Hi all,

I had a reference (music book I believe) that I checked out of the library several years ago. In it, it had a list of different keys and their mood/feeling related to how each key sounds.

Does anyone have a reference like this. I guess what I'm looking for is what keys sound mello, happy/bright, scary, etc...

Thanks,
JB

Generally speaking, I guess you could say that major keys sound happy while minor keys sound sad. But it all depends in which context they're used.

Cool.

That helps. The one I had, listed each key signature and had a description for it. I think a few overlapped, but in general, they were all different, even if it was just by a bit.

Thanks again,
JB

If you are looking for a sad sounding key, it is my understanding that D minor is the saddest in most musical circles.

Affective key characteristics from Christian Schubart's Ideen zu einer Aesthetik der Tonkunst (1806), Translated by Rita Steblin in A History of Key Characteristics in the 18th and Early 19th Centuries. UMI Research Press (1983).

C major Completely Pure. Its character is: innocence, simplicity, naïvety, children's talk.

C minor Declaration of love and at the same time the lament of unhappy love. All languishing, longing, sighing of the love-sick soul lies in this key.

Db major A leering key, degenerating into grief and rapture. It cannot laugh, but it can smile; it cannot howl, but it can at least grimace its crying.--Consequently only unusual characters and feelings can be brought out in this key.

D major The key of triumph, of Hallejuahs, of war-cries, of victory-rejoicing. Thus, the inviting symphonies, the marches, holiday songs and heaven-rejoicing choruses are set in this key.

D minor Melancholy womanliness, the spleen and humours brood.

D# minor Feelings of the anxiety of the soul's deepest distress, of brooding despair, of blackest depresssion, of the most gloomy condition of the soul. Every fear, every hesitation of the shuddering heart, breathes out of horrible

D# minor. If ghosts could speak, their speech would approximate this key.

Eb major The key of love, of devotion, of intimate conversation with God.

E major Noisy shouts of joy, laughing pleasure and not yet complete, full delight lies in E Major.

F major Complaisance & calm.

F minor Deep depression, funereal lament, groans of misery and longing for the grave.

F# major Triumph over difficulty, free sigh of relief utered when hurdles are surmounted; echo of a soul which has fiercely struggled and finally conquered lies in all uses of this key.

F# minor A gloomy key: it tugs at passion as a dog biting a dress. Resentment and discontent are its language.

G major Everything rustic, idyllic and lyrical, every calm and satisfied passion, every tender gratitude for true friendship and faithful love,--in a word every gentle and peaceful emotion of the heart is correctly expressed by this key.

G minor Discontent, uneasiness, worry about a failed scheme; bad-tempered gnashing of teeth; in a word: resentment and dislike.

Ab major Key of the grave. Death, grave, putrefaction, judgment, eternity lie in its radius.

Ab minor Grumbler, heart squeezed until it suffocates; wailing lament, difficult struggle; in a word, the color of this key is everything struggling with difficulty.

A major This key includes declarations of innocent love, satisfaction with one's state of affairs; hope of seeing one's beloved again when parting; youthful cheerfulness and trust in God.

A minor Pious womanliness and tenderness of character.

Bb major Cheerful love, clear conscience, hope aspiration for a better world.

Bb minor A quaint creature, often dressed in the garment of night. It is somewhat surly and very seldom takes on a pleasant countenance. Mocking God and the world; discontented with itself and with everything; preparation for suicide sounds in this key.

B major Strongly coloured, announcing wild passions, composed from the most glaring coulors. Anger, rage, jealousy, fury, despair and every burden of the heart lies in its sphere.

B minor This is as it were the key of patience, of calm awaiting ones's fate and of submission to divine dispensation.
http://www.library.yale.edu/~mkoth/keychar.htm

hope this helps

That's real cool, thanks for the link

Sweetness! That's a great reference!

Thanks very much! Did you google that? I tried using terms I knew of, but obviously, I didn't use the right ones.

