What is your favorite key?

No, they don't. :whistling:

Yes, they do.

To reiterate.

Music is defined by the intervals it contains and not the exact pitches thereof.

Any Mood/Color/Whatever associations you have with a key are associated with the ergonomics of the instrument or notation you are using to express yourself. Many pianists would consider F# an angry key due to its difficulty in play and reading, and they may even play/compose angrily in it for that reason, but this is due to the association the player/composer has with that key and his or her instrument/notation. It has nothing to do with any inherent traits intrinsic to any key vs another.

Though timber varies throughout the ranges of an instrument, calling a certain location in this range "C" does not make that pitch inherently different, in tonal context or otherwise, from if we were to call it "D", nor does how we decide to represent these pitches on a staff.

Hands down Db Major is my favorite key to compose and play in.

My car key

My car key

LOL

*creates new key called car key*

And there we have it.....

C 1/4 tone sharp, D 1/4 tone flat, E 1/3 tone sharp, F 4/5 tone flat, G 2/5 a tone sharp, Ab, Bb 1/6 tone sharp, C 1/4 tone sharp

Lovely, isn't it? :P

P.S. - JLMoriart, thanks again for repeating the same BS about isomorphic instruments, etc. You've really made a strong argument for it by copying and pasting the same idiotic paragraph about an impractical and useless idea. So thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

How is it impractical and useless charliep123? Explain yourself.

How is it impractical and useless charliep123? Explain yourself.

See other threads in which I explained it to you.

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to copy and paste the same thing into every thread.

"If the key of E is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"

:toothygrin::toothygrin:

Seriously, though...Gb.

If you like E you're a communist, we could say.

Or as we say in America...F flat.

Or as we say in America...F flat.

Haha, so if you like E you're a communist, but if you like F flat, you're...not?

INTERESTING.

:D:D

20 years ago they leveled the Berlin Wall to a Military march in F flat...only the guys on the other side swore they heard E!

There's no accounting for taste.

Hmm...

Db, F Major

A Dorian

E, B Minor

I guess I'm a communist, but I find E Minor a lot more read-able.

See other threads in which I explained it to you.

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to copy and paste the same thing into every thread.

It seems that he who accuses me of copying and pasting seems to be doing nothing but that himself.

Please charliep123, tell me what you think, because I feel I've never had any of my claims about isomorphic instruments definitively refuted, I have addressed the oppositions thoroughly, but still I hear from the opposition that my views have been completely disproven by an assertion that I myself have already disproved somewhere along the way.

If you'd like my assertions restated, I submit that isomorphic instruments:

A. Have the potential to increase musical potential across the spectrum of talent because they:

1. Are easier to learn than traditional layouts due to transpositional and tuning invariance.

Isomorphic keyboard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Expose musically relevant patterns more so than traditional layouts

3. Do not impose irrelevant patterns like traditional layouts.

Have the potential to expand musical horizons by:

1. Providing more ergonomic access to more difficult musical ideas due to decreased interval space and increased interval efficiency.

2. Allowing for the employment of dynamic tonality and other novel effects to create new musical progressions among both tunings and temperaments creating entirely new genres of music which are impossible to play on other layouts.

Dynamic tonality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These claims have not been refuted anywhere, and instead have simply had indecencies thrown at them and half hazard attempts made on their validity. If someone really can disprove these claims, I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. I admitted I was wrong when I was convinced isomorphic instruments' validity myself, after being as skeptical as you are now. I just refuse to say I'm wrong until I believe it myself, which I do not, because no one has actually proven me wrong yet, including you.

John M

It seems that he who accuses me of copying and pasting seems to be doing nothing but that himself.

Please charliep123, tell me what you think, because I feel I've never had any of my claims about isomorphic instruments definitively refuted, I have addressed the oppositions thoroughly, but still I hear from the opposition that my views have been completely disproven by an assertion that I myself have already disproved somewhere along the way.

If you'd like my assertions restated, I submit that isomorphic instruments:

A. Have the potential to increase musical potential across the spectrum of talent because they:

1. Are easier to learn than traditional layouts due to transpositional and tuning invariance.

Isomorphic keyboard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Expose musically relevant patterns more so than traditional layouts

3. Do not impose irrelevant patterns like traditional layouts.

Have the potential to expand musical horizons by:

1. Providing more ergonomic access to more difficult musical ideas due to decreased interval space and increased interval efficiency.

2. Allowing for the employment of dynamic tonality and other novel effects to create new musical progressions among both tunings and temperaments creating entirely new genres of music which are impossible to play on other layouts.

Dynamic tonality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These claims have not been refuted anywhere, and instead have simply had indecencies thrown at them and half hazard attempts made on their validity. If someone really can disprove these claims, I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. I admitted I was wrong when I was convinced isomorphic instruments' validity myself, after being as skeptical as you are now. I just refuse to say I'm wrong until I believe it myself, which I do not, because no one has actually proven me wrong yet, including you.

John M

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/how-use-each-key-case-anyone-needs-help-21099-6.html

P.S. - Using Wikipedia as your source doesn't exactly strengthen your argument.

I just refuse to say I'm wrong until I believe it myself, which I do not, because no one has actually proven me wrong yet, including you.

Uh.

Ok, there's tonaly, modality, and atonality. Dynamic tonality is equally relevant to modality as it is to tonality. So still, atonality is the only thing not applicable. And, like I said before, if it's your thing that's fine, just don't bother with these new tools. A lot of music, most of it actually, is tonal or modal.

...

Check out the two sounds here. They show you how you can change the partials/overtones of an instrument without changing the character of the timbre much.

