TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Harmonic mixing: Tunes in major keys
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Harmonic mixing: Tunes in major keys

I've been buying a lot of tracks from the 6th Borough Project/The Revenge end of the house spectrum (slow-mo house, disco re-edits, whatever you want to call it). Rapid Evolution is telling me a lot of these tunes are in major keys. Is that the case for this genre or is the software leading me astray?

5b Still Going - Untitled Love (Instrumental)
6b Ilija Rudman - Call Me Tonight (The Revenge 1-800 Mix)
7b Worst Friends - Del Boca Vista (Original Mix)
11b 6th Borough Project - Just A Memory
12b Jaffa Surfs - Disko Z (The Revenge Remix)

[Camelot key codes end in "a" for minor keys and "b" for major keys.]

After giving it a quick blast on YouTube, it sounds to me like the first one's in F minor, so I'd check them if I were you.

Tbh I only ever use Rapid Evolution as a quick way of getting the tempo (although I normally just let Traktor do that now) - I've never trusted it with working out keys. With tempos if the number RE comes up with sounds about right, it probably is... but with keys you have no way of knowing apart from checking every single one - the algorithms are so complicated and inexact.

For that genre, yes in my experience there tend to be more majors compared to say prog house.

Knowing whether a track is major or minor isn't too difficult normally. Minor tracks sound a bit more mellow and deep, while majors usually sound more cheerful.

The best way to test it is to try mixing it into the same key. So if you think it is a 9B, try mixing it with another 9B. If it is seamless than it is probably a major, and vice versa with the minor equivalent

Most dance tracks up to the early 1980's were in major keys. Since then, most have been in minor keys. For a comparison of key detection software, see
http://www.djtechtools.com/2009/11/...ware-smackdown/

second track is in A minor.
4rth track is in C# minor

They could of been at different speeds as it was youtube but the key is definitely off.

use a piano and your ears as those stupid softwares don't work. They work by getting the most common root note which doesn't guarantee it is the tonic of the key.

how I do detest the camelot system and monkeys that use it.

"Monkeys"??

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad second track is in A minor. 4rth track is in C# minor They could of been at different speeds as it was youtube but the key is definitely off. use a piano and your ears as those stupid softwares don't work. They work by getting the most common root note which doesn't guarantee it is the tonic of the key. how I do detest the camelot system and monkeys that use it.

"Monkeys"? The vast majority of people do not have sufficient music education to "use a piano" to key music. Some tracks are even difficult for professional musicians, with thousands of hours playing music, to key. Those who depend on others for keying are "monkeys"?

No system "works" perfectly, but do you believe the overlay chart is a more efficient method of selecting compatible mixes than the Camelot Wheel (see http://www.djprince.no/table2.htm)? Do YOU have a more efficient method?

Please advise. Thanks!

the system says nothing regarding the affect of going from one key to another and it is akin to just following a script for which you have no understanding as to why you are doing it. You are just blindly mixing according to some chart that speaks nothing of the general character of certain blends. It is a gimmick. Until you understand key relationships and conceptualized the relationship between them, all you are is a robot who isn't in control of what they are playing.

More efficient manner ? I do but it involves work. Your system doesn't work, it doesn't propel djs to learn anything about music theory and is a tool for hacks. And your system is just a rip off of what others have been doing for hundreds of years except they don't use arbitrary numbers to idiot proof it for a generation of djs that think they are musicians.

someone is trolling here, i dont know who yet

Efficiency

Thanks for your response.

YOU WROTE: ". . . the system says nothing regarding the affect of going from one key to another and it is akin to just following a script for which you have no understanding as to why you are doing it."

RESPONSE: Only partly true. It "says nothing regarding the affect of going from one key to another" OTHER than harmonic compatibility, which is its only function. This is the only reason mixers care about the system: to identify harmonic compatibility. Further, it is NOT akin to following a script. It is more akin to following a map (http://www.camelotsound.com/Overview.aspx), because it charts the harmonic relationship among songs.

A script must be followed. This system, on the other hand, narrows the field of potential tracks to only the 25% or so that are harmonically compatible. It is like GPS for mixing. You may choose to use the system or not. Unlike a script, the choice is yours.

"Understanding why you are doing it" is nice to have, but unnecessary for the function of selecting harmonically compatible mixes. Not all people had the luxury of music education, or the desire to study music theory to the skill level required to competently key tracks on their own. This is especially true since the 1980's in America, when school systems cut so many arts programs to concentrate on core subjects. Do you believe that harmonic mixing should be reserved only for the elite with adequate music education?

