How to use each key (in case anyone needs help!)

The post clearly reads as such. That much is obvious, despite whatever your intent is. You basically are saying he is wrong or that the way he thinks is wrong.

I barely post in the forum anyway.

That wouldn't make him a liar either way. Therefore, that much is not clear. I don't think Gavin thinks that. Just you? Maybe you have the same problem as James.

That wouldn't make him a liar either way. Therefore, that much is not clear. I don't think Gavin thinks that. Just you? Maybe you have the same problem as James.

It would make him an accidental liar. Something like he isn't telling the truth but he's too dumb to realize it. Regardless of any difference in understanding between the ways i am using the words 'wrong' and 'lies', you asserted that he has replaced truth with crockery.

...You got any proof for this?

It would make him an accidental liar. Something like he isn't telling the truth but he's too dumb to realize it. Regardless of any difference in understanding between the ways i am using the words 'wrong' and 'lies', you asserted that he has replaced truth with crockery.

...You got any proof for this?

Not for you. Dear lawd.

Not for you. Dear lawd.

That would be a no then? Is there some scientific evidence for your grand theory?

Instead of properly addressing questions you shoot off red herrings and decoys, you did that at least twice, can't be bothered to count.

Man up.

I am seriously interested in if you have read literature or whatever that would completely debunk any reasoning James might have, despite any personal contextual surrounding there may be concerning the both of you.

G'night

The post clearly reads as such. That much is obvious, despite whatever your intent is. You basically are saying he is wrong or that the way he thinks is wrong.

I barely post in the forum anyway.

I have to ask...

Are you retarded?

I've already explained points 5 and 6, in that you and Corbin both took the point too literally but as for the spelling, it can be spelled both ways, can it not?

Sure, but then you'd have to spell aesthetic without an A.

synaesthesia Look up synaesthesia at Dictionary.com

"sensation in one part of the body produced by stimulus in another," 1891, from Mod.L., from Gk. syn- "together" + stem aisthe- "to feel, perceive." Also of the senses.

You can spell aesthetic as "esthetic" but uuhhh I wouldn't recommend it.

That would be a no then? Is there some scientific evidence for your grand theory?

Instead of properly addressing questions you shoot off red herrings and decoys.

Man up.

G'night

I have no grand theories. Lack of opnion isn't an opnion. I refrain from talking to you because you lack sense, English, and the name James. Bye. Hopefully sleep will make you make more sense. Less might be more in your case.

I have no grand theories. Lack of opnion isn't an opnion. I refrain from talking to you because you lack sense, English, and the name James. Bye. Hopefully sleep will make you make more sense. Less might be more in your case.

That doesn't really cut it, and I definitely don't lack sense. You are an intelligent being but you are full of hot air. I was ready to have some kind of interesting discussion but you fling volleys of decoys. It is just pompous and arrogant, Corbin. I find that part of your personality to be a great shame. There is definitely a great deal of ignorance inside you.

Anyway... :w00t:

G'night.

That doesn't really cut it, and I definitely don't lack sense. You are an intelligent being but you are full of hot air. I was ready to have some kind of interesting discussion but you fling volleys of decoys. It is just pompous and arrogant, Corbin. I find that part of your personality to be a great shame. There is definitely a great deal of ignorance inside you.

Anyway... :w00t:

G'night.

Bwahaha. You don't know me, nor are you read on me. Goodnight.

I'm not "wrong" about anything here, nor am I a liar, intentionally or out of naivety. These are things people assume about me when they don't realise I am simply a reactionist of sorts. Obviously, not many people like reactionaries that much.

I'm not "wrong" about anything here, nor am I a liar, intentionally or out of naivety. These are things people assume about me when they don't realise I am simply a reactionist of sorts. Obviously, not many people like reactionaries that much.

I'm glad you're not a liar. I would never call you a liar. I appreciate when you clarify and all sorts of other things. Keep reacting.

In all seriousness, someone COULD take that hilarious list for real and treat the keys that way in modern-time, but the thing is, who the hell is writing in strictly equal tempered keys anymore? If you're writing in keys, you can use non-equal temperament and really get that F# major to sound jarring and C major to sound totally boxy, much more interesting and meaningful that way.

But then again, all of that is so flexible that you can tune for just intervals on F# and have C major should jarring and horrible. I don't see the problem in this case. The problem only shows up when people think keys have special attributes out of wishful thinking rather than anything actually demonstrably THERE, as is the case with equal temperament transpositions.

Hell, if you HAVE to assign something to keys, try werckmeister III or just intonation, something that gives different keys different properties, then we'll talk.

I <3 my Werckmeister tuning. My Clavinova happened to have it as an available preset and I use it for my Bach. The fact that I actually bother to do this could probably explain a lot about why I am on the side of this argument that I am. :ermm:

I think people with perfect pitch may say that each note isn't just like every other note with a different frequency and tuning. On the same note(punny), vocalists will specifically tell you each key is not the same, because in each voice, each note has a different feel. Some vocalists have pitch recognition simply by recognizing where in their voice a pitch lies. I realize that the article more than likely referred to piano(though it doesn't say that specifically). But when perhaps you want to hum along with the melody of a piece, suddenly, each key could be perceived vocally. That's all random speculation though.

I do feel that every key has a different feeling, and that each feeling can be internally sensed when listening to a piece, however, I don't believe that the feelings are concrete and thus should mean the same to each person. I think that if you played a song for someone and they'd never heard the song before, and you played it in a different key than it was originally written, I think they would have a different opinion of the song than if they'd heard it in the original key the first time. Whether you played it on piano, or with a singer who could handle the register change, or if you transposed an entire orchestra, it would sound different.

