What's the Difference Between a Modulation and a Key Change?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- Get my FREE piano mini-course here! cornell.academy/instant-piano... Start your piano journey now: get 30% off our beginner-friendly "Intro to Piano" course with code LEARNPIANO30! cornellmusicacademy.com/intro...
Follow me on social!!
Instagram: bit.ly/2WoR7W1
Twitter: bit.ly/2I02YAt
Facebook: bit.ly/2K4rHq8
TikTok: bit.ly/2X7pnlN
Tell me your definitions of each of these, GO! And don't forget to use code MUSICTHEORY30 checkout go learn some piano!! cornellmusicacademy.com/
I don’t Even know anything about Music Theory or what a Modulation is but nonetheless I watch your videos even tho I think I’m too old to learn music theory lmao
I‘m 17
I agree with your take in the matter, dude
Why make it complicated?
I totally agree with the modulation is temporary and key-change is permanent. Funnily enough, I've been working on (what I think are) really cool microtonal modulations for the last couple years, including a version of Giant Steps which modulates a quarter tone every few bars .. check it out, you'll probably hate it. czcams.com/video/Q0oISH2s4c4/video.html
To me, a modulation is just a change from what has been established. You can have key changes, you can have a shift in the tonic without changing key (so usually a modal modulation, or changing to the relative major or minor), you can have time signature change, or staying in the same tempo but changing the accents or doing double or half time, or making it more of a shuffle rather than a straight feel, or just changing the tempo higher or lower...there's lots of ways to modulate. But also sometimes I don't really think about "modulation", I'll just think of borrowing chords or using accidentals. If it's a temporary change, I think of it more like that. If it's something that changes for a while or for the rest of the song, then I'll think of it more as an actual modulation.
I would consider modulation to be the process by which musicians step into a different key either temporarily (tonicisation) or permanently (key change)
yeah, this fits to me. You modulate to affect a key change, or tonicization. Now, I'm western classical educated - but not a music theory major, so that's just how I see it.
@@eerbrev This is the way I think about it, when relevant I always talk about how one modulates to a different key but whether it is a key change or not is separate from modulation.
Charles also comments about changing key signatures (or not), and the thing you have to understand about key signatures is that they're effectively nothing more than a method for saving time and ink when you're writing things out by hand (or later, printing things out). They never started out as a rule, they were just a shorthand tool.
They're also not standardized for a while. Minor key signatures often left out one of the raised notes, for ... reasons that are a little "inside baseball." So you'll see, say, G minor, but with only a Bb in the key signature and no Eb.
this is also how I've learned it.
This is a good straight to the point definition. The problem that confuses a lot of music theory people or people in general I’d say is there are a lot of terms thrown around that mean the same thing or process in music.
So I think that’s why people are all over the place kinda when it comes to modulation, tonicization, and key change. This video does highlight Thai conundrum though and there’s other videos out in YT land from 12 tone or David Bennett or even Mr. Neely that touch on the many different terms we have out there in music land that all mean the same thing relatively.
the encyclopedic definition makes the most sense when you think about the fact that you can modulate any element of a piece. tonic modulation is what we usually think of, but there's also metric modulation and time signature modulation. any significant change you make to a piece's structure in the middle is a modulation. you then describe that change as a key change, tempo change, or time signature change.
I agree with this assessment
I agree. I've always thought of it as modulation = process and key change is the result.
I've always thought of metric modulation as some kind of formula within your original tempo that gives the listener the feeling of a new tempo without the actual change taking place. I still think of that being within the original time signature. I guess that's kind of like the tonicization definition but with time. With my idea of metric modulation I wouldn't change the time signature, just like Charles said he wouldn't change the key signature if he were using "modulation."
@@SubtleHawk Same here, and returning to the original key is a de-modulation...
@@Jimburai An example of metric modulation might be 'America' from West Side Story - the chorus changes between a 2/4 triplet feel and 3/4 feel in consecutive measures, even though it's all written in 6/8. The lyric (IIRC) "Life is so free in America" is counted as 1 & a 2 & a 1 2 3...
I think, semantically, modulation really is the process and key change is the result. That's the way the word modulation is used in (metric modulation is the act of changing tempo) and outside of musical context (pulse width modulation is the act of changing the width of a pulse and there's also amplitude modulation, frequency modulation... you get the idea).
Edit: grammae
Syntactically is the coolest word i never knew it existed until your comment. Thank you i will now use this word too much for the next 3 months lol
This is, I think, the closing argument. Very good point!
@@qwgar well don't use it the way that person did. Syntax is the construction of phrases and sentences. They probably meant "semantically" because semantics is meanings of words
This is exactly what i thought
I think it's both what Charles stuck with and this. Modulation is the process, and key change is the result. Modulation might not always lead up to permanence, so when it's lead up to properly, it is permanently a key change.
For me, I have a very simple definition between the 2. KEY CHANGE: The Song / Tune CAN exist without it, e.g. Love on Top, you can always end on the first chorus and it wouldn't be weird.