I guess that's why the first songs I've written have been in D, E and A. (That and having open strings for fuller sounding chords, I suppose :cool: )

JB

no problem, yeah just a lil google work somtimes i just get lucky

EDIT: here is my search incase you are wondering
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=key+signature+%2B+emotion

Thanks again!
JB

Just so you know, a lot of folks don't believe in that stuff at all. It's far from being any kind of established musical "fact."

Just so you know, a lot of folks don't believe in that stuff at all. It's far from being any kind of established musical "fact."
Yep. IMO, that list is a load of hooey -- and full of enharmonic "***'s". For instance, the use of D#. Who plays in D#? That's just assinine. 6 sharps and a double sharp, when you could play in Eb -- 3 flats. A complete reading nightmare.

That said, it's a sad composer who can only express certain emotions in their "corresponding" keys. Yes, something might sound best in a certain key (the guys on the DB side seem to rail against bassists playing the Bach Cello Suites at anything other than written pitch) but that list is ridiculous.

its not a reference for musicians , its for ballerinas and an assortment of other tossers.

its not a reference for musicians , its for ballerinas and an assortment of other tossers.
Drum roll, anyone? :D

Yep. IMO, that list is a load of hooey -- and full of enharmonic "***'s". For instance, the use of D#. Who plays in D#? That's just assinine. 6 sharps and a double sharp, when you could play in Eb -- 3 flats. A complete reading nightmare.

That said, it's a sad composer who can only express certain emotions in their "corresponding" keys. Yes, something might sound best in a certain key (the guys on the DB side seem to rail against bassists playing the Bach Cello Suites at anything other than written pitch) but that list is ridiculous.

That attitude is particularly funny as applied to Bach, who seemingly had no problem reworking and transposing his own stuff to different keys for different purposes. For instance, the Sinfonia to Cantata 29, in D, is basically the same piece as the Prelude to the 4th Lute Suite, in E. Of the great composers, Bach is probably the one for whom transposition to a non-original key matters *least*, if at all.

Em- Metallica.

A minor- How I feel when taking a large dookie.

C major- I am prancing into the sunset with my basses. Then we snuggle in the moonlight. I caress the strings softly, and I move my hand down and softly put my finger into the input jack and... ohh.. uhh.. yeah.. C major's happy.

That attitude is particularly funny as applied to Bach, who seemingly had no problem reworking and transposing his own stuff to different keys for different purposes. For instance, the Sinfonia to Cantata 29, in D, is basically the same piece as the Prelude to the 4th Lute Suite, in E. Of the great composers, Bach is probably the one for whom transposition to a non-original key matters *least*, if at all.
My guess would be that the BGers consider the cello suites to be valuable position studies when played at pitch, but I really have no clue.

Thanks for the additional info.

I'm a little slow this morning, so please excuse the rather dumb questions, but I am curious about some stuff.

So, using a specific key does not help a certain mood or whatever come across better?

I'm just trying to understand the 'against' or 'hooey' argument here. Not trying to start a debate by any means, just trying to understand.

Thanks,
JB

So, using a specific key does not help a certain mood or whatever come across better?



No one, to my knowledge, has ever convincingly shown that it does, so IMHO the whole argument is nonsense. A claim that has nothing to back it up isn't worth taking seriously. The burden of proof would be on those trying to show that keys are associated with moods, not on those who think this is "hooey."

The stuff silent method posted from 1803 or whatever seemed self-evidently ridiculous to me. I couldn't read it without laughing. I mean, A minor signifying "pious womanliness"? Please! Really more the stuff of Spinal Tap, as stretchcat may have been suggesting.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever convincingly shown that it does, so IMHO the whole argument is nonsense. A claim that has nothing to back it up isn't worth taking seriously. The burden of proof would be on those trying to show that keys are associated with moods, not on those who think this is "hooey."

The stuff silent method posted from 1803 or whatever seemed self-evidently ridiculous to me. I couldn't read it without laughing. I mean, A minor signifying "pious womanliness"? Please! Really more the stuff of Spinal Tap, as stretchcat may have been suggesting.
lol i totally agree, i really dont think there is much to this, i just posted it cause he asked for it

lol i totally agree, i really dont think there is much to this, i just posted it cause he asked for it

I figured that.:cool:

No one, to my knowledge, has ever convincingly shown that it does, so IMHO the whole argument is nonsense. A claim that has nothing to back it up isn't worth taking seriously. The burden of proof would be on those trying to show that keys are associated with moods, not on those who think this is "hooey."