Well yea, different registers sound different in different instruments, but this has less to do with the actual frequencies/etc and more with the instruments. The intonation may be the same for a flute across all registers, but a key that places it in a lower register has a different sound by virtue of the register.

Well yea, different registers sound different in different instruments, but this has less to do with the actual frequencies/etc and more with the instruments. The intonation may be the same for a flute across all registers, but a key that places it in a lower register has a different sound by virtue of the register.

Well, if every instrument sounds different in a different register, then it is reasonable to say that an orchestra, or any size ensemble would sound one way playing a piece in one key than they would if the same players/instruments played the same piece and an entirely different key, as an ensemble...

In which case, the theory of each key having it's own sound is not so absurd.

Well, if every instrument sounds different in a different register, then it is reasonable to say that an orchestra, or any size ensemble would sound one way playing a piece in one key than they would if the same players/instruments played the same piece and an entirely different key, as an ensemble...

In which case, the theory of each key having it's own sound is not so absurd.

It's still negligible, since the scales themselves have no difference and only what changes is the instruments. If the different scales are close together (C to C#) it won't matter since that's not enough to significantly change the register.

It doesn't really justify the whole thing, since C major in different octaves sounds different as well which shoots the point of C having "one character" or sounding "in one way."

And while it may for various reasons sound somewhat different (if we -are- talking about such small differences), this is still a very minor effect in contrast to a huge number of other musical parameters, which may be much less controlled. (Say the actual dynamic level of a "piano" passage in a concert hall which will change a lot from performer to performer and hall to hall, and may have a much greater effect on how the piece is perceived by the audience than a semitone difference in pitch.)

So while, no doubt, there always are some acoustical differences depending on the key, I seriously doubt that:

I think that if you played a song for someone and they'd never heard the song before, and you played it in a different key than it was originally written, I think they would have a different opinion of the song than if they'd heard it in the original key the first time.

If you asked such a person after the concert to give you a verbal description of the piece and how they felt about it, I'm very sure that this would be pretty much identical than if the piece was played in a somewhat different key. Because there are many other aspects of the piece which are generally so much more striking (the relative pitch contours, rhythms, colours, gestures, volumes, densities, etc.) and will stand out as the actually defining elements to most listeners of a piece they have never heard before.

Sure, if they have heard a piece 100 times before, some minor aspects may become more audible and more important to them, but if you hear something completely new the first time, you generally just aren't aware of every fine nuance.

Keys are just tools, not a dictation of feeling. Screwdrivers don't make me cry... but stabbing a dog in the heart with a screwdriver would make me cry. The screwdriver obviously doesn't make feelings. Any tool in music is the same way. A viola is not a dark or sad instrument. In context, yes... but the same is true for anything in music.

And then what about computers? Pure sinewaves at any register... I doubt THAT kind of instrumentation is going to leave anyone with any sort of fundamental or natural feelings. Perception doesn't dictate rule either. That's why this whole deal with what 6/10 people commenting on this thread are saying is bogus. Go read a paper on psychoacoustics and get back to me. Music cognition is pretty amazing. 16 year old (or 20 somethings that act like them) philosophers, with their WIDE range of experiences... well don't make me laugh.

My "non-opnion" shouldn't make you butt hurt.. but if it does.. sowwwwwwy. I'm an asshole, that isn't new. Now get your facts straight. Kthx.

Keys are just tools, not a dictation of feeling. Screwdrivers don't make me cry... but stabbing a dog in the heart with a screwdriver would make me cry. The screwdriver obviously doesn't make feelings. Any tool in music is the same way. A viola is not a dark or sad instrument. In context, yes... but the same is true for anything in music.

Yep, that pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I totally back up YC26's words.

There are way too many boring quasi- (or even worse: pseudo-) philosophical threads around that are really of no use.

I totally back up YC26's words.

There are way too many boring quasi- (or even worse: pseudo-) philosophical threads around that are really of no use.

You know this thread was originally a joke, right?

...lol.

I totally back up YC26's words.

There are way too many boring quasi- (or even worse: pseudo-) philosophical threads around that are really of no use.

Besides this being a troll/Joke, if you don't like the threads, don't participate/look/post in them. Easy solution!

My post isn't a joke, I am serious.

Also, I wouldn't say the thread is a joke. It is OMJ (One More Joke). I propose this abbreviation for future use, which would save bytes, time and energy.

Finally, I don't remember where I said I dislike the thread. And even if I did, this is not enough to make me an egotist that is reluctant to share his opinion with others, even if it matches others' opinions.

My post isn't a joke, I am serious.

Also, I wouldn't say the thread is a joke. It is OMJ (One More Joke). I propose this abbreviation for future use, which would save bytes, time and energy.

lolwut

I propose the following

The American Medical Association's Diagnostic Manual of Scales and their Effects on Human Health

Scales as excellent Diuretics

Ionian

Aeolian

HypoMixolydian

Prometheus

Recommended dosage - 6, 30 second exposures at least 12 hours apart

Scales Excellent for Reducing LDL Cholesterol

D minor

C major

Phrygian

Algerian nine note scales (except when starting tone is E double flat - this may raise LDL and has shown to form liver malignancies when mixed with Dorian)

Recommended Dosage - Once a day in an acoustically live bathroom for at least 15 minutes.

Scales that successfully treat Bulemia

Locrain

B flat minor

Recommended Dose - At a decibel of 90 or higher, 4 - 5 second blasts 3 times a day

All other scales have not shown conclusive evidence of their medical worth in tests Some pending research shows listening to every possible Key and Mode and Artificial scale 20 minutes a day may have a similar effect as mutlivitamin supplements. As with multivitamins, do not administer keys/modes/artificial scales to children under 4 or pregnant women. Consult a doctor and music theoretician to ensure you administer the correct scale and the correct dosage.