# Chord conventions in classical and popular music



## GuyBarry

Hi - I'm a songwriter with some classical training. I don't write in a classical idiom - I mainly write comedy songs and I'm just starting to branch into jazz and swing. Nevertheless I find that my knowledge of classical theory is invaluable in helping me to work out harmonies and other aspects of the music.

I've just come from a forum for (mainly commercial) songwriters, with some very talented people on it, and I was shocked by the level of ignorance of basic music theory. One person appeared not to know that C and B sharp were the same note. Many of them didn't seem to know how to determine what key a piece was in. They could understand the chord sequence but couldn't tell you that it was in G major or E minor or whatever.

One difference I've noticed between classical and popular music conventions is that in classical music chord symbols are notated relative to the key (I, V, ii and so on), whereas in popular music it's the actual letter-names that are used (G, Dm, C6 and so on). I'm wondering if in some way that affects people's perception of the music. I always perceive music relative to the keynote, even when I don't know what that keynote is. To me "C-Am-F-G" and "G-Em-C-D" are just two ways of writing the same thing, in different musical "dialects". To a jazz or pop musician they might be perceived as completely different.

Any thoughts about this?


----------



## Manxfeeder

GuyBarry said:


> One difference I've noticed between classical and popular music conventions is that in classical music chord symbols are notated relative to the key (I, V, ii and so on), whereas in popular music it's the actual letter-names that are used (G, Dm, C6 and so on). I'm wondering if in some way that affects people's perception of the music. I always perceive music relative to the keynote, even when I don't know what that keynote is. To me "C-Am-F-G" and "G-Em-C-D" are just two ways of writing the same thing, in different musical "dialects". To a jazz or pop musician they might be perceived as completely different.
> 
> Any thoughts about this?


Using numbers is more efficient. If you want to drop a key, you don't have to rewrite all the charts. Nashville studio musicians use numbers instead of chords; somehow this staple of first-year music theory got to be called the Nashville Number System.

As far as a new key's sound, some people think different keys sound dramatically different. Personally, I don't think the average listener notices if a song has been transposed down one step because a singer is having a bad day.

However, especially in a jazz setting, changing keys would put a player into a different set of preplanned licks, so it keeps their playing fresh. In my own experience as an amateur jazz player, I play differently in F than in A because some licks are easier to play on my horn in F than A.


----------



## Taggart

Coming from a folk background, key can be irrelevant either because the tune is modal or is duotonic (mainly Scottish) so names are better than numbers. But if the music is diatonic then numbers help because you can change key easily. If you go back to Baroque (or earlier) you can also have figured bass or simply a bass ground to work from. So you can have three different styles depending on the muic you're playing.


----------



## GuyBarry

Manxfeeder said:


> As far as a new key's sound, some people think different keys sound dramatically different. Personally, I don't think the average listener notices if a song has been transposed down one step because a singer is having a bad day.


Or simply because the singer has a different range. I sing with a community choir and we try out songs in various keys until we find one that fits the range of the singers on the various parts. The voice is of course the best transposing instrument of the lot; you don't need to know what key you're in, you just need the starting-note(s) and off you go.

I've never thought that keys sounded dramatically different from each other. On an equally-tempered instrument like a piano, I don't see how they _can_ sound different. Similarly on instruments with strict fingerings like guitars or woodwind. I suppose on brass, or non-fretted stringed instruments, you can get slight differences in key-colour as the intervals change subtly between keys. But really I think you could play Beethoven's 5th in D minor and hardly anyone would notice the difference.


----------



## kwokboy

no, that wont affect the perception of the music
literally the only difference between different key is the instrumental timbre

anyway, differentiating major or minor key is not that important for modern music
as relative major & minor are now pretty much mixed together


----------



## EdwardBast

GuyBarry said:


> I've never thought that keys sounded dramatically different from each other. On an equally-tempered instrument like a piano, I don't see how they _can_ sound different. Similarly on instruments with strict fingerings like guitars or woodwind. I suppose on brass, or non-fretted stringed instruments, you can get slight differences in key-colour as the intervals change subtly between keys. But really I think you could play Beethoven's 5th in D minor and hardly anyone would notice the difference.


Welcome Guy,
The issue isn't if keys in some abstract sense sound different, but whether particular themes and passages sound different in different keys. And they most emphatically do! In most classical and early romantic sonatas, the recapitulation of the second theme is transposed by a fifth from its original statement. Very often a straight transposition just doesn't work in this situation because the change in timbre and sonority tends to force numerous adjustments in register and voicing. In a piece by Prokofiev I am currently playing, the same passage transposed even by a major second, from B-flat major up to C major, creates a very different effect in its second sounding. The effect for wind instruments would be far more obvious. I could be wrong, but I think a large segment of listeners would know there was something odd and off about a performance of Beethoven's 5th in D minor.



kwokboy said:


> no, that wont affect the perception of the music
> literally the only difference between different key is the instrumental timbre


I feel I am pointing out the obvious, but timbre is not the only "literal" difference. Literally, every pitch is different. And chords transposed up or down have very different qualities, sounding muddier when moved down and often thin and insubstantial when transposed up. This is not a simple difference in timbre, it is a difference in the perceived density of the voicing in different registers. Now I suppose one might say that this is the result of an aggregate difference in timbre, and perhaps that is what you are thinking. But aggregate differences I would say are very different than mere changes in timbre as the term is usually used.


----------



## GuyBarry

EdwardBast said:


> Welcome Guy,
> I could be wrong, but I think a large segment of listeners would know there was something odd and off about a performance of Beethoven's 5th in D minor.


It's an interesting point. I've just tried playing the opening bars in D minor on my keyboard and they sound all right to me!

I would point out that "concert pitch" has changed significantly over the centuries, and there was no coordinated effort to standardize musical pitch until the 19th century. My understanding is that in the late 18th century concert A could be anywhere in the range from 400 to 450 Hz - roughly the range of a whole tone. So you could have two orchestras playing the same piece in the same key in different places, and they could be up to a tone apart. I think our modern perceptions may be coloured by the standardization of A = 440 Hz.


----------