MODULATION: The Song / Tune CAN'T exist without it, e.g. Every Summertime - Niki. The chorus is being modulated to another key than the verse and can't be played on the same key as the verse.
CMIIW
Further to your point, Every Summertime slaps
That's pretty good, but it relies on what's recognizable. It depends what you define as a song. Technically, every recording or version is slightly different, and two completely different pieces of music are often considered the same song, as covers.
Basically, there's nothing you can't take away or add to a song, as every single piece of music is different yet also bears similarities to every other one.
totally agree with this actually, really great way to put it
at least given that your definition of a song doesn't require that key changes are identified as part of the song
I like that definition. You can't play Knights of Cydonia without changing the key - each verse ends in a new key, and gets there naturally. Modulation, right?
This is cute but really you are describing different kinds of key changes/modulations
This is a really interesting discussion. I feel like the term "key change" is usually when referring to pop music. I can see how modulation and key change can be used interchangeably in certain contexts. Like, the chorus for "We Are The Champions" is in a different key to the verse. The piece does return to the verse after the first chorus, thus returning to the original key, but not after the second. Does that make one chorus a modulation, and the other a key change? The tonicization concept is basically the use of secondary dominants or short ii-Vs. Like putting a ii-V before the IV chord in a blues. Super short events in a piece of music.
About pop music, very good point to bring up - 'key changes' are widely recognised by more than just musicians - anyone with even a little experience of music can identify what they believe to be a key change, which I feel is what brings this to be such an interesting point of discussion. I think it stems from that 'one size fits all' definition of a key change, which obviously has its own merits, but creates a lot of blurred lines between itself and modulation/tonicization
Yes, modulation is the act and key change is the result. Love on Top uses “Direct Modulation” which does not use tonicization (said “toni-see-zation”) but still changes key. Anytime you use a secondary dominant, you’re doing some degree of tonicization, whether or not that leads to a full blown key change. And a change of key does not require a change of key signature, though it is helpful.
Nana nana boo boo stick your head in doo doo
This is essentially what I was going to say.
I’ve heard it called a “Shotgun modulation”, which I think is my favorite musical descriptor ever
@@ZechTechPlays hey little sister, shotgun
@@BabadookJesus It's a nice day for a modulation...
I always thought that modulation is just a fancier way of saying key change, and my music teacher always uses modulation as an alternative for key change, which I never thought that there is a difference between these two terms. Thank you very much Charles for making this video distinguishing the 2. Really helpful. 👍
6:10 That's how I've always thought of it. I've always seen a modulation as a more or less complex way for getting to another key, using a chord progression that helps you do that. And the keychange was always the end product to me. A keychange without a set-up by a chord progression, I've always just considered a keychange (without a modulation).
I think Wikipedia draws from the Berklee method. My harmony professor here at Berklee talks about how if it’s less than 4 chords outside the key, it’s modal mixture, if it’s less than 4 bars, it’s tonicisation, and if it’s more than that it’s a modulation.
This is very interesting! I always thought about it this way:
A modulation requires a previous part of the song to be repeated in a different key. For example, in a lot of pop tunes, the last chorus modulates a half-step up. It's still the same melody and chords, but it's transposed to a different key.
A key change, however, is simply a part of the song that's not in the same key as the rest of the song. But it cannot be a direct transposition of some other part of the song, because that would make it a modulation.
I don't know exactly why that's my definition, but I think the two terms are mostly used like that in Denmark, which is my home country.
Interesting. Swede living in Denmark here. I just looked up the definition in the danish musikipedia and it says that one should distinguish between a modulation which is a longer substantial key change, and a "tonalt udsving" (tonal fluctuation?) which is more temporary. Never heard of it. Never even heard about anything other than key change in sweden, but that was before I got a music education so it could be just because of that...
I agree with this, we continue the theme but up or down
In Finnish I think we use "modulaatio" for every kind of change of key. At least I might say the song "modulates", temporarily OR permanently. I can't think of a translation for "key change" that we would use frequently that would also have a specified meaning different from modulation.
If I remember correctly from music theory classes; a tonicization typically sounds like it's going to a different key without actually changing the key signature, a modulation actually goes to a different key signature within the middle of a singular movement (e.g. the B section in an ABA movement), and a key change goes to a different key signature between movements of a larger work (e.g. the second movement in a string quartet).
yes. I agree!
This has mostly been my personal understanding of it as well. Though within my own personal definition there is still a lot of grey area. For example I would consider a different key for 2 bars in a 16 bar section to be a modulation, and a new section with a different key to be a key change. But, let's say there's a 16 bar section where the second half is in a different key, I would probably personally consider that a key change, even though it's still the same section or passage. Luckily at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Whatever we call it, it will still sound the same.
"Key change is the product, modulation is the process." is the way I've already felt about it (put far more succinctly than I was going to). I always felt because a book like Max Reger's "Modulation" exists, and at its core is a recipe book of how to get from C major or C minor to all other keys (then transpose to the key you're interested in), that definition is the most concise.
