Should a piece be named after the key it begins or ends in?

So, I am currently writing a piece that begins in B minor and ends in E flat minor. I am wondering if, following the "____ in ____" formart, I would call this piece "Ballade in B Minor" or "Ballade in E flat minor." 

By convention, usually it's the key it starts in.

If it were my piece I wouldn't mention the key and maybe come up with some kind of unique naming scheme like a combination of two words that describe it or treat it as a tone poem.  To distinguish it from other pieces that are similar to it you could just slap a "No. 1" to the end of it.

6 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

If it were my piece I wouldn't mention the key and maybe come up with some kind of unique naming scheme like a combination of two words that describe it or treat it as a tone poem.  To distinguish it from other pieces that are similar to it you could just slap a "No. 1" to the end of it.

 

This is it. Have a look at any number of pieces from a set and the key is rarely quoted: Chopin's Studies; Preludes; Liszt's Studies.

More frequent when it concerns large orchestral works like symphonies.

.

Including the key of the piece in the title was done originally in order to disambiguate. When opus numbers were used inconsistently and composers didn't always number their compositions, adding the key helped convey the work you referred to. Many times, nicknames also helped disambiguate cases where 2 pieces had the same key.

That's why we have Schubert's "Great" C major symphony (now known as the 9th symphony, D.944) and his "Little" C major symphony (now known as the 6th symphony, D.589). These names where useful before Schubert's catalog of works was determined and his symphonies numbered.

I think adding the key of your piece to the title is a little superfluous now. If you use a generic title like "symphony" or "quartet", just add a number, and if it's a programmatic title (e.g. idk "Summer Dreams"), then no other qualificative is needed. If you use progressive tonality, naming the key in the title is even more unnecessary.

31 minutes ago, Snake_Cake said:

Including the key of the piece in the title was done originally in order to disambiguate. When opus numbers were used inconsistently and composers didn't always number their compositions, adding the key helped convey the work you referred to. Many times, nicknames also helped disambiguate cases where 2 pieces had the same key.

That's why we have Schubert's "Great" C major symphony (now known as the 9th symphony, D.944) and his "Little" C major symphony (now known as the 6th symphony, D.589). These names where useful before Schubert's catalog of works was determined and his symphonies numbered.

I think adding the key of your piece to the title is a little superfluous now. If you use a generic title like "symphony" or "quartet", just add a number, and if it's a programmatic title (e.g. idk "Summer Dreams"), then no other qualificative is needed. If you use progressive tonality, naming the key in the title is even more unnecessary.

 

thanks. I just haven't come up with a unique name yet lol.