12

There was a recent question: Name of black keys as a starting point in a musical series. Several others and I answered it. In my answer, I said:

"E♭ will require 3 flats. D♯ would require double sharps."

I used the phrase, "would require double sharps" to avoid giving a specific number of sharps.

So, if asked: How many sharps in D♯ major? What would you say?

a) 9 sharps.

b) 5 sharps and 2 double sharps.

c) 7 sharps, 2 of which are double.

d) It's a silly question, no one would use that key.

e) Something else.

f) There is no good answer to this question.

The first is mathematically attractive. If you pick a pair of enharmonic keys X sharp and (X + 1) flat then the number of sharps in one plus the number of flats in the other would always be 12. However, I am not suggesting that this should be taken as a justification of this answer.

Clarification

I am not suggesting that this is an important question. It is just a curiosity inspired by the question that I referred to. If there is no good answer then that is the answer. I have added that option though d) could be regarded as covering that one.

ReinstateMonica3167040
  • 111
  • 4
badjohn
  • 4,163
  • 1
  • 18
  • 41
  • Not sure, whether [this question](https://music.stackexchange.com/q/65936/2600) is a duplicate, but it is quite close. – guidot May 02 '18 at 12:20
  • In the context of your answer to the other question, I would have written "5 sharps and 2 double sharps" if I wanted to be more specific than just "double sharps." In context, therefore, your question is ambiguous; did you literally ask "how many sharps" (which I hear as a request for a single number, which would have to be 9), or did you ask how to rewrite of the answer you gave to that other question? – David K May 05 '18 at 16:05
  • @DavidK I considered that but I wanted to keep it simple and I regarded any use of double sharps as being significantly more complicated than the alternative of 3 flats. – badjohn May 05 '18 at 16:10
  • Right, I don't have any complaint about how you answered the other question. I'm just pointing out that you've asked two questions here, one explicit question and one implicit question, and I would answer those questions differently. (I suppose the implicit question is actually "how _might_ I have written that answer" rather than "how _should_ I".) – David K May 05 '18 at 16:13

7 Answers7

11

I think that once you get past the learning stage, we stop really talking about how many sharps or flats are in a given key, as we come to just know what notes make up what scales and/or know the patterns of the keys and can apply them anywhere without having to think about the notes that make up those keys.

If you do need to describe this, I'd think 5 sharps and 2 double-sharps would be the way to go. And yes, it is incredibly unlikely that you will run into D# Major as a key, so you're unlikely to have to make that distinction. You would most likely run into this key, or other keys that are more easily described in their enharmonically equivalent key, within a series of modulations, which is probably most likely to occur in Classical music but could certainly occur elsewhere.