Modulation is the how, and key change or tonicization (I've always heard it with the C pronounced soft, so: tonn ih size ay shun) is the result. I tend to feel the line between tonicization and key change is blurry, but the line is a time based thing. If you only spend a couple measures or less in that new tonal center, it's pretty clearly tonicization. More than 8 measures? Maybe better to think of it as a key change. Maybe also how radical a tonic change is a factor too. If the change is a radical one (e.g. C major to C sharp major) there should be a new key signature sooner than if it was a mild change (C to G major) if for no other reason to keep the score more legible.
I've always thought about key change as a repetition of a part of a song in another key, hence, "key change". Modulation on the other hand, is a transition from a part of a song to another certain part of a song on a different key. The transition may be as smooth or as abrupt. Modulation has more tendency to move (modulate) back to the original key of the prior parts, while key change is commonly used only on the latter part and is used as a sudden boost (upward key change) or drop of energy (downward key change). Modulation can also do the same, but ultimately, it is used to add a different color or dimension to a song and to highlight some parts to stand out from the rest.
As a simple and lowely choir singer, I love watching instrumentalists confuse the hell out of concepts I thought were relatively simple 😜
The beautiful thing is seeing this jazz guru being willing to learn from these differing opinions on sth he's always known to be right/universal, per his definition. I've also always known it that way, but if anything, I've learn from this video on how to embrace differing opinions with grace!
Thank you CC!
I’ve always understood a Key Change as the act of changing keys (duh) and Modulation as the process of smoothly doing so.
You can have a Key Change without modulation, like the kind of abrupt Key Change commonly found in pop music.
You can’t have Modulation without a Key Change, as going to a different key is the end goal of modulating after all.
I agree. What I learned in music school is that modulation is a process. The abrupt key change, my music theory professor calls it as "direct modulation".
Interesting concept, which wasn't mentioned in the video here. Makes sense to my informally-educated music theory mind, as yet another valid way of thinking about the two terms.
To me (the way I've always thought about it), is that modulation is "on the spot transposing" to a new key without any kind of written indicator, like changing chord tones/cadencing from one spot into the next, new spot.
Whereas a key CHANGE shows a written out key signature shift (where you gain or lose a sharp/flat, switch from sharps to flats, or drop them for naturals).
It’s a perfect explanation saying product and process / noun and verb. I hadn’t put it in language that way before I guess but it makes total sense. I really enjoyed learning that, thank you
Thank you, Charles for the confusion you make them clear. Sweet example, too. Cheers.
I'd say the primary difference between a key change versus a modulation is that modulation is borrowing a chord from another key, but not staying that key that you're borrowing from. It's temporary. If most of your song is still in the original key it started in, then it's probably just a modulation. A key change is typically much more dramatic than a modulation too, you kind of feel the entire song shift, rather than just a part of it.
Yeah, way back in the day when I was taking music theory we were always taught of modulation being like a verb as you discussed. As in modulating to the relative minor. Or rather the act of modulation. I always thought of it similarly to modulating a frequency similarly to telecommunications which in theory is what you are doing by changing keys.
Interesting topic for sure, thanks for the vid!
I've always had the same idea of a key change and my modulation as you do.
You're definitely makes perfect sense to me.
The way I was taught it in my limited musical education was (when talking about sonata form) that the modulation is the part where you take your themes that you have presented and play around with them, mix them up with a few key changes; then you go go back to some kind of familiar place in the end.
Thanks for this awesome video and all the other ones !
Very instructive
Thanks 🙏
In eastern-european primary music school we learned it like this:
Key Change is when you change keys;
Mutation and Modulation is how you change keys, where mutations change from minor to major (and reverse) and modulations to any key whatsoever.
(so basically key change is a thing, and modulation is how has the thing been done)
Before watching this video, I'd always thought of modulation as temporary (and often indicated in sheet music with accidentals, not a change of the key signature). I like the idea of modulation as being the vehicle for tonicization or a key change. Love this channel.
I'm really enjoying this dialogue. In my music theory classes we were taught that modulation means the act of changing. In this specific sense we're talking about key/tonal centre, but there is also metric modulation, etc. So the terminology for us was that modulation and key change were kind of interchangeable, with with "modulation" being the procedure of how we went about changing the key, and "key change" being the end result. These were in full alignment with your definition of Key Change. We also were taught tonicization (you had the pronunciation right on your first guess, should have trusted your gut, but oh well) as a very short shift in tonal centre - eg "let's make IV sound like the tonic for a measure or two with a quick Secondary Dominant here and then go back to I."
All that said, this was me being in Western Classical Theory classes. I have encountered a lot of people since then who have different backgrounds who have not encountered the word tonicization, and think of "modulation" and "key change" exactly the same way you described here. It totally works. It's not how I was originally taught, but it only requires a super quick description of what you meant by "modulation" if I'm stuck in my own terminology and I just go "yeah that makes perfect sense" and there's 0 confusion going forward.
