats to a key with fewer sharps/flats (the choice matters; it cannot be a change from sharps to flats or flats to sharps.) Specifically, whether a change from D major to G major key signature is written:

C natural, F sharp

or

F sharp, C natural

I've seen this kind of change written in both ways. Georgia guy (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How popular??

How popular is it for certain composers to put sharps or flats in octaves other than the standard locations?? For your info, check out:

http://www.guitarland.com/Music10/MusFund/Maj_Key_Sig/MajKeySig.html

and look at the info on where the sharps or flats are placed. A few Wikipedia articles say that the standard rules mentioned on that page are occasionally violated by certain composers. Specifically, check out info in G major, B major, and C-flat major. They reveal that certain composers violate the rules on where to place the sharps or flats. Georgia guy (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how popular this is. If I remember correctly, Robert Schumann fudged around with B major (bass clef A♯ up an octave from now), and Charles-Valentin Alkan fudged around with all the sharp key signatures (treble clef F♯, G♯ down an octave from now, bass clef A♯, B♯ up an octave from now). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It was pretty common in the Baroque and earlier, when music notation wasn't as standardized as it is today. Sometimes an accidental would be placed in more than one octave. Look at this Bach manuscript and note the F# is present in both octaves on every staff. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Feel" of Key Signatures

In each of the articles about individual key signatures, there is something about the mood or feel that the key signature creates. Maybe there should be something in the article about that. E-sub-n (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Why does a composer decide to write in a particular key? What is there that makes the difference? Surely, any discussion or article should deal with this aspect, otherwise why not write everything in the simple key of C Major or A Minor with no accidentals? JohnClarknew (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what Nigel Tufnel may have led you to believe, D minor is not a particularly sad key. It is a convenient key on the violin in its standard tuning, and according to its WIkipedia article "some consider it the flattest key that is practical for a guitar to play."

Choice of key may depend on the sonority of a particular instrument or instrument family: D major, for example, sits easily on a violin, and "is perhaps the sharpest key that is practical" for the clarinet in B flat. Choice of key will sometimes be influenced by the typical range expected from a vocalist, or may accommodate a particular singer.

Subjective notions of any particular key's "color" or "mood" are subjective. If a notable musician or composer has expressed an opinion about such a thing, it may be encyclopedic to mention it without giving it too much weight. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Different instruments have reasons for favoring certain keys, as you point out. But the question really applies to keyboard instruments, think piano. Why did Mozart, for example, write his pieces in different specific keys? What is the motivation. Sure, it "sounds better", but why? The article should deal with this somewhere. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In Mozart's time, equal-tempered tuning of keyboards was a recent invention, not yet universally adopted. See Duffin, Ross (2006) How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care) W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0393062279. Modern pianos are mis-tuned to a homogenized system that allows modulation to any key without producing wolf fifths. An unfortunate effect of this "enhancement" is a departure from true harmonic relations between notes. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this the subject of this section of the talk page:

Nope, it is tangential, but illustrates the difficulty with assigning subjective qualities to "a key signature," made more complicated by variablity of instrumentation. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Play a song twice, first in the key of G major, then in E-flat major. Compare how each version of the song sounds. To me, G major sounds like a "daytime" key; while E-flat major is more "nighttime". (If this example of a problem is not the subject of this section, please illustrate a problem that is.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That may depend on the instrument you choose to play it on. If it is a piano, it may well depend on its current state of tuning. In any case, that would be original research, not suitable for the article space.