Basstickler
  • 7,399
  • 16
  • 46
  • 2
    Very true, or people who are generally uneducated in theory. As a theory geek, I'm often a stickler for using note names that make the most sense and it gets annoying working with those people. I play in rock bands, so I see it a lot, such as "the first chord is D minor and the second chord is A# Major". It hurts every time and it's almost always a guitar player. – Basstickler May 02 '18 at 13:49
  • 1
    Is an interesting question why this habit is particularly prevalent among guitarists. There is no very obvious reason why it is less common than among pianists. At a guess, and just that, there are more self-taught guitarists than pianists. – badjohn May 02 '18 at 13:53
  • I wonder how any key with double sharps would be signed! If that doesn't make sense, 'A' would be three fingers pointing upwards, for 3#. Yet another good reason for using its alter ego! – Tim May 02 '18 at 14:14
  • @badjohn - Yes, I would definitely suggest that self taught musicians and musicians who have never learned to read music are the most likely to have this tendency. It just so happens that guitar is the most commonly picked up instrument that gets followed through with without having any formal training, at least in America and probably in most western cultures. – Basstickler May 02 '18 at 14:21
  • @Tim - Do you mean like sign language for the deaf? Or are you speaking of a sign that one might use in a band on stage? I'm not familiar with either. – Basstickler May 02 '18 at 14:22
  • @Basstickler There are plenty of self-taught guitarists in the UK as well. Probably most places. I was with a couple of friends recently (one British and one Filipino). Both very good guitarists but neither could read music. – badjohn May 02 '18 at 14:27
  • 1
    I don't play with any deaf (hearing impaired) people. (Except drummers, but that's usually self-inflicted!!) It's a simple way to communicate what key something is in. Used it for 50 yrs, but it seems to be a bit of a secret. Got fed up of shouting across 'it's in G', only to have another player think he heard 'D', but one finger upwards is unequivocal over noise on stage - and if segueing into another number, which may only be known to a vocalist (we did this all the time), a sign works simply. – Tim May 02 '18 at 14:28
  • @badjohn - I'd say there's loads more self-taught guitarists than pianists, and most feel they don't need the academic side of music. That, and so many not-so-good 'let's-all-play-the-guitar' sites. – Tim May 02 '18 at 14:31
  • On a guitar, the fingering for an E chord is totally different from the fingering of an F chord. Unless a guitar player explicitly learns to associate "Fb" with the E-chord shape, trying to take the F chord and shift it down a half step won't work. Even if something should logically be an Fb chord, notating it as "E" will make it much easier for guitar players to find it instinctively. – supercat May 02 '18 at 15:11
  • @supercat They're not really that different per se. If you play an F major, then move it all back a fret, you'd find that the barre was on top of the nut and all the other notes are the same. It might make more sense to play the E shape with fingers 2, 3 and 4 in some situations. Beyond that, "finding" Fb is only difficult if you don't know where all the notes are and know the basic theory to understand # and b, and that B#, Cb, E#, Fb all exist. It is generally easier to conceptualize E than Fb but I just wish serious musicians would invest the time to learn basic theory. – Basstickler May 02 '18 at 15:26
  • @Basstickler: The fret patterns are very similar, but I've never seen anyone finger an E chord using the middle, ring, and pinky fingers. – supercat May 02 '18 at 15:35
  • @supercat - Right, it's definitely not common but it can be done easily. A circumstance where it could be useful is if you're playing some sort of A harmonic minor (or mode of it) where you're going back and forth between E and F a lot. Then you wouldn't really have to do as much work to switch back and forth. Guitar players generally get used to having to change a lot of fingers for chords though, so once you're well practiced, it's not particularly difficult to make that switch. – Basstickler May 02 '18 at 15:59
  • 1
    @Basstickler: I generally try to minimize finger gymnastics myself. Mostly by using an alternative tuning G-D-d-f-g#-b, but on the occasions I do use standard, by using different fingerings from those I often see suggested in books (e.g. I don't use my index finger on a D chord; instead I leave it free for D7). Depending upon the headstock design, though, I would think getting the hand in place for an F-style fingering of an E chord might be awkward. – supercat May 02 '18 at 16:08
  • @supercat, FYI, Melissa and Breaking the Girl are just two examples of songs I play E with my barre chord fingers because they transition up the neck into other barre chords. There are several other songs I use that technique with as well. I would also note that Sympathy for the Devil uses the A shape barre chord when playing E (albeit with some strings muted.) After realizing an Fb was an 'E' I would note where the prior and post chords were and choose the E chord shape that made the most efficient transition and maintained proper tonality. – Tracy Cramer May 02 '18 at 19:09
  • @TracyCramer I knew there was a use for it! I don't really play guitar, as much as I'm very familiar with it and can dabble, so I can't really speak to what is or isn't used super commonly. – Basstickler May 02 '18 at 20:17
  • 1
    @supercat - aw, come on! Several songs use the Spanish sequence (Am, G, F, E), and anyone who actually thinks about what they're doing - I coerce all my students to do that- rather than "I do things like this because I've always done them like this". Run down from 5th fret barre Am, 3rd fret barre G, 1st fret barre F, and why on earth would you want to change all your fingers for E? just drop everything down another fret.Then, magically, take them all back for the next Am. I can't believe you said it - or do it that way. Where's the streamlining?logic?efficiency? sense?I need more words!!! – Tim May 02 '18 at 22:14
6

Apart from 'please justify convincingly that D# is a better key to write in, and read, than Eb'?

