# Key Signatures in Titles of Classical Works



## Lou Sander (May 11, 2016)

I have little more than a fan's knowledge of classical music. I've wondered for some time why the key signature is so often referenced when a work is mentioned, e.g. "Mass in B".

I've had several answers, but nothing definitive or from an expert. They are:

Certain keys are thought to evoke certain moods
Works are written in certain keys to accommodate the instruments for which they are intended
The key signature helps to differentiate similar works by the same composer

Who knows which of these are valid, and/or has other explanations?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

People differ as to whether there is any real difference between keys (other than major/minor distinctions, obviously), but it is true that composers had their own associations with specific keys.

The second is certainly true. String instruments play well in sharp keys, so you'll find violin concertos are frequently in D, while winds are naturally on the other side and much wind band and marching band music is in B-flat, give or take.

As for the third, it's really more an issue for people doing catalogs than composers themselves. If ideas come to a composer in a specific key, they're not likely going to transpose them simply so that it's not the same as what they've done before. It is more helpful to say "Bruckner's Symphony No. 8" than "Bruckner's C minor Symphony," because he wrote more than one work in that key, but if you say "Bruckner's F minor Symphony," there's only one, and it's technically more correct than calling it the "Symphony No. 00," as some do, because that was never the title of the work by any means.

Speaking as a composer, when a work is written in a key, it's not so much the key signature that is being indicated as the key the work is centered around. Key signatures themselves can change frequently as needed, but there's only one central key (until you get to Mahler/Nielsen, etc.).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I can tell you why I prefer that people include the key when identifying a work. It's just another useful bit of information. It annoys me when people identify Mozart concertos and Beethoven sonatas without including the key and or the opus or Köchel number. More tags makes it easier to retrieve information. And for some, the "A-majorness" of Mozart's K. 488, for example, is a palpable quality of the work.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

What makes me equally confused is the composer's or publisher's habit of including every instrument in the title , so we get something like "Petite symphonie concertante for harp, harpsichord and piano and two string orchestras" by Frank Martin. 

By the time you get that many instruments going it's pretty much an orchestra to the casual listener. I suppose it matters to the organizers of the event, but few listeners are going to say, "Oh, that's the one that doesn't list bassoon in its title. I gotta hear that one!" 

Frankly I'm kind of glad music in more modern times finally started moving away from a lot of these conventions, all these opuses, numbers, key signatures, playing instructions, ensemble descriptions, etc. as part of the title. I'm glad books, most poems, films and paintings have titles one can easily remember.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Key signatures meant more before equal temperament came along. Beethoven very rarely composed anything in B minor; he said it was too sad--so saying Bach's Mass was in B minor really conveyed a mood. Now the only real distinction seems to be between major and minor moods, and the distinction between keys seems to be as extinct as the Phrygian mode.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

gardibolt said:


> Key signatures meant more before equal temperament came along. Beethoven very rarely composed anything in B minor; he said it was too sad--so saying Bach's Mass was in B minor really conveyed a mood. Now the only real distinction seems to be between major and minor moods, and the distinction between keys seems to be as extinct as the Phrygian mode.


I've seen people say this, but there are still differences between the keys for many. Look at the ideas of Rimsky-Korsakov, Scriabin, or Messiaen, all of whom had associations with particular harmonic regions.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I've seen people say this, but there are still differences between the keys for many. Look at the ideas of Rimsky-Korsakov, Scriabin, or Messiaen, all of whom had associations with particular harmonic regions.


Yes. Also, as a listener today my impressions of different keys are influenced by the whole body of works composed in those keys by composers for whom those differences were very real. In some sense, I guess, the character of those keys is established by the disparate character of the kinds of works that tended to be composed in them. For example, it is significant to my thinking about C minor that it is the key of a certain symphony of Beethoven, a certain piano quartet by Brahms, and a notable piano sonata and piano concerto by Mozart.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I'll leave it to others to chew over the distinctive moods or colours of different keys. The thing that irritates me is the insistence on giving a home key to works that don't really have one. Sibelius' 6th, for example, is always listed as in D Minor, but is largely in Dorian mode. And it's a glorious piece of symphonic construction, which I strongly recommend.


----------