Thanks for putting this out there. It's always fun to see the different ways we humans come up with to describe things.
Hi Charles,
After a year of a B.Mus I have this to offer:
Tonicisation - I wouldn't even restrict this to a single bar. An example of where a tonicisation happens would be in Norah Jones's "Don't Know Why" - there's a recurring II-V-I movement, but it's not in the tonic. It's a II-V-I of the dominant, which then resolves to the tonic. It has some really interesting voice leading in it too. There's a static Bb/D (I and III) in about three quarters of the chords of the verse, but the V and VII move in a continual descending motion. There's another tonicisation in the movement from the Bb7 to the Ebmaj7 in the second and third chords of the chorus (It's a V-I of the subdominant).
Modulation - to me a modulation is a harmonic sequence which has a route back to the tonic as it's objective. You could look at a lot of jazz tunes and see where there's a pivot chord used to spin out of a circle of fifths into a new key, which then finds its own way back to the original tonic. You GENERALLY don't see a key signature change in this sort of situation, but it's not entirely unheard of.
A key change is different, in that it requires an actual assertion of the new tonic, which a modulation may not. Having asserted the new tonic, you continue to play the tune as if it was in the new key. HOWEVER, there are situations where a key-change might launch into a harmonic line which leads you back to the original key, which - once asserted, then lets you use the original key as the context of your piece.
So... tonicisation is about recognising common chord patterns that are being momentarily played in a key other than the tonic, without fundamentally departing from the tonic key overall.
Modulation is a journey where you know that you're going to find your way back home to the original key.
Key changes have a definitive statement of the new tonic, and don't offer you any clue as to the fact that you might end up back in the original key.
Tonicisation: Turning down a different street before returning to your own.
Modulation: Going to a different city for the day, but coming back home afterwards.
Key change: Stepping through a portal into a different realm. Will the portal still be there later? Who knows? And does it even matter? You're exploring a whole new place.
I hope that makes sense?
this was super helpful. thank you.
Thank you Charles, for bringing amazing knowledge to our fingertips. Keep posting, love this consistent output!
I sense a thousand like comment
Your videos are very interesting and really pleasant to watch !!
Great video, as always!
Speaking of modulations, I would love to see you analyze Paranoia Purple by Yebba. Such a beautiful song with interesting/weird chord changes.
I've noticed modulations for a while now in Broadway songs, and you can look up the music scores if you feel curious.
The modulations sometimes are in a different key but they lead back to the original key. These can be just one chord or several bars long and are usually written as many different accidentals, but then it leads back to the original key. This is called direct modulation. Many classical composers used this form. An example in a Broadway song is when in the chorus of "For Forever," Evan Hansen sings "for forever this way...this way." There are multiple chords that are outside of the normal key, but they immediately come back down to the original key. You can also hear one just before the bridge when he sings again "for forever this way."
Other modulations are several bars long and are in a different key but the end key might be much different from either the former or even the modulation. This is what I call a transitional modulation or a cadenza modulation. You can see this in Defying Gravity when Elphaba sings "...anymore" (E to Db) and when Glinda and Elphaba sing "...cannot win" (Gb back to Db). You can especially hear this in "For Forever" with the bridge when the pianist actually plays Eb music during a Bb written bridge.
Everything else in these songs are just key changes/transpositions.
Of course, tell me if I'm wrong or if I mixed up terms.
That was a very interesting one, seeing you delve into the way you conceptualise things and the ways others do
it's really cool ^^
I don't really differentiate the two terms in terms of duration, but in terms of how the composer wants me to organise my thoughts on what is played, and sheet music readability.
A modulation is basically telling a performer to think of the piece as : "in a given key with accidentals and borrowed chords"
and a key change is telling them to "think about what they play as being in a different key"
It's to make it easier for the performer to plan ahead, like between "Oh, yeah that piece is in Eb + shenanigans" and "Oh, yeah that piece is in Eb then in G" I would think that you don't approach your instrument the same way.
Also, key changes might be useful to avoid your sheet music being cluttered with endless waves of alterations
give the copyist some love x)
Similarly, indicating rapid a changes of key through alterations rather than writing 6 consecutive key changes might be better to keep the sheet readable
In 'Still Alive' by Jonathan Coulton, each verse ends with a modulation to the bVII chord (in an otherwise mostly Ionian composition). Then that bVII becomes the tonic in the chorus section, which itself ends with a modulation back up to the original tonic that the song started [and ends] on.
I consider these to be modulations (and not key changes) because the move to a different key is always temporary, and never lasts for a complete section. However, if the entire verse-chorus form was shifted up by a whole step (or down, or by any other interval) halfway through the song, and then stayed like that until the end, that would be a key change.
From a performing orchestral musician and the way I've been taught, modulation is the process, and key change is the thing, the noun. Tonicization (the "c" is pronounced like an "s") is temporarily making another pitch the tonic (like a V/V is making the V temporarily the tonic)
Always leaves us smiling by closing out with his beautiful piano playing ;-)
Key changes really help in developing new energy feeling in the track.