The stuff silent method posted from 1803 or whatever seemed self-evidently ridiculous to me. I couldn't read it without laughing. I mean, A minor signifying "pious womanliness"? Please! Really more the stuff of Spinal Tap, as stretchcat may have been suggesting.
I am not sure that many here care much about this issue, really, but you have to remember what music was played on in 1806 to understand this. 1806 was not only pre-CBS but a little pre-Fender. On the instruments of the time, which regularly included natural (no valves) horns and woodwinds with far fewer keys than modern instruments have, different keys did sound different. A lot of this is explained by differences in intonation between instruments whose natural keys contain conflicting overtone structures. That this does not apply in quite the same way to your instruments does not mean it is laughable or deserves the scoffing which seems the order of the day here.

Another way to look at this is to think about the intonation problems fretted basses and guitars have. Buzz Feinten tuning, fretlesses, basses with non-intonation-adjusting piezo bridges, they all have their problems in certain keys, if you listen carefully. Get together your band, spend about 30 years playing the same instruments, apply your value system to describing the flavors of each key, and I bet you would come up with something which would be true for you and would be equally laughable to future readers.

My 2c.

Richard,

Thanks for the info. I tend to agree a little more with you and others now after reading that stuff a little more. I guess maybe the way it's worded seems a little 'eh', but I don't know.

I remember coming across this stuff several years ago and thought it was pretty interesting.

SilentMethod, thanks again for the legwork in getting that info.

I guess moods and stuff pretty much come from different chord tones and combos, then.

JB

Richard,

Thanks for the info. I tend to agree a little more with you and others now after reading that stuff a little more. I guess maybe the way it's worded seems a little 'eh', but I don't know.

I remember coming across this stuff several years ago and thought it was pretty interesting.

SilentMethod, thanks again for the legwork in getting that info.

I guess moods and stuff pretty much come from different chord tones and combos, then.

JB
hey no problem man, i thought it was actually pretty interesting as well if not factual atleast somthing to think about eh

I am not sure that many here care much about this issue, really, but you have to remember what music was played on in 1806 to understand this. 1806 was not only pre-CBS but a little pre-Fender. On the instruments of the time, which regularly included natural (no valves) horns and woodwinds with far fewer keys than modern instruments have, different keys did sound different. A lot of this is explained by differences in intonation between instruments whose natural keys contain conflicting overtone structures. That this does not apply in quite the same way to your instruments does not mean it is laughable or deserves the scoffing which seems the order of the day here.

Another way to look at this is to think about the intonation problems fretted basses and guitars have. Buzz Feinten tuning, fretlesses, basses with non-intonation-adjusting piezo bridges, they all have their problems in certain keys, if you listen carefully. Get together your band, spend about 30 years playing the same instruments, apply your value system to describing the flavors of each key, and I bet you would come up with something which would be true for you and would be equally laughable to future readers.

My 2c.

I'm quite aware of what you're talking about, but I still think that list is laughable, for two reasons. First, it's unconvincing even in its own terms. Clearly what's being described are not attributes of the music itself but of certain cultural associations that the writer is making, and we don't even know from this how widely those associations were shared at the time. Second, the list was presented by the author as if these qualities were absolute or innate, and if our feelings about keys have changed over time, that shows that those qualities are in fact neither absolute nor innate.

Of course if I came up with that kind of "value system" to describe the flavors of each key, future readers would find it laughable. That's exactly why I don't think it's worth doing or would have any meaning! Any such effort would be so hopelessly bound to my own presumptions and experiences that it would have no chance of describing anything inherent in the music.

Frankly, I chalk the whole thing up to bad 18th/19th century science.;) Don't for one second think I'm equating these two things in seriousness, but as bad science, it's not totally unlike the way 18th and 19th century racial theorists tried to ascribe essential qualities to the different "races" of humanity (whose number they couldn't even agree on, but that's a whole other kettle of fish....).

