Talk:Closely related key

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More or less

message: 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)
thread_title:  Closely related key to minor 

message: 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)
replies: text: For example...? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: # of pitches

message: 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, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, E, Bm, Cm
E    	Cm            	A, B, Fm, Gm
B    	Gm            	E, F, Cm, Dm
F    	Dm            	B, C, Gm, Am
C    	Am            	F, G, Dm, Em
C    	Am            	F, G, Dm, Em
G    	Em            	C, D, Am, Bm
D    	Bm            	G, A, Em, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, E, Bm, 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	Subdominant and dominants
C    	Am            	F, G                     	Dm, Em
G    	Em            	C, D                     	Am, Bm
D    	Bm            	G, A                     	Em, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, E                     	Bm, Cm
E    	Cm            	A, B                     	Fm, Gm
B    	Gm            	E, F                     	Cm, Dm
F    	Dm            	B, C                     	Gm, Am
C    	Am            	F, G                     	Dm, Em
C    	Am            	F, G                     	Dm, Em
G    	Em            	C, D                     	Am, Bm
D    	Bm            	G, A                     	Em, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, E                     	Bm, 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	Subdominant and dominants
C    	Am            	F, Dm                    	G, Em
G    	Em            	C, Am                    	D, Bm
D    	Bm            	G, Em                    	A, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, Bm                    	E, Cm
E    	Cm            	A, Fm                    	B, Gm
B    	Gm            	E, Cm                    	F, Dm
F    	Dm            	B, Gm                    	C, Am
C    	Am            	F, Dm                    	G, Em
C    	Am            	F, Dm                    	G, Em
G    	Em            	C, Am                    	D, Bm
D    	Bm            	G, Em                    	A, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, Bm                    	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)
thread_title: Table

message: Major	Relative Minor	Subdominant and dominants	Subdominant and dominants
C    	Am            	F, Dm                    	G, Em
G    	Em            	C, Am                    	D, Bm
D    	Bm            	G, Em                    	A, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, Bm                    	E, Cm
E    	Cm            	A, Fm                    	B, Gm
B    	Gm            	E, Cm                    	F, Dm
F    	Dm            	B, Gm                    	C, Am
C    	Am            	F, Dm                    	G, Em
C    	Am            	F, Dm                    	G, Em
G    	Em            	C, Am                    	D, Bm
D    	Bm            	G, Em                    	A, Fm
A    	Fm            	D, Bm                    	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)
thread_title: Option 2: C and Am subdominants then dominants

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "no piece in a four-movement form dared to present a tonality not closely related to the key of the whole series"