Key changes are always so jarring to me except in some jazz tracks they're seamless
So do modulations.
@Anu Play C Em G Am G Am D G
That example is pretty seamless and it could be interpreted as a key change from C to G starting with Am being part of a ii-V-I to G. Where does that occur? Could be on any of those chords since they share them all in common. They share 6 notes in common and share 4 chords in common. The definitive key change is on the D (Dm is in C, D is in G). Could think of it being just borrowing from parallel Lydian mode, C Lydian is a mode of G major, I II, C to D is a common Lydian progression.
Common chord modulations are often seamless in that faahion since it is not definitive where the chord belongs to until you play a chord outside of the original. Changing key to a nearby key i.e. C to F or G will be like that, differing by just one note.
An interesting way to modulate from C to C# using the common tone B# enharmonic C, or C to F#, tritone away, using E#, enharmonic F, or B as common tones.
Also direct modulation is a thing, just modulate abruptly if that's the effect you want.
@@Arycke 👍🏻
in my most recent music theory classes, we go over mods. and tonicizations (key changes less so since it's more common in modern music) at the same time, the main difference is the way it's notated?
modulations would usually include a symbol for the old key, the transition note/chord, and the new key, but all music after that period is written in terms of the new key, like if a song starts in C and we mod. to G, F sharp wouldn't be an accidental, it would be in the new key signature, so just F. versus tonicizations, those are written in terms of the original key, but to the ear sounds like we've transitioned to a new key. 'tonicizing' in class just means making a new note the new tonic, but eventually going back to the original
I actually learned about "temporary tonicization" when I was in school, it was described by my professor as a modulation, I think of a key change being when a key phrase of the composition is repeated in the different key
What they called Tonicization I knew it as Tonal Region. I always considered key change as an unprepared change, while modulation is a key change with some chords in between, possibly common chords of both scales, or some sort of progression that brings you smoothly to the new scale, regardless if it’s temporary or not.
That was exactly my understanding.
As I’m making a playlist of key change songs, your differences/definitions for both make sense to me.
Modulation is temporary-I hear it on most bridges of songs, and some final choruses go back to the organ key and some final choruses change the key after the bridge.
I've always thought about it as the noun/verb situation, where a modulation is how you get there and a key change is the result. I've also understood it as modulation is the musical setup for a key change.
Thank you for this! I always thought they were the same.
I was always taught that tonicization (the c makes the s sound in this case) is a small section (one or two or even four or five bars) that moves away from the original key, but to a key that is still within the original key i.e., for a few measures you make the IV the tonic, and then moves back to the original key. Key change and modulation have always been used interchangeably, but I have noticed that modulation usually refers to a key change even that comes back to the original key by the end (like how Sonata-allegro form moves from tonic to dominant and then back). Key changes just happen and stay for the rest of the piece, no matter the form.
This is really interesting, and it's not something I've really given much thought. Thanks for posting an excellent video!
I'm kind of obsessed with the Disney song "Tale as Old as Time", for many many reasons, but one of them is how, in the verses, it rises (modulates?) and then falls again (over and over), so that half of a verse is being sung in one key, and the second half in another; it's one of those things where they did NOT have to go this HARD, but they DID; how much the song means to me emotionally is another story, but the message is definitely carried by musical decisions like that
I like a version of the process / product definition. Though, I'm not sure that every process of changing keys counts as a modulation. Modulation happens when there is harmonic preparation for the new key. Otherwise, something else plays the preparatory role (there could be a sudden shift, a moment of silence, a change in orchestration, etc.)
I think there's a difference in the technical definition of a modulation versus how it's been used colloquially over time. In classical theory, it is more of a temporary "tonicization" of a key - just like Charles understood it. But the way we use the word has basically come to mean any shift in key center, including a full on dramatic key change.
This right here!
Best example of modulation/key change I can think of is “leave the door open” by silk sonic. The switch between Anderson and Bruno’s verse parts is modulation. The big step up in the last chorus is a key change.
@CharlesCornell Thank you for sharing this video...and the wonderful playing
I'm with you. Within a song's chord progression...a modulation is to, perhaps, a temporary key center. A key change (via a modulation...sometimes without and sudden) establishes a new home key.
You might consider analyzing or discussing "Spring Can Really Hang You Up The Most". I love that temporary 2 bar new key feeling right after the bridge that slides right back to the original key.
How I think about the difference between the two is modulation is using the harmonic relationship of notes to change the tonic scale degree for a short period of time (but can sometimes be permanent), and key change doesn't have to have any relations at all and is more permanent.
An example of modulation is Celine Dion's All by my side, where when she starts singing the last chorus she uses modulation to take the last note of the previous part of the melody to become the major 3rd of the new key (the part where she says 'anymore'). In this song the change is permanent though.
An example of what is key change is when the song is raised one or two semi tones in the last chorus (or sometimes in another part of the song) and stays there for the rest of the song. This is what most songs do.
