Talk:Closely related key

More or less

I think it is time for this page to reflect that keys are more or less closely related, depending upon their number of common tones, and not close or not depending on a specific number of common tones. Hyacinth 22:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree; quick and dirty edit. Saved beginning section with the mention that that is the usage in elementary harmony, additions follow. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 16:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Closely related key to minor

The table seems to show only the closely-related keys to major keys. Or did you mean to imply that the closely-related keys to the relative minor are the same? Also, the Gb(F#) notation is really confusing -- you don't really have to list every possible key, do you? --Wahoofive 22:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

# of pitches

Might not a key be more closely related to one key with which it shares less pitches than another key with which it shares more but less important pitches? Hyacinth (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For example...? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there other ways keys may be related besides through number of pitches? Hyacinth (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Table

Any one of these tables a better option than the other?

Current: C subdominant and dominant then Am subdominant and dominant

Major	Relative Minor	Subdominant and dominants
C	Am	F, G, Dm, Em
G	Em	C, D, Am, Bm
D	Bm	G, A, Em, F♯m
A	F♯m	D, E, Bm, C♯m
E	C♯m	A, B, F♯m, G♯m
B	G♯m	E, F♯, C♯m, D♯m
F♯	D♯m	B, C♯, G♯m, A♯m
C♯	A♯m	F♯, G♯, D♯m, E♯m
C♭	A♭m	F♭, G♭, D♭m, E♭m
G♭	E♭m	C♭, D♭, A♭m, B♭m
D♭	B♭m	G♭, A♭, E♭m, Fm
A♭	Fm	D♭, E♭, B♭m, Cm
E♭	Cm	A♭, B♭, Fm, Gm
B♭	Gm	E♭, F, Cm, Dm
F	Dm	B♭, C, Gm, Am

Option 1: C then Am subdominant and dominants

Major	Relative Minor	Subdominant and dominants
C	Am	F, G	Dm, Em
G	Em	C, D	Am, Bm
D	Bm	G, A	Em, F♯m
A	F♯m	D, E	Bm, C♯m
E	C♯m	A, B	F♯m, G♯m
B	G♯m	E, F♯	C♯m, D♯m
F♯	D♯m	B, C♯	G♯m, A♯m
C♯	A♯m	F♯, G♯	D♯m, E♯m
C♭	A♭m	F♭, G♭	D♭m, E♭m
G♭	E♭m	C♭, D♭	A♭m, B♭m
D♭	B♭m	G♭, A♭	E♭m, Fm
A♭	Fm	D♭, E♭	B♭m, Cm
E♭	Cm	A♭, B♭	Fm, Gm
B♭	Gm	E♭, F	Cm, Dm
F	Dm	B♭, C	Gm, Am

Option 2: C and Am subdominants then dominants

Major	Relative Minor	Subdominant and dominants
C	Am	F, Dm	G, Em
G	Em	C, Am	D, Bm
D	Bm	G, Em	A, F♯m
A	F♯m	D, Bm	E, C♯m
E	C♯m	A, F♯m	B, G♯m
B	G♯m	E, C♯m	F♯, D♯m
F♯	D♯m	B, G♯m	C♯, A♯m
C♯	A♯m	F♯, D♯m	G♯, E♯m
C♭	A♭m	F♭, D♭m	G♭, E♭m
G♭	E♭m	C♭, A♭m	D♭, B♭m
D♭	B♭m	G♭, E♭m	A♭, Fm
A♭	Fm	D♭, B♭m	E♭, Cm
E♭	Cm	A♭, Fm	B♭, Gm
B♭	Gm	E♭, Cm	F, Dm
F	Dm	B♭, Gm	C, Am

Any one of these tables a better option than the other? Hyacinth (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rimsky-Korsakov's theory

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov in his 'Practical Manual of Harmony' proposed another theory of key relation. This theory is taught in many Russian courses of harmony. The Russian text is available online: [1].

Rimsky-Korsakov considered not only diatonic (natural) major and minor scales but also harmonic minor and harmonic major. According to his theory, "близкие строи" (close keys) or "строи 1-й степени сродства" (keys of the 1st degree of relation) (in modern Russian musical terminology, "тональности первой степени родства") to a given key are keys whose tonic triads are found in the given key, either diatonic or harmonic. For C major, this gives D minor, E minor, F major, G major, A minor, and F minor but not C minor since there is no E-flat in C major.

"Cтрои 2-й степени сродства" (keys of the 2nd degree of relation) are keys which have at least one common triad with the given key. For example, for C major: Db major, Bb minor, Ab major, Eb major, C minor, Bb major, G minor, D major, B minor, A major, E major, and B major.

"Отдаленные строи" (distant keys) are keys which have no common triads with the given key. For C major: F#/Gb major, D#/Eb minor, F# minor, C# minor, and G# minor.

There is an English translation:

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Practical Manual of Harmony, Carl Fischer, LLC, 2005, ISBN 978-0-8258-5699-0

However, it is not available online, so I do not know how these terms are rendered in English. Burzuchius (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Burzuchius: I suspect there have been many theories and we should allot weight to them according to how often they are taught. I think we can just use direct translations here. That being said, I very much disagree with Rimsky-Korsakov that C minor is more distantly related than F minor to C major: a theory that comes up with something like that needs to be rechecked against the data (which I suppose must be the music from Bach to Schubert; after Schubert there is no longer an attempt, generally, to clearly define the tonic triad and which keys are most distant from it, and increasingly the most distant modulations are given equal weight to the closest, making nonsense of the whole theory even as it continues to have sprung from it.)

If you're interested, Charles Rosen had a theory for major keys that went by the dissonance of the interval the new tonic makes with the old tonic (so from C, first you had F and G, then the four mediants, than D and B-flat, then everything else). Based on other indications in his work, though, I think that the distinction between the last two tiers is not that much (both don't make sense classically without some formal justification), so I would think that there are really three tiers. In C major you'd have:

1. Diatonic related: F major, G major; C minor, D minor, E minor, A minor (I consider the parallel key to be a change of mode but not the tonic, and indeed the minor mode is a very common way to prepare or emphasise a key in the Classical period)
2. Mediant related: E-flat major, E major, A-flat major, A major; E-flat minor, F minor, G minor, A-flat minor
3. Distant keys: D-flat major, D major, F-sharp major, B-flat major, B major; C-sharp minor, F-sharp minor, B-flat minor, B minor (all these need to be specially prepared to exert their function, except the Neapolitan in its function as an appoggiatura to the tonic; but as a key rather than an extended chord it needs this preparation)

and in C minor:

1. Diatonic related: C major, E-flat major, A-flat major; F minor, G minor
2. Mediant related: E major, F major, G major, A major, B-flat major; E-flat minor, E minor, A-flat minor, A minor (with the understanding that mode shifts are also mediant shifts)
3. Distant keys: D-flat major, D major, F-sharp major, B major; C-sharp minor, D minor, F-sharp minor, B-flat minor, B minor

But this version is my OR, of course, and cannot go in the article as long as it remains so. Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"no piece in a four-movement form dared to present a tonality not closely related to the key of the whole series"

This may be a quote, but it is obviously false even for Haydn's own time. Late Haydn often uses chromatic mediants in this position (e.g. the Quartet Op. 74 No. 3 in G minor has a slow movement in E major; the Symphony No. 99 in E-flat major has a slow movement in G major). Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have confirmed that quote is in the book. But "closely related" is a relative concept, despite WP editors wanting to quantify everything. Compared to Bruckner or Tchaikovsky, perhaps Haydn's key relationships are, in fact, "closely related." —Wahoofive (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)