Klarinet Archive - Posting 000296.txt from 2003/06

From: Dan Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Keys and their character
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:31:20 -0400

Are you serious??? To you really think that the emotional
characteristic of the blues comes from the key in which the performers
are playing???

It's the text!!! He or she has lost a loved one. Or someone died at the
St. James Infirmary. Or his dog or truck or money has been stolen. Or,
in a more serious vein, such as "Strange Fruit," black men hang from
trees and no one does much about it. That is the emotion that is being
described to you. It touches your innermost intellect by text, not by
the choice of key.

I have now explained to you the Blues, as you requested.

Bill Semple wrote:
> Then, Dan, explain to me the Blues.
>
> William T. Semple
> Office: 202-364-2466
> Home: 540-364-4823
> Cell: 540-903-6645
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Leeson" <leeson0@-----.net>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [kl] Keys and their character
>
>
>
>>Well for one thing, "f-minor" describes a mode of the key of A-flat
>>major. And there is not one bloody thing of sadness built into that (or
>>any) minor mode. Some of Bachs most joyous music is in the minor mode,
>>and Mendelssohn's octet has a spritely, happy, joyous scherzo in the
>>minor mode. So your coments about composers writing in f-minor for some
>>emotional value have no substance, representing opinion and not
>>supported by giving any facts.
>>
>>While it was believed for ever so long that each key had a particular
>>emotional characteristic to it, your saying that it is true
>>(particularly with respect to people with a well trained ear) does not
>>make it so. Why is it so? Simply contradicting me does not establish a
>>viable argument.
>>
>>Cite a single technical reason that establishes unequivocally that every
>>(or any) key has a particular emotion inherently contained in it, and
>>I'll give up the argument. But you are going to find it difficult to do
>>that because the only articles on the subject assume that the statement
>>about keys and emotions is true, and without the necessity to prove it.
>>
>>Of course, you are correct when you suggest that there are historical
>>precedents for writing in various keys, but that had nothing to do with
>>the emotions supposed contained in them. It was simply to avoid boredom
>>of hearing the same key over and over again. Even in the classic
>>period, the keys of the various movements were selected to be compatible
>>with one another, with certain keys "not chaining." So one hears a key
>>for the first movement and the a related key (4th or 5th higher) for the
>>next and so on. To have one movement in C and the next in D and the
>>next in E would be unheard of.
>>
>>So before you suggest that I am full of doo-doo, give me some facts
>>about why your assertion is true, not opinions based on romantic ideas
>>that keys carried emotions and which have NEVER been shown to be the case.
>>
>>The way argumentation works is this: a statement is said to be true (as
>>you are saying). Someone opposes the idea (as I have done). That person
>>doesn't have to do anything except say, "Prove it." For you to take the
>>position that something is true requires you to make a factual
>>contribution to the argument and, so far, I have not seen it from you.
>>That business about Mozart "tapping into history" when he wrote in
>>f-minor is not history or fact. It is your opinion. He also wrote in a
>>pile of other keys, too, and except for principles of "chaining of
>>keys," there is no way to explain why any key was selected.
>>
>>Dan Leeson
>>
>>Brash, Alexander wrote:
>>
>>>I disagree. While it IS true that we can't say that certain keys have a
>>>definite personality, after all for hundreds of years there was no
>>>standardization of pitch (ie Mozart's A vs Bach's A vs our A), and even
>>>differences in pitch from region to region, Mr. Leeson ignroes the fact
>>
> that
>
>>>there are historical precendents for writing in certain keys. When
>>>Mendelsohn, for example, chose to write his f-minor string quartet in
>>>f-minor, just following the death of his sister Fanny, he knew full well
>>
> the
>
>>>implications of that key as one of introspection and sadness. Mendelsohn
>>
> was
>
>>>fully aware of when Bach CHOSE to write in f minor, when Mozart, and
>>>especially Beethoven in the string quartets, CHOSE to write in f minor.
>>
> He
>
>>>was tapping into this history when he wrote his string quartet in f
>>
> minor,
>
>>>consciously or not. The fact that these associations may be contrived is
>>>irrelevant, they still exist, and have been built through three hundred
>>>years of history. We have imbued certain keys with certain meanings,
>>
> it's
>
>>>just a fact.
>>>Also, talk to anyone with and an extremely trained ear, or someone
>>>with absolute pitch and/or synthesisia. They'll most likely tell you
>>
> that
>
>>>the keys have different associations for them.
>>> Also consider the fact that string timbre actually does sound
>>>different across different keys. A and E are "bright" because of the
>>
> open
>
>>>strings, which, although not used as much in performance today, were
>>>certainly a much larger part of the performance practice from Bach to
>>>Mendelsohn (combine this with the fact that most string sections in
>>>orchestra played WITHOUT vibrato, in some cases up until Brahms' time),
>>
> and
>
>>>keys will indeed sound "brighter" or darker.
>>>So there you go, I hope that's something put forward other than
>>>opinion. And if you disagree, that's just fine, but I'll continue to
>>
> believe
>
>>>my nonsense happily.
>>>
>>>Alexander Michael Brash
>>>Education Dept, New York Philharmonic
>>>10 Lincoln Center Plaza, 5th Floor
>>>
>>>phone (212) 875 - 5735
>>>cell (646) 284 - 0439
>>>email brasha@-----.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Dan Leeson [mailto:leeson0@-----.net]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:21 AM
>>>To: klarinet@-----.org
>>>Subject: [kl] Keys and their character
>>>
>>>The idea that each key had its own personality (with A and E being
>>>bright) and D-flat, G-flat being serious (or whatever), is another
>>>romantic assertion that doesn't have a leg to stand on. There has never
>>>been anything put forward (other than opinion) that would allow any
>>>thinking person to believe such nonsense.
>>>
>>>It is true that, prior to the days of the tempered scale, keys did have
>>>specific characteristics because untempered tuning produced some weird
>>>situations, particularly with keyboard instruments, but the idea that E
>>>major (for example) is a key that produces brighter music (whatever the
>>>hell that means) than C major is something that was believed and spoken
>>>of in Victorian ballrooms, and had about as much sense as their sex
>>>practices.
>>>
>>>It is nothing more than another impossibly silly idea on top of the
>>>10,000 silly ideas we have about music, playing it, composing for it,
>>>and speaking about it, falling into the same category of blow out, dark
>>>sounds, how to find the best piece, and which instrument is inherently
>>>superior.
>>>
>>>And for Anne Lenoir waking up in Colorado, I am sorry that my inquiry
>>>about what was so bright about E major caused you morning distress.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>***************************
>>**Dan Leeson **
>>**leeson0@-----.net **
>>***************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/
>
>

--
***************************
**Dan Leeson **
**leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/