Talk:F minor

IP Edits (not original title)
You're right. i'm a musician, and I noticed that as well. Since nobody seems to be looking at this, judging from the discussion page, I'll do it myself.

I don't have a login and haven't edited wiki before but I'd like to point out something.

The sentence at the top of the article reads: "F minor is a minor scale based on F, consisting of the pitches F, G, A-flat, B-flat, C, D-flat, E and F. (harmonic minor scale.) Its key signature consists of four flats".

Shouldn't it read: "F minor is a minor scale based on F, consisting of the pitches F, G, A-flat, B-flat, C, D-flat, E-flat and F. (harmonic minor scale.) Its key signature consists of four flats".

Note E-flat is listed as E in the existing sentence giving only three flats, not the four in the key signature.

Since I'm a newbie at this (at editing wiki and at music theory) I'll leave it to the experts to make the change if needed.

I made the same type of discovery on the C minor page so if I'm right whoever edits this might want to look there as well.

I'm wondering who's been deleting songs from the lists.

71.102.172.40 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of random IPs have been warring for a full year, removing and adding content since I've been gone. Despite the best efforts of the users Micheal Bednarek, Seros and other users to keep the edits non-abrasive or vandalism. NONE of these users have left edit summaries so I'm collecting all contemporary songs with references into a new sections. Note that Animals and its like are definitely F minor but definitely not classical or symphonies, and are synthesized works, not compositions. (one can assume an edit has no change/intention if there is no edit summary as that's the function of an edit summary after checking the edit; and all I see is people randomly removing and moving content).


 * A reminder to all users, being anonymous would actually increase the need for an edit summary. If you want your edits to remain around, an edit summary is crucial in convincing other users that the edit is constructive. (I also believe that removing cited notable content could be seen as vandalism).


 * Speeditor (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Songs to be checked
The Imperial March is played in at least three different keys in the Star Wars movies. Most of the time it's in G minor, and the first part shows up in E minor occasionally; the only time I can remember it being played in F minor is when Vader dies. If it's going to be listed on any page, it should probably be the G minor page. PiGuy314 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Songs
Add these songs if you can find sources for them: Dream On--Aerosmith, Getaway--Earth, Wind, and Fire Staying Alive--The Bee Gees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.8.234 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that the article E-sharp minor be merged into F minor unless we can find a source or a musical composition using e♯ as a key, like their is for G♯. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, I've never seen one piece of music composed in e♯. Furries (Talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that means you support the merge? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The key is discussed in music books and analyses. Nothing would be gained by a merger. See also Articles for deletion/E-sharp minor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can put a section in F minor talking about its enharmonic equivalent E♯ minor (which seems to be the norm). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Only pieces expressly notated in a key may be considered in that key (see a♭). Therefore, unless we can find a piece, or even just a substantial section (longer than the one in Bach's BWV 887 WTC Vol. 2 No. 18 Fugue), expressly notated in e♯, this should be merged. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. When theorists analyze pieces, any place where a piece has modulated is considered in a "new key." Although, I understand your point from a title perspective. No composer will start a piece in E# minor unless they're doing it to be different, and that's not good enough reason to have it there. Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - The only place I've ever seen such a key is in my Arban's book for low instruments, and that is because it was transcribed from the trumpet version. This key does not occur naturally as a key signature. Sections in a piece, especially during the development, could be written out in E# minor (I'm sure there are middle parts of Chopin Etudes where this applies among other pieces) but it only exists out of convenience to the composer - instead of changing a passage with tons of sharps to flats, they just include the double sharp. In the end, it doesn't exist as a key by itself. Is the only reason this exists because of the table created? Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – I actually think all the keys/scales could be merged into one big list (but this probably isn't the right place to discuss that...) Niklas R Talkpage 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't think of any place one would use e# minor, unless it were as a passing tonicization in C#. Even if we could find a piece or substantial section of a piece in e# minor, wouldn't it be better to mention it as an exceptional instance of an odd spelling of f minor? If no one can present a strong reason for the article's seperate existence within the next week or so, then I'll conduct the merger, as it seems we have a consensus, no? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable compositions section is biased
It lists only classical compositions, but there are actually quite a few pop songs in F minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)