"Your system doesn't work" is false, because it meets its designated function (identifying harmonically compatible mixes) perfectly! It is not DESIGNED to "propel DJs to learn anything about music theory" (other than indirectly teaching actual key compatibility), because knowledge of music theory is not required to select harmonically compatible mixes.

(It's unclear, however, whether "your system" refers to harmonic mixing in general (see overlay chart), or the Easymix System that annotates the Circle of Fifths with keycodes. Which is it?)

The "general character of certain blends" may be important to the overall function of mixing, but it is irrelevant in the SUB-function of selecting HARMONICALLY COMPATIBLE mixes, as stated. The ONLY factor in selecting harmonically compatible mixes is harmonic compatibility.

Further, studying music theory is not an EFFICIENT use of time, if the only use of such study is to select harmonically compatible mixes. If they aspire to becoming musicians, that is another issue. Non-musicians do not need to UNDERSTAND key relationships any more than passengers need to understand aircraft engineering. Nice to have, but irrelevant to the simple function of selecting harmonically compatible mixes.

- What "generation of DJs thinks they're musicians"? As far as I can tell, the only DJ's who think they are musicians are DJ's who actually ARE musicians. This is a fraction of the whole.

- How is the Camelot Wheel a "ripoff"? Who is being "ripped-off"? It is an interpretation of a public domain concept (i.e., the Circle of Fifths)?


FYI: "Efficient" means "performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort." A "more efficient" method of performing this function (selecting harmonically compatible mixes) must be a method of selecting harmonically compatible mixes with the least waste of time and effort.

- Do you believe the overlay chart is a more efficient method of selecting harmonically compatible mixes than the Camelot Wheel?

- What is YOUR "more efficient" method of selecting harmonically compatible mixes? This more efficient method must be able select harmonically compatible mixes with LESS time and effort. Please advise. The whole world's waiting!


"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

your system doesn't account for chord changes, non chord tones, cross relations , suspensions , key modulations. Basically anything that doesn't involve a root bass note and sound effects. Two songs in the same key do not make them harmonically compatible in the manner you think ( I say this because all keys are compatible with all other keys in that it is only a spectrum of dissonance rather than right or wrong) just because of the key. Of course i'm pretty sure your knowledge of music theory impedes your understanding as to why this is the case. You also assume that dissonance is an absolute rather than a spectrum.

any system that doesn't explain why and acts as a script, and no it isn't a map because you do not define the relation in concrete terms, in my opinion is rubbish. The goal should not be to have 2 songs that might have some harmonic congruences but rather the overall ebb and flow of a set.

And your approach to music is rather disgusting. You don't think djs should have some knowledge of music theory ? You seem to even discourage it. Great attitude.

Pollyanna's Playground

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad your system doesn't account for chord changes, non chord tones, cross relations , suspensions , key modulations. Basically anything that doesn't involve a root bass note and sound effects. Two songs in the same key do not make them harmonically compatible in the manner you think ( I say this because all keys are compatible with all other keys in that it is only a spectrum of dissonance rather than right or wrong) just because of the key. Of course i'm pretty sure your knowledge of music theory impedes your understanding as to why this is the case. You also assume that dissonance is an absolute rather than a spectrum. any system that doesn't explain why and acts as a script, and no it isn't a map because you do not define the relation in concrete terms, in my opinion is rubbish. The goal should not be to have 2 songs that might have some harmonic congruences but rather the overall ebb and flow of a set. And your approach to music is rather disgusting. You don't think djs should have some knowledge of music theory ? You seem to even discourage it. Great attitude.

With the exception of modulations, all of that is irrelevant to 99% of mixing situations, because the structure of dance tracks has become rather simple since the replacement of actual musicians with computers. Our system, however does account for modulations.

Whether or not DJ's "should" have knowledge of music theory is irrelevant, because DJ's do not NEED to have such knowledge to mix harmonically. Music "should" adhere to basic rules of melody and harmony, but much of it does not. We deal with reality, not Pollyanna's Playground.

"You also assume that dissonance is an absolute rather than a spectrum." Untrue, as explained in the comment on "reasonable harmony."

Once again: Please answer my questions regarding your claims, especially an elaboration of your unsubstantiated claim of a "more efficient" system for selecting harmonic mixes. If you cannot understand my questions, please advise.

quote:

Originally posted by Camelot_Sound ...because the structure of dance tracks has become rather simple since the replacement of actual musicians with computers.

Do the who to the what, now?

Er, seriously - this is the dumbest reason in the world, that even if it were 100% true, would make it no less stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Do the who to the what, now? Er, seriously - this is the dumbest reason in the world, that even if it were 100% true, would make it no less stupid.