Someone who said this isn't worth anyone's time and effort to convince. I said it before, I'll say it again. Get an education, then try to argue. Nobody cares if you don't believe us since it's almost like caring if a 7 year old understands and agrees about germ theory or the laws of thermodynamics. Clearly you're over your head EVERY time you've argued about this, just drop it.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/how-use-each-key-case-anyone-needs-help-21099-6.html

That debate centered around dynamic tonality. And even then, most of the arguments were centered around how dynamic tonality is or isn't new or whether or not the way dynamic tonality treats music is relevant. I'll respond to the last post in that thread (which I must have missed when it was first posted).

P.S. - Using Wikipedia as your source doesn't exactly strengthen your argument.

Though wikipedia tends not to be as credible a source, that article is far more accessible than some of the mathematical and simply more in depth papers written in support of it. Here they are though, for those interested:

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/comj.2007.31.4.15?cookieSet=1'>http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/comj.2007.31.4.15?cookieSet=1

http://www.thummer.com/papers/DynamicTonality.pdf

http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/paperspdf/SpectralTools.pdf

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/comj.2007.31.4.15

http://www.thummer.com/ThumTone/Tuning_Invariant_Layouts_Last_Draft.pdf

http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/consemi.html

Isomorphic instruments themselves, even forgetting about their applicability to alternate tunings through dynamic tonality, are far more accessible to aspiring musicians be they young mozarts or amateurs looking for a hobby or a social enviroment. They make music accessible far more than it has been because of the reasons mentioned above, they expose relevant musical patterns, they do not impose irrelevant ones, and are simply far more ergonomically friendly to a user.

Though there is little trial evidence to support this directly, simply analyzing the ergonomic potential of these instruments shows an extremely likely and extremely large increase in potential across the board. They require less start up cost ergonomically before an equal amount of expressive potential can be reached due to a lower amount of musically irrelevant information that has to be learned and practiced to become proficcient on the same level.

What makes you think otherwise?

John M

Wow this is boring. Please move on.

Wow this is boring. Please move on.

My point exactly.

My point exactly.

Here is a summary of what seems to have just gone down:

Me: I think *this*.

Charliep123: *This* is wrong.

Me: Why do you think so?

Charliep123: Because of *that*.

Me: Actually, *that* is not a valid rebuttal to my point because of *A* *B* and *C*

Charliep123: Wow, this is boring.

Really? If make a point and you disagree with it for whatever reason, thats fine, its not like it bothers me that one person doesn't see something the way I do. But when you publicly post "You are wrong", attempting to influence everyone else, but then are unwilling to back it up, it makes you look ridiculous and it wastes my time. All I can hope for is that everyone else will be intelligent enough to put the time in to read into the topic themselves or at least recognize your complete lack of a foundation for your argument and not take your opinion at face value.

I'm putting together a powerpoint explaining many of the concepts linking acoustics, tuning, isomorphic keyboards, and dynamic tonality, I'm going to narrate it and put it up on youtube, where hopefully it will be accessible to those curious enough to look into it, and then I'll post a link in a thread here when its finished because it is opens up entire avenues of compositional expression in which I hope some of the forum goers here will be interested.

John M

Uh, just drop it. Beating the dead horse may be fine to you since you don't realize how your arguments were nonsense to begin with, but nobody else cares.

BTW; the wikipedia point still stands as the page on "Dynamic tonality" on wikipedia was made by the guy who made the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_tonality&action=history

It obviously shouldn't exist by wikipedia's standards since I then might as well make an entry on my own composition system regardless if it's used or not. Likewise I notice the "references" you posted were EXACTLY the same as in this article. Those articles don't amount to much either except make the article look "good."

Wikipedia standards of quality are crap and this is a good case of that.

Here is a summary of what seems to have just gone down:

Me: I think *this*.

Charliep123: *This* is wrong.

Me: Why do you think so?

Charliep123: Because of *that*.

Me: Actually, *that* is not a valid rebuttal to my point because of *A* *B* and *C*

Charliep123: Wow, this is boring.

...Looks like a waste of time spent arguing about *this* and *that* and *ABC*

:eyebrow:

Here is a summary of what seems to have just gone down:

Me: I think *this*.

Charliep123: *This* is wrong.

Me: Why do you think so?

Charliep123: Because of *that*.

Me: Actually, *that* is not a valid rebuttal to my point because of *A* *B* and *C*

Charliep123: Wow, this is boring.

Really? If make a point and you disagree with it for whatever reason, thats fine, its not like it bothers me that one person doesn't see something the way I do. But when you publicly post "You are wrong", attempting to influence everyone else, but then are unwilling to back it up, it makes you look ridiculous and it wastes my time. All I can hope for is that everyone else will be intelligent enough to put the time in to read into the topic themselves or at least recognize your complete lack of a foundation for your argument and not take your opinion at face value.

I'm putting together a powerpoint explaining many of the concepts linking acoustics, tuning, isomorphic keyboards, and dynamic tonality, I'm going to narrate it and put it up on youtube, where hopefully it will be accessible to those curious enough to look into it, and then I'll post a link in a thread here when its finished because it is opens up entire avenues of compositional expression in which I hope some of the forum goers here will be interested.

John M

I really don't know how many times you want me to explain to you why dynamic tonality is a waste of time. Oh man, lets make music playable only on isomorphic keyboards and get rid of any sense of instrumental character all so we can create music with extraordinarily limited possibilities and even less applications.

It opens up no "avenues of compositional expression" that weren't already there. It has no practical application. It is a complete waste of time.

Perhaps at some point you can get on topic with the threads you post in rather than just launching into your dynamic tonality sales pitch in every thread you can.

Warmest regards,

Charlie

...to return to the topic, I gravitate to Eb major and D minor. When I'm feeling march-y or childish, I go to G major or even D major. Fun stuff.

My favorite key to improvise on is g minor. I like to compose generally in g minor, a minor, and f minor.