Talk:E-flat major

Moods
The Key of E-flat Major: 3 flats ( used in music)--81.159.2.60 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Key of Heros, the Key of Love, the Key of Excellence.

E-flat major is a great key for the brass family. Three out of five of Mozart's horn concerto's are written in it. As well as Haydn's famous Trumpette concerto. This I believe is Beethoven's favorite key. His Eroica symphony is written in it, thus being apropriate to match its name Heroic. This key would be paralleled to the color purple desginating royalty and high rank. Many other works were written in E-flat major: Bruckner's fourth symphony, Strauss' Ein Heldenleben, Mozart's majestic symphony number 39, and many of the Johann Strauss' waltzes.

People who would fit in with the key of E-flat major:--(7) Napoléon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, King Louis XIV, Sun Tzo, Shogun Tokugawa Iesuya, Alexander the Great, Pope John Paul II.

Also, this key it associated with god, thus writtinf religious and gosple works in it. (e.g. Shubert's Mass in E-flat Major) --69.143.66.255 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Ryan Kotowski


 * The mood Mozart tended to associate with E flat major he later associated with C major, or something like that (quoting Girdlestone's perceptive book on the piano concertos I think)- and yes to some of that, the classical composers did have an ear for keys, which weren't neutral, perhaps because equal temperament was still new?... The same author notes that Mozart's works in E flat as a family contains some very- again- neutral relatives, some outstanding ones (the 9th piano concerto, the Kegelstatt clarinet-trio, the quartet K428 and piano quartet K493 (here I disagree with the author of that book it's true), the K563 trio divertimento - I must mention that one and how can I not..., the 39th symphony I agree) whereas some keys he used more rarely but almost never neutrally (A major- the string quartet in A, the piano concertos 12 and 23 especially the latter...) Excellence for E flat in Mozart anyway I'm not sure I agree, but there are some excellent examples... Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Move
Who moved all these and why? (e.g., E-flat major now redirects to E flat major). They didn't bother to look at the "what links here" either. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Key signature
User:Wahoofive revealed that Bach wrote a piece in E-flat with only 2 flats in the key signature. Why did he use only 2 flats?? Georgia guy 13:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In passages where the piece modulates into C minor, the A-flat would usually need to be raised to A-natural. 23191Pa (chat me!) 02:13, 21 December 2009 (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, many 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 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well-known music in this key

 * How do you source this? Except for compositions with abstract titles like "Sonata", "Symphony", "Concerto", and the like, music is not usually published with the key stated; yet the key will be apparent to any musician who examines the score for it.  Many of the pieces which have been deleted from the list are in fact valid examples of music in E-flat major.


 * I think it's a bit of a stretch to consider it "original research" to determine the key of a piece by means that any musician can easily and reliably do. You don't need absolute pitch to do this; the key can be checked by going to a piano and playing a note or two to see if it agrees with the key heard in the piece; or, in case the piano may be mistuned, comparison could be made with numerous recordings of other music in the same key.


 * (Oddly enough, there is one exception to this: in keys with 5, 6, or 7 flats or sharps, one cannot be sure of the exact key just by listening to the piece, because a piece in B major *could* be in C-flat major, a piece in G-flat major *could* be in F-sharp major, and so on. In these cases one can only be sure of the pitch, but not about the enharmonic notation of the key; but in other cases this would seem to be a failsafe way of determining the key of a piece.)


 * So if it is not acceptable to base an assertion of key on listening to the music and comparing it with notes on a piano or other recordings in the same key, there is the possibility of checking the published score; maybe this would be accepted as more reliable. Is this considered original research too?  In that case, the requirements for sourcing keys are so stringent that it may well be impossible to state the key of most pieces at all.  That would seem to imply that the original score is not a valid source, whereas I would have thought it would be the ultimate one for detailed information about technical aspects of the music such as its key.