Why would it be "stupid" if such complexity has mostly disappeared? The less complicated a track is, the easier it is to identify the tonal center, and therefore the key.

Back in the disco era, there were many elements that complicated the harmonic mixing process. Now it's much simpler.

Re: Pollyanna's Playground

quote:

Originally posted by Camelot_Sound With the exception of modulations, all of that is irrelevant to 99% of mixing situations, because the structure of dance tracks has become rather simple since the replacement of actual musicians with computers. Our system, however does account for modulations.

Trance tracks change chords. Whether it is a programmed or not is irrelevant. How does your system account for one track playing one chord progression and the other , another,. If you honestly think people are not using chord changes, you need to open your ears. In fact the initial poster posted songs that all had chord changes.

example

A: i [applied V] to III
B: i VI v
doesn't sound so pretty and it is the same key. And that is a very common and generic progression.

And you system doesn't account for modulations as you don't distinguish whether a modulation actually occurred in the track. This requires a knowledge of theory and any program isn't going to pick it up.

To answer your question, I don't have a system in that I would call my own. I've spent the time learning music theory so I don't have to deal with stupid numbers that mean nothing. Its called learning. I suppose that would be my system. Not this bullshit you purport.

quote:

Originally posted by Camelot_Sound Why would it be "stupid" if such complexity has mostly disappeared? The less complicated a track is, the easier it is to identify the tonal center, and therefore the key. Back in the disco era, there were many elements that complicated the harmonic mixing process. Now it's much simpler.

Most disco would use a minor blues scale which translates rather well to many keys. I don't really think you know what you are talking about. The harmonies used then and now are very similar. I would say there are less chord extensions but it isn't black and white.

And tonal center does not equate the key. You can be in the key of A minor without ever having an A minor chord. A key is merely a framework which is typically demarked by functional harmony using either dominant push or other common place progressions that tend to outline the key. But it doesn't have to be there.

Piston page 121 just in case you need a reference.

"And you system doesn't account for modulations as you don't distinguish whether a modulation actually occurred in the track. This requires a knowledge of theory and any program isn't going to pick it up."

False. Our system advises, for example, that Cheryl Lynn's "Got To Be Real" modulates from G-Minor to A-Minor. Further, our
system" has nothing to do with any "program." Designed in 1991, the Easymix System is the basis for our 60,000 MUSICIAN-keyed track database!

Evidently you have me confused with key detection software designers.

So how exactly does your system mitigate these changing chords and keys. How does a simple number translate to when these changes occur , for how long �.

All i've seen above is a number and letter per track.

Anyways, there is no point me arguing here. I think your system sucks for the reasons I've outlined. I think it discourages learning and it makes people lazy. So lets just agree to disagree. Im not sure how I ended up on the dj page.

Perhaps we should post one at a time.

I agree that "tonal center does not equate the key." However, the tonal center usually INDICATES the key, and is the basis upon which our professional musicians key music. All key detection, whether human or software, is an approximation. Such approximation is valuable in the vast majority of cases.

"The harmonies used then and now are very similar" is a half-truth because so many tracks today have neither melody nor harmony (e.g. rap and EDM). The only tonal information in many tracks is just a monotone pedal tone.

quote:

Originally posted by Camelot_Sound Why would it be "stupid" if such complexity has mostly disappeared? The less complicated a track is, the easier it is to identify the tonal center, and therefore the key. Back in the disco era, there were many elements that complicated the harmonic mixing process. Now it's much simpler.

It's stupid because it's a self-fulfilling proposition which dictates that because the music is made more simply a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice. By virtue of your proposition, not only DJ's should be encouraged to dumb it down, but music producers, as well. In so being it is self-fulfilling circular logic which, by its reductive nature, should alleviate any need for your invention in its current state by the year 2014; at which point a 909 four-on-the-floor kick, a fart bass playing a simple yet tortured polka swing on the down beat of each measure, and white noise sweeps will permeate the milieu of clubs, everywhere.

Furthermore, the assertion that 100% of music is made by computers, opposed to musicians, is simply bogus. I use SONAR to produce but it is far from being the machine that did 50% of my workload so well, I purchased two of them. I don't begrudge you or your product until you start pedaling it with conjecture which is, at best, bogus and, at worst, irresponsible. Start making the ethos of making music your high-water-mark, and I might be willing to change that opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad So how exactly does your system mitigate these changing chords and keys. How does a simple number translate to when these changes occur , for how long �. All i've seen above is a number and letter per track. Anyways, there is no point me arguing here. I think your system sucks for the reasons I've outlined. I think it discourages learning and it makes people lazy. So lets just agree to disagree. Im not sure how I ended up on the dj page.

