Talk:C major

This is the talk/discussion page for the "C major" article.

Keyboard Fingering
It would be a good idea to add the standard keyboard fingering for a two-octave C major scale.


 * Which hand? Left? Right? Both? Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer, in case anyone wants to add it, is:

Right hand: Thumb-index-middle-thumb-index-middle-ring-thumb-index-middle-thumb-index-middle-ring-little

Left hand: Little-ring-middle-index-thumb-middle-index-thumb-ring-middle-index-thumb-middle-index-thumb

Georgia guy 19:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or preferably:
 * Right hand: 1-2-3-1-2-3-4-1-2-3-1-2-3-4
 * Left hand: 5-4-3-2-1-3-2-1-4-3-2-1-3-2-1
 * &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Key Signature Articles in General
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

As a classical musician, you guys should just know that we have strong associations with keys -- and that's almost entirely based on what we know in those keys. So as a pianist, when I think C major, I think Bach's first invention, Mozart's Sonatas K. 545 and K. 330, Beethoven's Waldstein Sonata and first piano concerto, and more. In other words, I totally realize that from the vantage point of other genres, this discussion (more specifically, the list) may seem silly, but to classical music & musicians, at least, it has forceful associations & resonances. 171.66.208.10 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

I think it looks better as a small list of essential songs that can be read with one glance with the order is random or out of order. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

"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)

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)

Well-known music list
I am looking at the list of "Well-known music in this key", and I see no verifiable sources for each songs. I am concerned about this dilemma, and I've decided to discuss about this on this talk page. It has previously happened that removed the list and explaining that there are no sources for each song. It states on Verifiability that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

When I noticed this list (which has been removed before), it looked to me that the section contained original research, which includes unpublished facts. I have seen times that a user would edit an article about a key signature, like G major, and list songs in the certain key, but without providing a source to verify it. Some of the songs listed may have no sources and could be removed like Torc2 did in late January 2008. Schfifty Three  20:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is idiotic to refer to these items as "unpublished facts." The songs have been published as sheet music in standard music notation, so theoretically anyone can doublecheck this information.
 * There are much better reasons to justify removing these lists than to refer to a policy that fits here as well as a square peg in a round hole. For starters, has anyone who adds to these lists explained what their selection criteria is? Anton Mravcek (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've observed for quite some time the ongoing dispute about what songs or classical works should be included in lists of pieces in a certain key, or whether any at all should be, and how the accuracy of the key should be verified; and I've seen items added to the list, removed, added again, and so on. I've added a few items myself, and also removed items I know to be incorrect.

I want to suggest a solution to this dispute that hopefully may be acceptable to all parties concerned: Create a separate article called "Lists of pieces in particular keys" or something similar, and have 30 sections, one after the other, for each possible key signature, and transfer all items to the relevant section of the list. Include sections for the modes too, plus any other distinctive scales in which pieces are written. (It might be better for these to be separate articles.) Each key/mode/scale article can carry a link to this article instead of having its own list, and the lists in the separate article can get as long as they happen to grow, without cluttering the main articles. With these key lists suitably quarantined so that they are accessible to those who want them (and clearly some do), and so they don't get in the way of those who don't want them, perhaps those who aggressively delete items might be willing to leave these lists alone (except for removing items known to be incorrect).

It would also be good if anyone who can verify the key of a piece (for instance, by looking at the published score - which I would *not* call "original research") could add a reference saying how they verified the key. If they know personally what key a piece is in, but can't provide a reference, then they can just list the piece without any reference notation, which will act as a flag to others that the item may not be completely reliable, and maybe later on someone else who can supply the reference can add it.