For a possibly encyclopedic example, the D major page says "Scriabin considered D major to be golden in color..." No doubt there are many other such opinions to be found. It might even make sense to collect them in a page of their own, if anyone feels like doing that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the feel of different keys, rather than their key signatures (which are notational conventions)? Hyacinth (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it could be some of both. When I see a piece in F♯ major, I feel it to be slightly more "daytime" (following Georgia guy) than if it were notated in G♭ major, despite this making absolutely no difference in sound today... Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes absolutely no difference in sound today? If it made a difference in the past, shouldn't it be the same now? Or have all people suddenly gone deaf?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because in the past due to non-equal temperaments (e.g. 1/4-comma) F-sharp and G-flat might not sound the same? Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that non-equal temperaments sound differently today than they did in the past? I don't buy this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's just that typically we use equal temperament (or a close approximation, I suppose) today, which wasn't always true. Double sharp (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we? There is a street singer who improvises, unaccompanied, two or three days a week on a corner I pass on my way home from work. As far as I can tell, he cannot read music, but he always sings in exactly the same set of keys: C pentatonic minor, B-flat major, and G minor. Is he thinking in equal temperament? I doubt he even knows what it is, and the intervals he actually sings are not equal-tempered ones. Why does he always sing in the same keys? I should ask him some day, but I will bet it is because that is the pitch at which his voice feels the most comfortable. How do I know what keys he sings in? I don't possess "perfect pitch", as it is usually understood, but I know where my voice "feels the most comfortable", and I can feel my singing muscles react when I hear this guy sing (this is sometimes called "muscle memory"). This has got quite a lot to do with the "feel of keys" (as opposed to "key signatures, perhaps), and is what ancient Greek authors like Ptolemy mean by tonoi, in the sense of "transposition levels". Keyboardists, understandably, tend to make a lot of assumptions about tunings that singers, string players, and in fact most other non-keyboarding musicians do not. Our theory books tend to be written from a keyboard point of view, and so the (often useful) baggage of equal temperament comes along with it. When we are in the midst of a performance, these theoretical assumptions go out the window. We just sing or play pitches where our ears tell us they should be—unless, of course, we are playing a pre-tuned instrument like a piano or xylophone, or are playing along with one of these instruments in a passage where matching their pitches is important. Under such conditions, no doubt we non-keyboardists must use some "close approximation", but how close is "close"? Justly intoned fourths and fifths are not very far off of equal-tempered ones; thirds and sixths deviate more, but still may be regarded as "close", depending on context and how they are measured.

Was it formerly not the case that "a close approximation" of equal temperament was used as a frame of reference? I'm not so sure of this as you seem to be. Aristoxenus, in the fourth century BC, describes scales in terms of "approximately equal" intervals of tones, semitones, and quarter tones. He does not formally (mathematically) define equal temperament, of course, but the concept of "a whole step is a whole step" and "a semitone is a semitone", within practical limits is certainly present. I don't know of any earlier evidence one way or the other about how musicians thought about their scales in performance—as opposed to the problems of tuning a lyre or similar instrument. Tunings and musical scales (or keys) are certainly related, but they are not identical things.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Optical illusion

I notice an optical illusion in the sharp key signature images. The sharps on lines look thinner than the sharps on the spaces. Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Too technical

Why and where is this article too technical? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Four months have passed since that banner promising specifics was put up, and I see nothing at all. It looks like a drive-by to me, so I am removing it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Examine this sentence:

However, the connection is not absolute; a piece with a one-sharp key signature is not necessarily in the key of G major, and likewise, a piece in G major may not always be written with a one-sharp key signature.

This sentence is found in the article. Any common reasons for this?? Here's an example:

I was using Musipedia to search for the melody of "Parade of the Wooden Soldiers"; specifically the first few notes:

The toy shop door is locked up tight and everything is quiet for the night

The arrangement of the result I got was in C major, but they put in the G major key signature, putting a natural sign on the F that goes with the word "locked" and in the phrase "quiet for"; the notes G-F♯-F♮ were written, which is correct, but the F♯ was written without a sharp sign because they gave it the G major key signature even though the true key is C major. Is it common for songs (arrangements of songs already written; not necessarily songs newly written) to have the wrong key signature?? The sentence being discussed definitely needs a lot of attention, especially by someone who can give common reasons for this. Georgia guy (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Historically, the reason is that key signatures were invented before the concept of "key" was developed; the signatures were created as a convenient shorthand for notation, not because they were intended to convey anything about the music. I suspect that key-oriented names for the signatures, such as "G major signature" (as opposed to descriptive terms like "one-sharp signature" were a 19th-century (or even 20th) development, although I've never seen any documentation for this.