Each key will need each of its notes to have a letter name, thus facilitating the writing of individual notes without confusion. Were there two Fs, for instance, one properly named E#, the other properly named Fx, they would both share the same line/space and make things even worse than this scenario!

Thus, each letter name in this 'key' will be either # or x. Stated in the key sig, which would contain 5# and 2x. There were never 7 sharps, as the two double sharps are simply that. In other words, a double sharp (x) is a different note from a sharp(#), rather than being thought of as 'two sharps'.

However, it's a semantic question, so probably sits well with 'theory'...

ReinstateMonica3167040
  • 111
  • 4
Tim
  • 183,051
  • 16
  • 181
  • 444
  • 1
    The question is not on the merits of D# v Eb, it is just about how to count the number of sharps in unusual keys. – badjohn May 02 '18 at 13:10
  • 1
    Read past the first paragraph please. And that part eludes to (d). – Tim May 02 '18 at 14:08
  • I did but I was not sure what the intent was. Are you asking me to justify the use of D# or suggesting that should be my response? If the first, see my clarification that I added to the question. If the second then it is approximately my option d. – badjohn May 02 '18 at 14:10
  • Certainly not wishing to offend, I'd change (f) slightly to: (f) the answer to this question is purely academic. Isn't it? Although after more thought, and consideration of cumulative #, (keys moving in 5ths), the answer could be 7. Help! – Tim May 02 '18 at 14:18
  • No offence taken. Yes, the question is purely academic. As I said in my clarification to the question, it was just a curiosity inspired by another question. – badjohn May 02 '18 at 14:22
  • @Tim In the situation of sight transposition, such as a Bb instrument reading music for a C instrument, I find it significantly easier to raise the piece by a whole step by reading each note as if it was a step higher, then adding 2 sharps to the key signature. Fiddling with sharps->flats to me is less simple than just adding more sharps. If I was playing music written in C#, I would end up thinking in D#, even though Eb might be simpler from a key standpoint. – fyrepenguin May 02 '18 at 23:00
  • @fyrepenguin - that's exactly what I did when I first learned trumpet, it meant I could use ordinary sheet music and be in key with others. – Tim May 03 '18 at 07:10
3

If you found yourself in a situation where it was necessary to quantify the number of sharps in all possible keys, I think continuing the count through C# - 7, G# - 8, D# - 9 would be more likely to be useful. If you disagee, your reasons will automatically answer your question!

Laurence
  • 84,790
  • 5
  • 59
  • 178
2

I believe that f) is correct: There is no good answer to this question. The reason why it's so is that there are no "common habits" for writing down these keys.

In classical music and transposing instruments, the key is usually re-written, i.e. a piece in B major (+5) played on an E♭ (+3 correction) saxophone should be in G♯ major (+8), but the part would usually simply be written in the enharmonic A♭ major (-4).

In classical music and series of modulations, AFAIK, the composers were never so wicked as to make series of modulations ending in theoretical keys.

In "more modern than classical" settings, you usually don't care at all about enharmonic keys and enharmonic chords.

If you still want to know how many sharps does D♯ major have and you want a single number as the answer, then it's certainly nine: F (counted twice), C (counted twice), G♯, D♯, A♯, E♯, B♯. The notation of this seems unsettled and the options are discussed in my answer to the other question.