Perhaps parties interested in this dispute would like to offer their thoughts on this. Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with a reference to the published score, there is a lot of room for doubt. If you have an "easy piano" arrangement, can you be sure the key hasn't been simplified? If the original is in C# major, wouldn't an easy piano arrangement be in C or D major? Or if I went off a brass quintet arrangement of a well-known piece, like Mozart's Kleine Nacht Musik, would I say it's in B-flat or A-flat? Horn of Plenty (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to ascertain whether a particular score is the original, and whether it is in the key it was originally written in. These are known and verifiable facts.
 * As for the transposing instrument issue you mention, I would think that, unless specified otherwise, the "key" of a piece is the key it actually sounds in. M.J.E. (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the issue of verifiability is very clear-cut for classical music. It's very easy to find out that Eine kleine Nachtmusik is in G major. (In the B-flat brass quintet examples Horn of Plenty gives, after the initial transposition of the piece from G major to B-flat major there would be the further transposition of the horn part to F major and the trumpet parts to C major, giving the sounding B-flat major for all parts concerned. Regardless, it would be very easy to verify that the piece was in fact originally written for string ensemble).
 * But even after overcoming the issue of verifiability for popular music, what is the selection process? How do we determine that a Britney Spears song is a quintessential C major while a Beatles song is not? And how do we verify whether the songwriter just picked a key at random or carefully considered the abilities of the singers and players? Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability shouldn't be too much of a problem for any pieces (classical or popular) for which a definitive score is published. Determining whether something is "in" a key or mode can be a little difficult for pieces where the tonality is inherently vague anyway, such as in some turn-of-the-century late-romantic or early-modern pieces, or some popular songs; but in most cases, it is probably pretty clear-cut whether a piece is in a certain key or not. (And only the clear-cut cases should be put in key lists.)
 * That's sensible. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the key lists is, where do you set the boundary? I think a list of pieces in C-flat major or A-sharp minor would be very useful (for people interested in details about particular keys, who are the ones likely to look at the key articles) (these would be very short lists); maybe even a list of pieces in F-sharp major or G-sharp minor (these lists would be a bit longer, but still manageable); maybe, even more marginally, a list for A major or E-flat major, etc. (these lists might have to be limited in some way). But when it comes to keys like C major or A minor or G major - the very commonest ones - listing every one of thousands of pieces that exist in such common keys doesn't make a lot of sense. But I can see that listing some samples might nevertheless be useful.
 * For "C major or A minor or G major" I would hope people adding would also on the Talk page say something like "This song being in C major is interesting because such and such chord and riff combination is consistently used by this songwriter only in C major" or whatever. Basically, it has to be a better reason than "I like this song and it happens to be in C major." Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But, if you decide to list only pieces that are especially characteristic of a particular key, how do you select which ones to list? This is such a subjective area. I might think, for example, that Schubert's "Great C major" Symphony is a very characteristically C-major piece; but someone else might think it isn't all that typical (whatever that means), but that something else is a lot more representative, or a lot more "C major" in feel or atmosphere.
 * For symphonies of that era, the C major feel was festive. I don't know off the top of my head, but I think Schubert used trumpets and drums only in C major and D major. The B-flat major doesn't have them, despite examples of trumpets and drums in that key from the Haydn Bros. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My earlier comments don't pretend to solve all these kinds of difficulties about key lists - I was just thinking that, *if* we have key lists, it might be worth putting them in a separate article, where they won't get in the way of those who object to them and who keep removing them. Perhaps those who dislike them may be willing to leave them alone if they are out of the way in a separate article where only those who are interested will see them. It is obvious that lots of people do want these lists (and I agree with allowing the lists up to a point), so if there is not to be constant edit-warring over the issue, it seems to me those people must be accommodated in some way. And a separate page for the lists might be the best way to go.

Any thoughts on this? M.J.E. (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another concern that I have with these key lists is that I wonder if those who've doubted the legitimacy of having articles on individual keys may be trying to make a point by overloading them with lists. It's just a gnawing suspicion, I have no evidence. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuned in C
What is the meaning of the statement "Many instruments, such as the piano, are tuned in C"? Any fully chromatic instrument, such as the piano, is tuned equally in all keys. If the intention is to state that those instruments are non-transposing, that only means that the written pitch and the sounding pitch are the same, unlike a transposing instrument such as (for example) the English horn, which sounds a perfect fifth lower than written so that it can be played by an oboist using the same fingerings as the oboe. Purely as a matter of convention, transposing instruments are named by the pitch that sounds when the performer plays a written "C", so that (for example) the English horn is said to be "in F". For that reason any instrument which does not transpose is said to be "in C", but that has nothing whatever to do with the key of C major. Since the standard tuning pitch in our day is "A", you could just as well choose to identify transposing instruments by the pitch they produce when the performer plays a written "A", so the tenor sax would be "in G", the alto sax "in C" ind the piano "in A", which would have nothing to do with the key of A. That we choose C as the standard shows that tradition has made it a kind of "default"; but that is all. Fenneck (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article raises these questions:

Is the key of C the dominant key because the piano and other keyboard instruments are tuned to C? ("Tuned" meaning C is the only scale that uses only white keys.)

Why did the first keyboard instrument makers decide to tune to the key of C, rather than A (the first letter of the alphabet)? In other words, why did they not build the A scale as the "all white key" scale? Is it because they thought there was something inherently and basically natural about the sound of the key of C? Or have we now become accustomed to its sound and personality because it is so commonly used? Every key or scale has an individual personality because of the construction of the instrument.