“This is just something I’ve understood throughout the entire course of my education.” He’s mastered the art of the humble flex.
I feel that modulation is more general. A key change is one specific type of modulation (where we actually change the key signature - like Love on Top). However, modulations also include temporary key shifts, such as you often find in classical and baroque music, where a section of eight bars may be in the dominant of the home key or the relative minor, but the key signature stays the same and accidentals are used in the music. I completely agree with that temporary vs permanent distinction.
You were right the first time; the "c" in "tonicization" is pronounced with an "s" sound. This probably all depends on where you were trained and in what tradition. From my common practice era theory classes, I understand tonicizations to be a moment where a specific chord is made to sound like 1, usually with a secondary dominant chord. The terms "modulation" and "key change" were interchangeable (at least as nouns). That being said, in my experience playing with worship bands, there are often times when two songs in the set are in different keys, but we don't want there to be any silence between songs, so in rehearsal, we would figure out a way to modulate (verb) from one key to the other (usually using pivot chords) to accommodate the key change (noun). I like the distinction between modulation as being "temporary" and key change being "permanent" because it helps to articulate two separate compositional techniques.
I always thought of key change and modulation as synonymous, as in, any variation from the original key. I learned about tonicization (I pronounce it with an "s" where the "c" is) in harmony and have always used that to describe a temporary key change/modulation
Wow! The process-result approach was always how I understood this 🤯
I'm preparing for my theory exam in Musicschool and THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS! it's super helpful
I've always thought of it how you did - modulation is a short, temporary thing you might do to add color, whereas a key change is a more long-term state.
I have used "tonicization" before in my classical Western theory classes (and I thought it was pronounced with a soft c but now I'm doubting myself). From what I recall it was mostly tied to secondary dominants: when you use a secondary dominant, you "tonicize" a different note than the actual tonic, this act being tonicization. This could be used for a brief modulation or to facilitate a full key change.
Tonicization does have a soft C, you're right.
Charles you da bes. You bring us such happiness.
I like your definition! When you say a modulation is temporary, it makes me think more of the form of the music. Where does it change and where does it change back? Does it correlate to the sections/form? Definitely makes me think more about the overall piece.
I'd say, modulation is the act of "wandering" from the key you are in. It can lead to another key, or it can return to the original key (meaning that the key ultimately stayed the same). At any moment, if you are asked what the base key or chord is, that's the key, it's the anchor point where the modulation is based on. Some classical music can modulate a lot that the original key gets lost, which I think is part of the charm.
A cool thing is that you can't immediately tell if the key has changed or if it's still modulating, because any chord during modulation could be the key you end up in, but you need to look further to cement the fact that you indeed ended up in that key. Basically, the key is the foundation that the modulation or other stuff gets built upon, so you can't know until the stuff gets built. Some classical music teases a lot with false bottoms "Are we gonna end up in here? Or maybe here? Yes, but actually no, we are still modulating", for example Sibelius - Swan of Tuonela. Though to me this kind of modern music oftne sounds like it doesn't have much of a defined key. It wanders the whole piece and returns to the original key, but it's hard to say if it was all modulation or if there were other keys in between, and whether the original key even matters that much.
Maybe easier example could be the first movement of Rachmaninov Piano Concerto 2. There's a lot of modulation, but at the end of the day, it's pretty much just C minor in the beginning, E flat major in the middle, and back to C minor in the end.
Rachmaninov Prelude in B minor has similar stuff to Swan of Tuonela, but kinda stays at the same key whole time. At the middle part, it does emphasize another chord pretty hard so that it feels like a key change, but there isn't much built on top of it and it returns to the original key pretty fast too, so I don't think it really changed the key.
The way I learned it at first, modulation and key change only differ in the way you reach a new key: if there is a chord or series of chords that can be described in both keys, it’s a modulation, but if it suddenly goes to a different key without such chords, it’s a key change. This is kind of consistent with “modulation is the process, key change is the result”, which is the view I have of these terms for many years now: some key changes use modulation, some others simply jump to the new key without preparation. And I also know the term tonicization, indeed: it happens when you go to a new key but soon go back to the previous one. It is pretty common in jazz standards and Christmas songs with an AABA form (like Walking in a Winter Wonderland): if you stop the song in the middle of the B section, you can still identify the I of the A section as the tonic of the whole song, even though you are temporarily in another key.
Hey Charles, really nice video, it’s really funny though, to hear this as a native German speaker, because we don’t really have the word „key change“. What Beyoncé does, is called a „Rückung“ in German, which is basically just a jump, from one key to another.
A modulation, same word here, just different pronunciation, is a movement around the circle of fifths, to get from one tonality to another. If you stay there or not is totally up to you, just the process of travelling to another tonic, through the circle of fifths, is the modulating.
I hope my explanation doesn’t get lost in translation here :)
Charles!! I love this video!