Our database provides an incoming keycode, and an outgoing keycode when modulation is detected, because these are the points at which mixing usually occurs. Modulation is MUCH less common since the Disco Era.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. Thanks for your input.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker It's stupid because it's a self-fulfilling proposition which dictates that because the music is made more simply a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice. By virtue of your proposition, not only DJ's should be encouraged to dumb it down, but music producers, as well. In so being it is self-fulfilling circular logic which, by its reductive nature, should alleviate any need for your invention in its current state by the year 2014; at which point a 909 four-on-the-floor kick, a fart bass playing a simple yet tortured polka swing on the down beat of each measure, and white noise sweeps will permeate the milieu of clubs, everywhere. Furthermore, the assertion that 100% of music is made by computers, opposed to musicians, is simply bogus. I use SONAR to produce but it is far from being the machine that did 50% of my workload so well, I purchased two of them. I don't begrudge you or your product until you start pedaling it with conjecture which is, at best, bogus and, at worst, irresponsible. Start making the ethos of making music your high-water-mark, and I might be willing to change that opinion.

Sorry, but I never asserted that 100% of music is made by computers, nor did I assert that a "a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice." Recommend you review my posts rather than jumping to conclusions.

As a matter of fact, the "rudimentary analysis tools" represented by key detection software should NOT suffice. A comparison of such software was conducted by DJ Tech Tool (http://www.djtechtools.com/2009/11/...ware-smackdown/), and revealed major shortcomings in such software.

In the absence of comprehensive music education, however, such software is better than nothing. We recommend our customers use this software for a "guesstimate" until Camelot keys the music by musician. Since untold thousands of tracks are released every year, however, only a small fraction will ever be keyed by our musicians.

FYI: http://www.track-finder.com has software-detected keys on over 433,000 tracks.

Rather than using "rudimentary analysis tools," we have been keying music with professional musicians since 1987. Our database now includes over 60,000 records.

how much do you pay your musicians ?

quote:

Originally posted by Camelot_Sound Sorry, but I never asserted that 100% of music is made by computers, nor did I assert that a "a set of rudimentary analysis tools should suffice." Recommend you review my posts rather than jumping to conclusions. As a matter of fact, the "rudimentary analysis tools" represented by key detection software should NOT suffice. A comparison of such software was conducted by DJ Tech Tool (http://www.djtechtools.com/2009/11/...ware-smackdown/), and revealed major shortcomings in such software. Rather than using "rudimentary analysis tools," we have been keying music with professional musicians since 1987. Our database now includes over 60,000 records.

I'll give you the 100% remark by about 50%. In stating that music was made by computers and not musicians, literally interpreted that means that 100% of the composition process is carried out by the push of a button. While I disagree with the literal interpretation, music production being thought of as button pushing stems from a well-deserved reputation among a good deal of EDM producers. The fact that this reputation ties in well with the second part of your sentence I went to laborious measure to deconstruct, remains intact.

To the verity of my second argument opposing its supposed conjecture: semantics. Your argument is bogged by the assertion of prevalent simplicity. Music is simple, ergo, you have developed a device, protocol, algorithm, et al which contends with it, simply, ergo...



Duty calls. I have to go. See you, tomorrow.

"To the verity of my second argument opposing its supposed conjecture: semantics. Your argument is bogged by the assertion of prevalent simplicity. Music is simple, ergo, you have developed a device, protocol, algorithm, et al which contends with it, simply, ergo..."

Not sure what you mean. The overlay chart http://www.djprince.no/table2.htm) was introduced by Stuart Soroka of Harmonic Keys Magazine (Key West, Florida) in the mid-1980s. Harmonic Keys developed the idea of harmonic mixing (see http://www.camelotsound.com/History.aspx.

All that I did was devise a system (Camelot Wheel) that made the overlay chart easier to use by eliminating the need to MEMORIZE the perfect fourth, perfect fifth, and relative major/minor of each key. Rather than memorizing 24 sets of compatible keys, as required by the Overlay Chart, a user could identify compatible combinations almost instantly.

Since then, simplicity HAS become relatively prevalent in popular music. Some producers, such as Dr. Dre, had no music education. Unlike in earlier decades, many tracks today have no melody or harmonic structure.

So what EXACTLY are you accusing me of? Making an existing system simpler to use? Working with professional musicians for almost 25 years to compile a database which is more accurate than key detection software? Or something else?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.