However, in the case you cite it's probably just incompetence on the part of the person who created the transposition. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, how frequently do you see arrangements of songs that are written in C major using the G major key signature?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mnemonics

The mnemonics are getting out of hand. It's become an attraction for creativity and not encyclopedic. WikiHow is for stuff like that. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Are any of those mnemonics even mentioned in the source for the first one? If not, then they are also all original research. I'd say delete the lot of them—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Did it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Need For Key Signatures

I'm a poor writer, so feel free to edit for grammer, etc., but I suggest the article should state something along these lines at the very beginning: Musical notation uses a set of horizontal lines with spaces between them, called the staff, to indicate the correct pitch to be played by placing a marker, called a note, on the appropriate line or space. The staff would be too large and difficult to read if it had a line or space for every pitch so the staff that's used has fewer lines and spaces but accomodates the extra, homeless, pitches by using symbols, called sharps and flats, to indicate a given note on the staff is to be a pitch that is not indicated normally by the line or space it's on. When a piece of music routinely uses these homeless pitches that require sharps or flats on given lines or spaces, it is more convenient to place the sharps or flats on the proper places at the beginning of the score and save the trouble of placing them everywhere they would otherwise be needed. The collection of sharps or flats at the beginning of the score is called a key signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklmnopqrst (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Table images

The images of staves indicating key signatures (in the "Table" section) are inconsistently sized and proportioned. I reduced the size of the recently added ones (8 sharps/flats), but they're in a different format from the others. I'm hoping someone fluent with the graphics involved can sort this out. - Special-T (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Neological names of the 15 key signatures

The neological names of the 15 clavisignatures (key signatures) are;

1: "Zeroaccident"/"zeroalteration": Zero sharp and zero flat;

2: "Heptadiesis"/"sevensharp" and "fiveflat"/"pentabemol": Seven sharps and five flats

3: "Didiesis"/"twosharp": Two sharps;

4: "Threeflat"/"tribemol": Three flats;

5: "Foursharp"/"tetradiesis": Four sharps;

6: "Monobemol"/"oneflat": one flat;

7: "Hexadiesis"/"sixsharp" and "hexabemol"/"sixflat": Six sharps and six flats;

8: "Monodiesis"/"onesharp": One sharp;

9: "Fourflat"/"tetrabemol": Four flats;

10: "Threesharp"/"tridiesis": Three sharps;

11: "Dibemol"/"twoflat": Two flats;

12: "Fivesharp"/"pentadiesis" and "heptabemol"/"sevenflat": Five sharps and seven flats.

189.50.182.128 (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Pitch classes

The following passage appears in the lede: "Each symbol applies to all notes in the same pitch class—for example, a flat on the third line of the treble staff (as in the diagram) indicates that all notes appearing as Bs are played as B-flats. This convention was not universal until the late Baroque and early Classical period..."

While it's true that some earlier signatures contain accidentals in more than one octave, I don't think it was ever the case that the key signature didn't apply to all octaves — a sharp on the top line of the treble staff also applied to the bottom space since the inception of signatures. Unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, I'm going to rewrite this to make it clearer.

Also, the term "pitch class" is unnecessary technical jargon. I'll remove that too. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The description that follows the section you quoted doesn't really address the "applies to all pitch classes" issue anyway - it just says that some older notation might put (e.g.) an F# on the bottom space *and* the top line of treble clef. Doesn't say anything about the F an octave above or below those. And it's uncited, so, yeah, I think that can go. I don't think "pitch class" is too bad, though, especially with a link. I get your point but I'd be inclined to leave it (and maybe expand someone's music knowledge with a simple click). - Special-T (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Especially with a link, "pitch class" fits perfectly with the notion that "sharps or flats in the key signature apply in all octaves" without being overly technical jargon. I favor keeping it. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I decided to take out the reference to signatures with accidentals on multiple octaves, since it's not part of standard notation; such historical rarities don't really deserve to be in the lede (it's mentioned lower down under "Earlier notation styles"). I also, despite your pushback, took out the reference to pitch classes (although you can re-add it if you really want), partly because it's not really accurate: B flat and A sharp are the same pitch class, but B flat and the B an octave above or below are different classes. The signature changes the pitch class of the affected notes, but this seems overly burdensome to have to explain. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the complicating factor of enharmonic equivalence, whereby A-sharps and B-flats are in the same pitch class. So I'm OK with taking that out. One of the difficulties of writing clearly about this kind of thing is that 'note', 'pitch' etc. can mean the written note on the page, or the audible note (more like 'pitch'). I've done a lot of editing of similar articles (flat, sharp, natural, accidental, enharmonic equivalence, transposing instruments, etc.) and clarity is hard to achieve. So I lean towards simpler & clearer, even if it leaves out some interesting ideas. - Special-T (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)