yo'
  • 2,311
  • 15
  • 24
  • Only reason I can think of for writing in D# is that the previous part of a piece was already in many sharps - C#, for instance, and a key change keeping in sharps may be easier for players already wearing their 'sharp' hats, rather than going to flats. – Tim May 02 '18 at 15:33
  • @Tim Right. I'm yet to see an example :) Because anyway, C#(+7) ~ Db(-5), so I would then prefer transition from Db to Eb. But it's always the composers' decision, after all :) – yo' May 02 '18 at 15:40
  • I would not say there are nine sharps in the key of D# major since Sharps and double sharps are different entities. There are 5 sharps and two double sharps. The equivalent would be like saying a key with a sharp and a flat in it has no sharps or flats because they balance out when that's not really what's going on. – Dom May 02 '18 at 16:07
  • @Dom However, you can't have a key in the circle of fifths that has both #s and bs, right? – yo' May 02 '18 at 16:27
  • There are several scales that use both sharps and flats and while key signatures are typically only associated with the major and minor scale it's not unheard of to apply it to other (it's just very atypical). One example is G harmonic minor which has Bb, Eb, and F#. There are two flats and one sharp in the scale not just one flat because the two cancel out. – Dom May 02 '18 at 16:33
  • @Dom Anyway, (1) the OP seems to only be interested in major scales (i.e. 2-2-1-2-2-2-1), and (2) the part where I answer "nine" starts by saying "if you want a single number". I don't really see the point in mentioning non-standard signatures. – yo' May 02 '18 at 16:50
  • @yo' it's just stating that the symbols are independent with a more typical sharp / flat mentality than a double Sharp. Sharps and flats are never additive so saying there's nine sharps when there are five Sharps and two double Sharps doesn't make much sense either. – Dom May 02 '18 at 16:53
  • Oh c'mon, sharps and flats are _so much additive_ when you move along the circle of fifths. For example, an Ab transposing instruments adds 4 sharps, or removes 4 flats (+4). However, coming from F major (-1), it removes 1 flat and adds 3 sharps to A major (+3). Modulating into the dominant means adding 1 sharp or removing 1 flat (+1). Moving from a major to the parallel minor adds 3 flats or removes 3 sharps (-3). And so on and so forth. – yo' May 06 '18 at 16:29
2

The Key of D# is a theoretical key, more correctly, in the real world we would use and notate Eb instead, however. in the theoretical key of D#. there are 5 sharps and 2 double sharps. Given the choices of answers you have provided us with I would select answer b).

DiggDugg
  • 353
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9
-1

There are 9 sharps in D sharp major 3G#, 4D#, 5A#, 6E#, 7B#, 8Fx, 9Cx

Alex G-I
  • 1
-2

Western music system and theory have been developed with sets of assumptions. Those assumptions have been perceived so strongly to the points where those assumptions are called rules.

Nobody has to follow this system, it is entirely the musician's choice. Actually there are many musicians not following these system and the rules and still be quite successful and famous.

When we talk about keys and its notation using #'s and b's on five line music staff, there are a few assumptions that we are taking a rules.
Some relevant ones listed below:

  • a whole step is divided into two half steps
  • Two half steps make one whole step
  • Every whole step has the same relative interval distance ratio, and every half step has the same relative interval distance ratio
  • Based on above assumptions, Following conditions are considered true: B# = C, Cb = B, C# =Db, C## = D, Dbb = C, ... (There was time that this was not true...)
  • Musical notation should be logical, efficient and easy to read

Based on the above widely accepted rules and assumptions,there should not be any reason to notate music using C# major notation.

Yes, you can notate C# major key using a), b), or c) if you really need to use that - none of them are "wrong". However, if somebody has to grade it in a college music major music theory class in a, they are all wrong. Because C# major has been normalized as Db major.

There were times that everybody was notating music in different way. It was okay when musician did not talk to other musicians or musician from different region or town. As exchange of ideas, interactions of musicians, and music education becoming common, this became a huge problem and they started finding way of normalizing the notation very quickly. The system we are using is the result of the normalization effort.

I think the question is interesting curiosity question. My answer is, unless there is an unavoidably strong need, we should use the well accepted and normalized protocol.

If I were forced to choose an answer, it will be f) since all three of them (a, b, c) are not wrong.

Kay
  • 260
  • 1
  • 6