TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Key changes
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Key changes
I have been out the music theory game for a while now and I never got to how to do key changes.
Anyone care to enlighten me on good way to use key changes in tracks, how to do them, and why?
I understand going to the relative major/minor of the scale your working in but it never sounds as good as tracks I hear.
I don't hear key changes in trance very often, but they're pretty common in pop music. A common way to do this is to just jump up a half-step or whole-step, especially coming out of a bridge, or when you repeat a chorus/main theme, particularly at the end.
Another way is through the use of pivot chords - chords that the original key and the destination key have in common. For example, Cmaj and Dmaj both share the chords Emin and Gmaj - these are the iii and V chords in Cmaj, and the ii and IV chords in Dmaj. So, you can use those chords to bridge the transposition from Cmaj to Dmaj, which is especially useful if you use them to build up to an Amaj7 (i.e., the dominant chord in Dmaj), which then resolves to Dmaj (i.e., the new key). Hopefully that makes sense, but here's a basic example that starts in Cmaj and ends in Dmaj:
Cmaj | Fmaj | Cmaj | Gmaj | Emin | Amaj7 | Dmaj
One way of doing is to jump to a perfect cadence into the key you want to go in. Use the V chord from the chord you want to switch into and the I chord
Ex.
C G Am F (key change into Gmaj) D G
C G Am F (key change into melodic Am... FYI not natural Am) E Am
For more creative usage of key changes, incorporate multiple key changes in between. Whatever chords you pick, make sure you keep resolving either one of these combinations of notes in the new key while maintaining harmonic integrity in the old key.
1) VII into the VIII(I)
2) IV into the III
3) II into the I
Realistically, any key change can work, but unless you want to keep the listener from feeling a sense of resolution in the key change (like what Chopin likes to do)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywjx...&feature=fvwrel
This track has some pretty basic but trance friendly modulations. listen to 70's - 2000 pop for clever subtle key modulations. The trick is to not approach it with the level of prepared harmony you would in classical music ie never use the V in root position. The trick is really just enharmonic re interpretation. For example a major chord can be at any given time (just a few) I IV V in major and III VI VII and V ( raised 3) in minor.
start of simple and experiment. Each chord tends to have at least 4 different ways to resolve so there are alot of options.
Cool track but. It never changes key tho
here are some very simple but effective key changes in tunes
One thing I've noticed with many trance/techno producers (not referring to anyone on this thread) is that they sometimes seem to have a hard time differentiating between chord changes, passages that employ secondary dominants or "borrowed" chords, and actual key changes. I think that part of it may just be a misunderstanding of the terminology (i.e., key change vs. chord change), but I also wonder if some of it is attributed to the ubiquity of one-chord tracks in these genres. In other words, so many tracks now days seem to feature so little harmonic variation that it could sound foreign and, therefore, misinterpreted as a key change, when a new chord(s) is introduced. Just a thought. 
possible lol
I don't get why people flail around considering how much harder operating a daw or synth is. Music theory is really not that difficult. I mean if you can do intro calculus which is a requisite for doing just high school, why do people have such trouble with 7 letters.
the term key is pretty self explanatory. It really has a literal meaning.
I think people have really awful attention spans and reading is something most people just don't consider.
What's that at 4.27 then? Not a key change? Its not the most obvious one I've ever heard, I almost wasn't going to post it, but I thought it sounded like it might be a key change...
track never leaves e minor. The E major chord is probably what thru you off but again that is just borrowed from E major and it is quickly changed back to e minor the next chord. Same type of thing as in Deadmaus some chords
there are hundreds of track that do this type of thing. have the main part in a different key. then go back at the outro.
INtro and outro in F
Everything else in C minor.
also, check out chopin for very slick modulation ideas. He is probably the key that pioneered the less intrusive ways to modulate to foreign key regions. Check out his nocturnes for ideas. Here is one I typically give to beginners to figure out.
it is also important to see the big picture in that many passages just explore a key region for a bit but you wouldn't really say there is a key change unless you are really spending some time there and you usually have a perfect cadence ie V I in root position. If you do computer programming, think of it more as nesting.
i've a real problem with keys because they're nammed differently here so to me Cm or Am sounds really abstract, i had to draw a small piano with the correlations because that was driving my crazy , hence i feel represented in what Cryophonik says
they aren't named differently.I mean germans use H for B but that is about it. And music theory is german in origin. French people use Do re mi fa sol la si do but its all the same. Just different symbols.