When was the tone that we now recognize as 260 Hz given the name C4? It would help understanding of the article if tuning were described in terms of Hertz rather than note names. For example, rather than saying a trumpet is tuned to Bb, say it is tuned to where C5 on a trumpet is 466Hz (Bb on a piano, also called Bb concert). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtrsr (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

>This is several years later, but to help answer your questions... The first keyboard instrument makers were not English speakers. Many other languages (notably Italian and other romantic languages, from countries where modern western music has its roots) do not use the letters of the alphabet to name musical notes. Rather, they use the Do-Re-Mi system. I don't know why somewhere along the way English speakers chose the letter "C" to go with "Do", but that's apparently what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.140.77 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

>>It was Boethius who assigned letter names to the 14 natural pitches of the Greater Perfect System, a Greek invention that did not privilege the major scale. It so happens that our major scale is found beginning on the third pitch which he called C.That is also the first pitch of Ut queant laxis, the chant which yielded Do-Re-Mi. It would be helpful if this information were incorporated to explain why C is the natural major scale. 2602:306:CC83:FE0:D54B:2A41:DBDC:FFE1 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

>if tuning were described in terms of Hertz

I'm somewhat knowlegable in music, always trying to learn more. IMO, expressing tunings in hertz would leave everyone except a musical professor out in the dark. Everybody knows "C". only the few even know what a hertz is, much less that 466 is B flat! Many articles get too arcane with too much of this sort of thing. I suggest keeping it complete, but also keeping it accessable to people like me, and those less knowlegable, too. Cross-reference hertz/tone? perhaps (doesn't that go under "hertz?). Substitute all of it for hertz, no letters?  Please don't. Did you EVER hear a band leader say, "OK, in 260, a one, a two?" Jjdon (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is western classical music always the only relevant music?
This classical music elitism is just dumb as hell, it's not the only well known music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevant to what? What does this have to do with the article? Hyacinth (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Many instruments, such as the piano, are tuned in C." <--- what does that even mean?
the keyboard layout is centered around the key of c (or a minor) but it's tuned in equal temperament?

the remark in the article should be in an article about keyboard layouts for keyboard instruments not in this article amirite?

//ml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.94.4 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon- Imagine
It is one of the 100 most performed songs of the 20th century and is unanimously acclaimed by critics, usually somewhere in the top 5 recordings of all-time (Rolling Stone, Time, VH1, etc). John Lennon himself is one of the most important figures in music history, being the leader of a band that went on to be the most successful recording artists ever (The Beatles). He has sold more then one billion records world-wide. You can go to South America or Japan and people will know this song. The song has a perfect melody, and is just as important as any piece written in musical notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the key of C major and this article? Hyacinth (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

the song is in c major —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a citation for that claim? Hyacinth (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

every publication of this song is written in c major. and anyone who plays music can recognize that the song is in c major. it's really obvious, you don't need a citation.

Non-transposing instruments
Only the contra-bass tuba (16-ft.) is in C, nor are the trombone, flute, piccolo, bassoon, or oboe "in C". Just because an instrument doesn't transpose does not mean it's "in C", as has been much discussed above apropos of the piano. Nor, for that matter, is, e.g., a clarinet really "in B-flat", as in order to be "in" any key an instrument has to have that key's tonic as a fundamental tone and draw other picthes from the harmonic series of that tone, which only brass instruments really do as the usual method of tone-production. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Common trumpet is B♭
"Among brass instruments, the more common trumpet is the trumpet in C, and the contra-bass tuba is in C. A harp tuned to C major has all its pedals in the middle position"

I was under the impression the entire time I played trumpet in high school and college that it was a B♭ instrument. I may be missing something here but I know I had to transpose to B♭ when reading piano music. The link in this article to trumpet seems to indicate that it is commonly in B♭. If I am just wrong, please explain so I don’t stay wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.110.40 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly- a tromobonist 86.160.29.93 (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"B-sharp major" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect B-sharp major. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"D-double-flat major" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect D-double-flat major. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

C major Chord scale
C Major Chords: The chords in C Major are built from the scale notes. The three primary chords in the key of C Major are the C Major chord (C-E-G), the F Major chord (F-A-C), and the G Major chord (G-B-D). These chords are called the I, IV, and V chords respectively. 2601:807:8380:B1B0:C0CF:7C35:954A:CE6A (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)