I think the product/process perspective works with the one you had. Depending on how long the modulation is, you could see it as you are constantly modulation into a new product (key), cause you're ending up where you started.
Okay this was super cool to watch as an AP music Theory student in highschool. We actually just started talking about tonicization today in class and how that’s different from modulation. From what I gathered (from only a 1.5 hour lecture this morning, mind you) Is that tonicization is the use of secondary dominance/applied dominance and is incredibly brief; like,,, only two chords. Modulation is the use of secondary dominance to change to a different key and stay there. Or at least that’s how the collegeboard wants us to see it :)
6:22 - This is interesting. It reminds me of Farmer Refuted from Hamilton.
Hamilton says to Samuel Seabury, "Don't modulate they key and not debate with me."
This seems to imply the same thing the modulation is the journey and the key change is the destination.
Very intriguing discussion.
I never studied music at a conservatory or anything, but the way I understand it, a modulation is the same as a key change, but it makes sense to think about it as the process by which a key change happens. It's not the same as tonicisation, though. A modulation is basically permanent, but for instance in jazz, the key can change quite often and end up being the same in the end. That doesn't mean that the key wasn't initially "permanently" changed. It just "permanently" changed back. A tonicisation, on the other hand, is where you can almost "hear" the original key in the background while you're temporarily in another key. It's easier to tonicize the other "tonic" keys like iii and vi for instance, while you can only stay on the subdominants or dominant for a short time before you "lose" the original key and end up actually changing keys.
I always thought about it in the „process product“ way. Especially since in German we have the word „Rückung“ wich dict.cc translates to „abrupt modulation“ and the verb „rücken“ means „to move or shift something“, while also containing the root „Ruck“, which means „jolt“ or „yank“. So „Rückung“ naturally took the place of what you call a keychange for me, I guess.
When I think about modulation I think about the end of a section and the notes that lead to the next that is in a different key. These notes are often written with accidental alterations because they are in the key they are introducing while in the context of another key. The key change is simply the beginning of a new section where the key is different from the previous one as evidenced by the new key signature indicated on a music sheet.
I understood tonicization as re-centering the tonic, usually within a single phrase and only for a single phrase. Using a secondary dominant chord, before playing the dominant chord, then resolving on the tonic for example.
One thing I'd like to note is the importance that the positioning of cadences has in making the music truly feel "different". Tonicization to me is more like an extended secondary dominance leading into a cadence, while you often cadence into a modulation to emphasize "hey we're going somewhere different now". Key changes tend to be almost full breaks from the previous key and change the key signature on paper.
Another point is that modulation/tonicization tends to utilize the circle of 5ths and weave keys together, eventually winding up back where you started; while a key change, like in your Beyonce example, shifts a half or whole step up without warning (especially in more modern music), and the new key will have much less relation to the former key in terms of pitches (CM to DbM is 0 flats to 5), which gives it the "new and exciting" feel. (Okay sorry that was a lot of words lol)
man I just love watching Charles play. so satisfying.
nice video. thanks charles.
‘Key change as noun, modulation as verb’ is by far the most clear definition here Charles... no shade here but I’m also really surprised you hadn’t heard the term tonicization before recently!
Classical pianist here! I always got taught that you modulate to another key (the whole process/product thing) but I was also taught that (for example) section b modulates to another key (ie key change). It really depends on the era of music in my experience.
I'm team tonicization being your definition of modulation and modulation is key change, but I definitely see your point too. It's the beautiful thing about music theory, the exact same thing with two different definitions and both could be right!
i might be getting it mixed up but I think "Stay With Me" by DeBarge is a good example of modulation vs key change. It starts in Bb for the verse, then switches to Ab for the chorus and repeats this but then it goes into another section in Bb, then it has a key change into C.
Growing up as a gospel musician-crucially, I was a singer and choir director before I learned to play keyboards sax trumpet and drums-the multiple key change thing you describe from Love on Top is often used, and we called those key changes (usually just via the five of five but no one knew that phrase around me) “modulations”. And we meant modulating was the process of going up (changing keys). Nobody in those rooms read much music or knew much theory
When I got to school to learn theory as a gospel choir directing, r&b record making, vocal major/multi instrumentalist, I learned the distinction you use, but honestly my vocab, when singing with or directing/leading producers, bands, choirs, and choruses, hasn’t changed, and no one has ever been confused
My music professor basically said that a modulation has a logical harmonic setup beforehand, and a key change (or, as he liked to call it, the trucker's gear-shift), is instantaneous. And what you consider a modulation, he considered a tonicization.
