Talk:C major: Difference between revisions

I would like to initiate a discussion about having a separate article for each key signature. My problem is not so much that there is an article for every separate key, but the fact that each article ends up being nearly the same as the rest. Nowhere at all in popular music genres does key end up being such a consideration that one might actually write separate articles for each key. However, composers in the European classical music tradition have written extensively on the difference between keys. Therefore if we are to keep these articles, we need a lot more quotes and information from primary sources.

In addition, the lists of pieces that happen to be in a given key are just silly. There are thousands upon tens of thousands of pieces of music in both the European classical genre and more popular genres, and any list of pieces in a given key could only possibly at best be a smattering.

Does anyone have any wisdom about this? I'm really getting into this Wikipedia thing and want to do what I can to help articles related to classical music, and music theory especially, improve greatly. Many need it! -Aerlinndan 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "composers in the European classical music tradition have written extensively on the difference between keys." I too sense that these "primary sources" exist, but I don't know where to find them, nor do I know if they are available in English (I can make some sense of German, but that's not good enough). If the only thing you did for these articles was to list here some of these sources in English, that would be a huge help.

I don't like the lists of pieces either, but lots of people would disagree with us. Perhaps we can gradually phase them out by sifting the pieces where the key makes a noticeable difference and putting that information into the main body of the article. Anton Mravcek 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list of pieces makes more sense for popular songs written in keys that are perhaps less common? Having a list for C Major is sort of silly. Also like Aerlinndan said, contemporary music pays much less attention to key, and songs may change key, whereas in chamber music and classical pieces in Europe, the key was much more stringently adhered to. -72.81.108.49 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of songs

The general creator of the key articles lists the songs in chronological order. However, one very recent edit to A major put the songs in alphabetical order. Any discussion?? Georgia guy 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image links

30-May-2007: In 2006/2007, Wikipedia images required both attributes "thumb|250px" to show a caption, as in:

[[Image:MyPhoto.jpg|thumb|250px|right| My picture.]]

By itself, size "250px" ignores the caption "My picture" (confusing many people), which is considered bad form in computer languages (should warn & be corrected rather than ignore). Just remember to include "thumb" (or "frame") for a caption in an image-link.

Image hints in 2007:

Limit most images to "thumb|300px" to avoid crowded text-wrapping.
A small image followed directly by a big image often chops text.
To resize larger than the original ("oversizing"), omit "thumb" (oversized images cannot have captions in 2007, yet).
Beware "left|thumb" (for "right|"), because left-side images appear immediately to left of the text.
Most images (99.99%) should be quick JPEG for rapid display.
Avoid resizing PNG images (2007): might become 10x larger resized.

Overall, omitting "thumb" is the most common problem.

There are many formatting issues in the Wiki software (used worldwide), with a long list of problems to fix, but in the software world, errors often persist, only to be upstaged by a totally radical new software version, rather than just fixing the irritating problems fast. Note that numerous software systems (not just Wiki) have frustrating issues for years. -Wikid77 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

[ Discuss other unnamed issues here. -Wikid77 ]

Default key of Finale document

This information is not relevant here and borders on spam. C major should not be an indiscriminate list of things vaguely associated with the key of C major. The nature of Western musical notation is that a blank staff has no sharps or flats; a piece of software designed to produce this notation would logically and obviously start a blank document in C major as well.

Please, let's not reintroduce this bizarre sentence that detracts from the focus of the article. —ptk✰fgs 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also the default key of Sibelius and probably every notation program. People just love those WP:NOTs, don't they? But it does apply to this article, but not to the mentioning of Finale, but to those indiscriminate listings of pop songs in C major. Anton Mravcek 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, those should go too. But if the point we want to make is that notation software assumes C major by default, we should just say that instead of this weird blip about one particular application. —ptk✰fgs 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's Sibelius and a whole bunch of others, including DAWs that also do notation, like Digital Performer. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explantion of changes just made.

I'm not sure to what extent changes to an article should be explained or justified, especially if they're not obvious - but:

I added comments contrasting the simplicity usually attributed to C major with Chopin's regard of it as the most difficult scale for beginning students.

I changed "Te Dea" to "settings of 'Te Deum'", because not only is the Latin plural incorrect, but, even if the correct Latin plural form were used (presumably in the accusative case), the actual plural form (in Latin) for "God" does not seem called for here, but rather the plural of the title as a whole, treated as an English usage. This would presumably be simply "Te Deums", or, perhaps a little more elegantly, "settings of 'Te Deum'".

Finally, I changed the style of attribution of names of two Schubert symphonies from "called" to "nicknamed", because the former seems to imply that Schubert himself called the symphonies the names cited, which he almost certainly did not. M.J.E. 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit seems well-founded. However, I generally find it unnecessary for one to explain one's edits unless someone disputes them. Just for future reference. SpinyMcSpleen 19:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think anyone will dispute them, I think it's a good idea to err on the side of explaining more than is necessary. A dead language like Latin sure is the sort of stuff some people love to split hairs over. Jindřichův Smith 04:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

I like the lists- for those who are not as mucially inclined, it's easy to choose a song from the list and play it mentally. Then one can know what the key sounds like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.162.78 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We Belong Together"

Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" is in A minor, not C major. A minor is the relative minor of C major—they share the same key signature (or lack thereof) of no sharps or flats—but they should not be confused with each other. It is true that there are virtually no sharp sevenths (G-sharps) in the piece, but many pop songs in minor keys do not have sharp sevenths. It is even more common in dance music.--Simonsa (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Songs

Add these songs to the list if you can find sources for them:

Don't Mean Nothing - Richard Marx Great Balls of Fire - Jerry Lee Lewis Imagine - John Lennon Jump - Van Halen Let It Be - The Beatles True Love - Glenn Frey Unchained Melody - The Righteous Brothers Written in the Stars - Elton John and LeAnn Rimes 24.158.8.234 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]