i call them 0 2 4 5 7 9 11 and then 0 again lol (0 being C). caus thats what they are. all my tracks starts out in C minor (0,3,7) and if i want something else i just transpose instead of wonder what fucking keys to press. i know how to play literally everything out from C minor without knowing notes or anything. Why make things worse than it is. Its just frequencies, i bet it made more sence if wed put up the actual frequences, and would see how 500Hz and 750 Hz will sync pretty good (harmony).
its the same as temperature. what a misunderstood concept. to say that 100degrees is hot is just plain stupid. nothing is 100 degrees, its just what the termometer shows in some calibrated way. around it is just radiation and inside it is inner energy ie movement. which is a result of pressure again. no wonder humans cant evolve.
edit: you know why C and G sounds soo good together? because C(4) is 261,63Hz and G(4) is 392Hz, and if u divide them (392/261,63) you will get 1,5 which means G is 50% higher than C, which again means they will sync every second cycle of C (two wavelength of C will be three wavelength of G). This would look great in a spectroscop, and therefore also sound great. There you got it, my scientific ass just dissected the magic which is music.
edit2: you will recieve the same sync with using D and A. 440.00/293.66 = 1,5. Its no magic what fits. If you want to I can calculate for you why most people seems to like minor instead of major too. Its beacuse they are synced by less waves than a major chord.
i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you kinda suck at harmony. Your system just isn't practical. How do you account for inversions. how do you account for enharmonic reinterpretation.
approaching it from a science perspective ie frequencies isn't really a practical way either as tones that don't go well together are used all the time. It is that spectrum of dissonance and consonance that make music interesting.
see my edit above.
its all about syncing frequencies. nothing more. piano is the closest instrument to do this, therefore its the best suited instrument for writing music. you are right though i do not know anything about harmony in terms of musical training but i have a damn good ear and know when somethings out of place.
it isn't about syncing frequencies. Explain how V goes to I using your theory. And since I going to IV is the same movement, why does one require a resolution yet the other one doesn't if they are the exact same chord movement ?
And you are only using the root frequency. For every chord there are the root of the actual notes in the chord + all the over tones present. You are grossly over simplifying it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Looney4Clooney they aren't named differently.I mean germans use H for B but that is about it. And music theory is german in origin. French people use Do re mi fa sol la si do but its all the same. Just different symbols. |
so learn both systems. Would take you a day.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Looney4Clooney it isn't about syncing frequencies. Explain how V goes to I using your theory. And since I going to IV is the same movement, why does one require a resolution yet the other one doesn't if they are the exact same chord movement ? And you are only using the root frequency. For every chord there are the root of the actual notes in the chord + all the over tones present. You are grossly over simplifying it. |
you shouldn't call something you don't understand retarded. It served its purpose. Your system might seem logical but it really is rather cumbersome.
Lets say G major going to I (cmajor) in the key of C+ . That would sound like then end of a phrase
Yet if you go from G major to C major in the key of G+ , then you don't get the same finishing quality yet the chords and movement are identical. Your system could not explain this in a fast manner. This is why your system doesn;t really work. You put too much importance on what isn't really important and in the process you kinda loose the whole point.
And you can't calculate why C minor is prefered to C major considering minor keys can be explained in terms of their relative major.
I think you really need to learn a little more before creating your own systems that are kinda rubbish.
i do understand it, i just dont remember what i learned 15 years ago because i didnt find it logical as you say (to split up a keyboard octave to 11 keys just doesnt compute imo - it should be devided like bits like 16 or something). but using freq-math could help people like me put together nice easy chords without knowing any music theory at all. im just saying there are more ways.
but that would just be another theory. music theory has only ever been a system of presentation. Your system just requires more energy, is very slow, and cumbersome and no trained musician in their right mind would ever consider using it. It also limits your usage to extremely basic chord vocabulary. You are just sabotaging your self.
im not sure we are discussing the same things 
im discussing chords as a stand alone, you are discussing chord progressions. to me chord progression is just about finding a new chord using atleast one key from the previous chord, preferable two. lol im simple like that.
edit: also im saying it because some might find it interesting that the third(dont know the term) is always 50% above the first(basenote) (considering a normal basic chord).
what is the point of discussing chords if you aren't going to relate them to other chords.
if you can even use your system to figure out these chords, using the system that has been around for years, I can pretty much tell you the chords in one play, I could also transpose it to any key without having to practice as you conceptualize the music in a framework that is much simpler and practical and it is rather simple.
I've investigated many ways people try to organize some sort of framework to make sense of music and your system , which actually was something modern composers used for atonal music more than anything is not really relevant for tonal music.
Just trust me on this one.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.