 * I've noticed that there has been quite a bit of edit-warring over the lists of pieces in various key entries, so obviously opinions differ a lot on this. If the score itself is not a valid source for the key, I would be interested to learn just what *is* a valid source for this information. M.J.E. (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources are the same for any other information: published reliable sources that state what the key is. Listening to the music and figuring out a key is clearly analysis and interpretation, and is doesn't pass WP:OR, which states with regard to using  primary sources:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
 * Listening to a piece and figuring out the key clearly breaks both these rules. Even looking at a score doesn't provide a self-evident answer.  If the key signature has two sharps, the key could be D, B minor, E dorian, etc.  There could be modulation or enough chromaticism to make a tonal center unclear.  Popular songs are often transposed in different recordings.  Some of the items on the list might have been correct, but the policies and guidelines state in no uncertain terms to exclude unsourced, unverified information rather than accidentally include untrue information.  If we allow somebody to insert a piece that doesn't meet WP:V and WP:OR, we give license for anybody to insert anything.  It's better for us not to have these lists at all than it is for us to have huge unreferenced lists that are 60-70% accurate.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and I *have* in fact seen inaccurate information in the "Music in this key" lists. (I've added a few items to these lists, and have corrected incorrect ones I've seen.)

Personally, I think for a musically knowledgeable person to look at a score is simply consulting a source, not doing original research to find out the key. As for the bit about "without specialist knowledge": that is hugely limiting in some fields where, by their very nature, some degree of specialist knowledge is needed to understand the subject matter - such as the ability to read music, recognize keys, and the like. It is almost trite to point out that a musical score is not comprehensible to a person who cannot read music - yet I cannot see how you can deny that it is the final source on that particular composition.

It would be nice if Wikipedia could have some system for checking the accuracy of information. But I can't quite shake off the feeling that it is rather restrictive to exclude information that can be easily verified by a knowledgeable person, yet may not be published anywhere that can be used as a reference. Keys of music are exactly this type of thing: except for the well-known classical works with abstract titles which often include the key in their title, the key something is in is almost never mentioned anywhere in print. And I would imagine that those who made the statement in print (and therefore created an acceptable reference) determined the key of the music in exactly the same way that you or I might: that is, by examining the score. There are very reliable ways of telling what the key of a piece is from the score, and yes, you can also take account of the possibility of E Dorian, etc. (Passing modulations, atonal passages in the middle, etc. make no difference: if the key at the end is the same as the key at the beginning, that defines the key of the piece.)

Expanding this idea further, is it acceptable under Wikipedia policy for someone to write an article on a topic they have special knowledge of, but where that knowledge is based on their own experience, or else on what they've read long ago, and can't remember the source of to quote as a reference? If this is not acceptable, then much useful knowledge may be made unacceptable to Wikipedia. Some information is actually very difficult to find in print or other acceptable sources, yet it may be common knowledge to people who are familiar with the subject. Yet you seem to be implying that this knowledge cannot be used in Wikipedia if references can't be found to each detail, chapter and verse. Is that right? (In that case, I might as well cancel my account here, since much of my knowledge on various topics is of this sort.)

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I have an idea that might be good to adopt, but it would mean quite a significant modification to the way Wikipedia is organized. I will mention it briefly here, although maybe there is another forum in Wikipedia where this might better be raised.

My idea is to have two tiers of Wikipedia article, or two tiers of sections within the same article. The first tier would maintain the strict standards about sourcing, etc. that are currently in force, and the second tier would admit information that cannot be referenced at present. With so many editors around who quite quickly change anything they find wrong or dubious, I would have thought this second tier of information would tend to be self-correcting over time: anything that was wrong would soon enough be removed or changed by other editors who knew the actual facts better. The two tiers of articles or sections could be marked in a way that was clear enough to see if you wanted to notice this, but unobtrusive enough to ignore if you wanted to - something like a differently-coloured screen background or a different size or typeface for the text, or a thin bar of colour in the margin.

Maybe there are drawbacks to this that I haven't thought of. I'm not seriously arguing the case for this right now, but just flying a kite to see if anyone thinks it's worth considering.

