So here's a chicken and egg question for all you theory experts:

Do keys define chords, or is it the other way around.

I ask this because I want to be clear, when I talk about transitioning from a chord that is in the key to one that is out of the key, do you say the key is changing for that moment, or is the fact that the chord is not in the key simply "creating tension" which will resolve back to the key.

How do you think about this, and is there any accepted standard way to thin about this.

Thanks in advance for your opinions and expertise.

If a chord implies a lot of melody notes outside the key I regard it a key change if the new harmonic structure does not repel back.

For my hearing it is most often the melodies that define the key, rather than chords. But I do hear melodies and chords as two sides of the same musical phenomenon. The reason I use the word "melody" rather than "scale" is that I think performance details like accents is what makes a melody hang with some particular key (not necessarily the scale). And such details is also what for me makes a scale become a melody.

I don't consider myself a "theory expert", so just offering an opinion. I see it as notes creating chords, and notes and chords creating keys.

To me, a key sets up what you're resolving to. Unless that one "out" chord changes where your ear is trying to go, then you haven't changed keys. I think if you only create that tension briefly, you're much more likely to reinforce the original key by resolving it quickly. The fact that you notice it was "out" means you're more aware of the key in the first place. This assumes a single "out" chord that actually resolves quickly. A situation where that chord is held for a while or a whole progression is played around it would be something I might hear differently.

In analysis terms, it might fit in a relative mode or a mode that's a relative to a chord in the key. There probably is an "accepted standard" for this, but I don't know it off the top of my head.

Greg

What you are dealing with is tonality. Think of it as a family of notes which revolve around a central tone (or resting tone). These (usually 7) tones make up an established sonic landscape.
In western music we deal largely with Major and Minor (harmonic and Melodic).

So, if the chord has notes which are outside of the "Tonality" then you are leaving the tonality.

Aurally the Tonality is the established norm, Keyality is different, that describes a random set of notes which have no hierarchy.

I would say that "with this chord we are leaving major tonality for a moment"

The harmony is dictated by the Tonality.........until you break the rules.

Brett

I'm not very good with keys, scales theory, but from what I know :
When melody and chords remain in the key during the song, you can sort of predict what the chord will be.
Example : Lionel Richie - Hello. In the verses there's Am chord which sound totally natural and expected. And then, the verse rolls over in the chorus through a Amajor. When you hear it, you can just tell that the mood (expression of it) opens up and becomes more positive. The same with the end chord in the song, also a A major.
But then it doesn't always seem to be that rule : Sitting on the dock of the bay (Otis Redding). It's almost only major chords in the song and doesn't fit in the regular traditional western music keys/scales, yet, it sounds very predictable.
I would say that maybe the first few chords in a song kind of dictate the key it's in and if other chords deviate from it, then that is perceived as a key change.

IMO If you go back to the real 'fundamental's of music
The tonic note (the drone, the om etc) defines the key ... chords , scales cyles are all layered and superimposed on top. Given that scales and 7 note chords can be seen as being exactly the same system ????? I see the answer as basically being yes to both .


That being said certain intervals (half step, tritone fourth) create a sense of movement towards a 'resolution' these intervals I see as being a more powerful tool than a specific scale or chord.

I find certain inversions (interval patterns) as being more consonant to the harmonic series (and my ear) than others (say a drop2 Cmaj7: E B C G probably because of the fifths) any one else feel the same?

T

Interesting question Greg. (You should get a lot of responses)

I would like to use an analogy to answer your question.

Music is taking a listener on a road trip.

Key > is the normal path on a planned trip containing the starting point.

Chord > is one of the many tonal stopping points on the trip.

“Out of Key” Chord > is just driving off the normal path or an altered route (tension of “Tension and Release).

So from your question “Do keys define chords, or is it the other way around”

Does a Roadmap (Key) define the stopping points (Chords) on a trip?
Yes > at the beginning of the trip.

Do Chords (tonal stopping points) define Keys (Roadmap)?
Mostly > At the end of a trip the totality of the tonal stopping points (chords) defines the final path traveled (1 or more keys), not the normal trip defined at the beginning. So an altered chord outside of the original key cannot define the original key, it does not need to, it has its own key.

I must admit – I just asked this question among several musicians – and they all gave me a different answer.

Sounds like a GPS is required. Change keys? Recalculating!!!

The best way to get 10 answers to this question is to ask 6 musicians!

I'm going to go with "the key defines the chord". C E G# is just a pretty triad. In the key of C it is a C augmented chord. In the key of E, it is probably going to be called an E augmented chord.

THis is bit like the question about whether thinking about Giant steps as 3 separate keys or as just Eb with overlaid cyles as being correct

T