I still think that list is laughable, for two reasons. First, it's unconvincing even in its own terms. Clearly what's being described are not attributes of the music itself but of certain cultural associations that the writer is making, and we don't even know from this how widely those associations were shared at the time. Second, the list was presented by the author as if these qualities were absolute or innate, and if our feelings about keys have changed over time, that shows that those qualities are in fact neither absolute nor innate.
You're right, of course. Maybe the qualities were inate, in a sense, in the orchestra of the time, but certainly not applicable even to a modern orchestra.
Any such effort would be so hopelessly bound to my own presumptions and experiences that it would have no chance of describing anything inherent in the music.
Whether it would be hopeless or not would be "in the pudding" after it was done. Time moved slower in 1806, I think, too. Worth the time? Not perhaps in 2005 minutes. I don't know about "no chance of describing anything" worthwhile. Might be an interesting task.
Frankly, I chalk the whole thing up to bad 18th/19th century science.;) Don't for one second think I'm equating these two things in seriousness, but as bad science, it's not totally unlike the way 18th and 19th century racial theorists tried to ascribe essential qualities to the different "races" of humanity (whose number they couldn't even agree on, but that's a whole other kettle of fish....).
I'm with you there, except... This was not science, but I suspect better understood in the context of romantic music and literature as based in emotion in opposition to reason. Poetry, not prose, and as such reflecting cultural values we now find objectionable. An interesting modern parallel is Messiaen's notion of harmonies in certain keys being colored. "That's a green chord." Same orchestral context (ignoring the organ for the moment) and an attempt, perhaps, to describe similar effects in another way. And, certainly not science.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. Hope someone other than me finds it interesting.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. Hope someone other than me finds it interesting.

:cool:

If I remember correctly, Bach was a strong proponent of even-tempered tuning, so it makes sense that he was fine with transposing the keys of his work. Even-tempered tuning was specifically designed to make that as pleasant-sounding as possible.

Before even-tempered tuning, different keys actually did sound different because the intervals in any two keys (of the same type, like C major and D major) were actually slightly different.

Even-tempered tuning evens that out (at the slight expense of the keys that sounded best in natural tuning).

Aside from "major keys sound happy and minor keys sound sad", I don't think there is much of a correlation between key and emotion.

I would look more towards the emotional content of chords and more importantly certain chord progressions.

Frankly, I chalk the whole thing up to bad 18th/19th century science.;)

In the 18th and 19th centuries, tha science wasn't "bad". It was the science they had developed.

100 years from now folks will be ridiculing what we believe to be scientific "facts" too. ;)

In the 18th and 19th centuries, tha science wasn't "bad". It was the science they had developed.

100 years from now folks will be ridiculing what we believe to be scientific "facts" too. ;)

Amen to that statement. Recently the ceaslessly fascinating web site newscience.com posted "Thirteen Inexplicable Facts." To me it seemed that in order to explain some of the thirteen puzzles, we would have to turn some of our currently lauded thinking especially in physics on its heels. Can you imagine how scientists in 2105 or 2205 will regard our naive notions?

Amen to that statement. Recently the ceaslessly fascinating web site newscience.com posted "Thirteen Inexplicable Facts." To me it seemed that in order to explain some of the thirteen puzzles, we would have to turn some of our currently lauded thinking especially in physics on its heels. Can you imagine how scientists in 2105 or 2205 will regard our naive notions?

All that would prove is that some of our own current science is "bad" too. Which should surprise no one.

But to be clear, what I mean by bad science is not science that comes to wrong conclusions. It's hard to get the right answer if you can't get all the facts. A lot of things we now know to be factually incorrect were, in their time, brilliant conjectures on the basis of what was know, or unknown, at the time.

What I mean by bad science is science that was wronger than it had to be. That is, science that wasn't even the best possible at the time--things that could have been, and often were, seen to be wrong even back in the day. Like the various absurd racial theories.

And course in years to come, we will be seen to have our share of that too.;)