Is there somewhere on Wikipedia where this could be suitably raised for discussion? Is there even the ghost of a chance of this being adopted one day, and of it working reasonably well?

It seems to me it would be a good idea to be able to preserve the vast amount of knowledge which people may have on topics they've studied but which they may not be able to reference point by point. I for instance have an extensive knowledge of music theory, gained from teachers, books, and personal experience over decades, but I can rarely point to a specific reference for any fact, especially some of the more obscure ones - and the more obscure and difficult-to-reference ones are exactly the ones I would be most glad to be able to read about in Wikipedia. If a system could be organized within Wikipedia for admitting such knowledge, yet keeping some control over its accuracy, that would be very good.

Just an idea, anyway. M.J.E. (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your idea is interesting, but would need to be posted in a more visible, appropriate venue like village pump or the WP:V or WP:OR talk pages. To answer your other questions:


 * Expanding this idea further, is it acceptable under Wikipedia policy for someone to write an article on a topic they have special knowledge of, but where that knowledge is based on their own experience, or else on what they've read long ago, and can't remember the source of to quote as a reference? - No, this is very much not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the publisher of original thought.  Per WP:V, the threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Idealistically we don't accept anecdotes or original scholarship, only published material in reliable sources.


 * Personally, I think for a musically knowledgeable person to look at a score is simply consulting a source, not doing original research to find out the key. Look at the second bullet point from WP:OR that I posted above, then think about how trained musicians determine the score based on what they see. It's harmonic analysis.  Even if it's simplistic, it's never superficially apparent and requires interpretation of the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torc2 (talk • contribs)
 * I know this is an old post and it's basically moot, but for the sake of the random passerby, I can't let this statement stand. Reading music is like knowing any other language. It is not any more "interpretation" to look at a piece with three flats in the key signature and ending with an E-flat chord and conclude it is in E-flat major, than it is to conclude that the word "Function" should be alphabetized under the letter "F" and grammatically can be a noun or a verb. The key of a piece is a basic fact to people who can read music. Junggai (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For singing
Is it true that the key of E-flat is the most, or one of the most comfortable keys to sing in? --202.179.74.242 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a singer: but I would think that would depend entirely on the range of the vocal part, and not really have anything to do with what key it was in. M.J.E. (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sleepy sound
Why does this key sound so sleepy?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me you can sleep through Beethoven's Eroica Symphony. String arrangements of Brahms's Lullaby are in D major, but I can see why E-flat major would be better for woodwinds or brass. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tenor Tuba, et al.
Tenor Tubas are called Euphoniums and are in Bb (and sometimes rarely in C). Bb and C horns are called Contrabass and Eb and F are called bass horns. I have yet to see an tuba part written in the key of E-flat, it might exist but it is not common. --Stardude82 (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Songs
Add these songs to the list if you can find sources for them. Leather and Lace-Stevie Nicks and Don Henley, Save the Best for Last-Vanessa Williams, Tonight, I Celebrate My Love-Peabo Bryson and Roberta Flack. Cbsteffen (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Cbsteffen Don't forget Let's Get It On by Marvyn Gaye and Ed Townsend.

D-sharp minor
Why did you include D-sharp minor? I thought E-flat minor is normally used. 47.20.0.160 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

formatting
On a computer, the (see source of page - it's the scale with the gray rectangle at the top of the screen) doesn't format correctly. If I unmaximize my window to a half screen the is too long and appears under the infobox, creating a bunch of whitespace. [Https://imgur.com/a/TuvWlot https://imgur.com/a/TuvWlot]

Not only that, the gray rectangle is not aligned with the E-flat major scale horizontally.

The top of the gray rectangle matches with the top of the treble clef (symbol at start) but the gray rectangle is not tall enough and only reaches halfway down the staff (5 lines). See picture link.

I don't know how the formatting works.  AltoStev Talk 15:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't happen here, whichever browser (Firefox, Chrome, IE Explorer) and skin I try. What browser and skin are you using? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"D-sharp major" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect D-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) 12:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)