This is something I always talk about with my friends because although music is an universal language, we use our native tongue to learn and define certain things. Here's the thing, sometimes we use latin, italian, german and english in music where modulation comes from latin and key change is english and we need to find when and how musicians started using those terms so we can tell what they. This always confuses me and the meaning depends on where he studied music and the classical vs popular music thing. We also have the direct modulation and the pivot or indirect modulation so maybe that and the etimology of the words can clear things up. Great video and a huge fan of your channel 🙌🙌
I’ve always used key change and Modulation kind of interchangeably because they serve the same purpose when it comes to “tonicization” it’s also more commonly known as Secondary Dominance in the western classical repertoire. What jazz musicians might call a modulation
I'm currently trying to learn the difference between these three terms (tonicization, modulation, and key change) myself as an undergrad music ed major. I learned about tonicization at my previous university, but never fully understood what it meant either. After this video, the way that I've come to understand it is that tonicization is the smallest act of treating a new chord as the tonic. It only lasts a phrase or less. Most likely, there would be no key signature change because it's so short. Modulation would be the next step up. It lasts for maybe a few phrases, but doesn't necessarily mean that the key signature would change. It could for convenience sake, but is not required. Then finally, a key change would be the biggest alteration. A key change would last for either a major portion of the song, or even the remainder of it. At this point you would probably expect to see a key signature change because if it's such a large part of the piece, why wouldn't you? In summary: small, medium, large.
One thing that throws me off, though, is the specification when people talk about modulation. They very often say that the tonal center changes for a bit, but then it will switch BACK to the original key. So, let's say that there is a key-change-style shift for a very large, significant portion of a piece, but returns to the original key at the end to tie everything up in a neat bow. Would that then be considered a modulation?
I also enjoy the definition that modulation is the action and the key change is the product/result of that action. I feel like that is also true, but wouldn't be used in a music theory class that way. However, I do feel that would be an appropriate definition for other styles of music than that of 18th century white composers'. Sometimes it's just not that deep.
Also, I guess that's the beauty of art, isn't it? There isn't just one definition. There's not just one meaning. It isn't black and white or just one way to see it. This is why I love and am so fascinated by music.
I definitely agree with the britannica one, for me a key change can be attributed to a single moment in time, it's instantaneous. While the modulation is how you get there, which can be a whole frase of music. But modulation is always combined with a key change (maybe not a key signature change, I mean when you go from C to Am it's a key change, but you don't change the key signature).
I always understood modulation as a process - one that could result in a key change, but could also return to the original tonic. So, to me a key change was essentially a type of modulation. However, in practice the way I used the words effectively conformed to your definitions.
I'm a singer. A coach told me and my group that a key change is for when you need to say something that you couldn't say in the old key. It's like a revelation. This is a very emotional and flowy reason, but it is totally how I think about key changes.
Also I'm taking some classical music theory right now. Tonicization (toni - SIZ - ation) is more about the chords around and harmonic rhythm than the chord that is being treated as tonic. It's following the phrase models where you're looking for Tonic -> Predominant -> Dominant -> Tonic (with cadence) etc. If you're tonicizing a chord, it will fit into phrase models as such. You'll likely have root / second position versions of that chord on strong beats. It may also be surrounded with weak harmonic motion / passing chords, so it really feels like that's where you are. I think of it as a bit less committal than modulation, with a key change being the most committal.
I think of modulation as both a temporary change in key AND the set-up process to permanently change keys. I can give an example (which of course is inspired by Charles' recent video on metal lol): Metallica's "One".
They begin in B minor, but throughout the guitar intro and the ends of each chorus, they modulate into D Major, the relative Major, using A as the pivot chord (with that C# as a leading tone between Bm to D). Then, to go back to B minor, the use of a C chord acts as that ii-i chord progression back, with C acting as a flat 2; they're using Phrygian mode here, not using the C# that's part of the B minor scale.
Then there's this modulating section that leads us into the breakdown (second half of song), which bounces between the Bm and C chords again, and from that C chord (B minor's flat 2 Phrygian note from earlier!), we go to Em, as C is the VI chord of E minor (so we did a VI-i progression!). Then the song stays and permanently changes key to E minor from that! (also they continue to use the Phrygian mode here, really emphasizing F natural in the main riff and also doing short tonalizations to F Major and G Major during the solo section and ending, also type of modulation!)
So both the temporary changes to D Major in the chorus sections, and the modulating build up to the breakdown in which the tonal center keeps changing and then finally settles permanently to E minor, are BOTH to me examples of modulation! Both as a temporary and permanent change. Both? Both. Both is good. haha :)
I think ive always referred to modulation and key changes as the verb/noun understanding that was looked into in the video.
I tend to think of it similarly to you, where a modulation could either refer to the method you get to a new key, or the going to a new key temporarily, and key change just being the going to a new key, regardless of how you got there.
I'd say a modulation is the same melody, except in a different key. Just like multiplying / modulating a waveform will change the pitch, and thus change the key. So it's a specific case of the more general concept of key changes, which can also apply to things that change their melody.
I agree with modulation being the process, key change is the product. One piece I've recently played, The Aeronauts by Goff Richards, has a final section written in the key of F, which quickly modulates into C and bounces around a bit before settling into Db for the very end, yet the key signature doesn't change because there's no convenient place to put one. So that's a large section of modulation leading into the (unwritten) key change. However, earlier in the piece, it goes through several key changes which are often preceded by a modulation to get from key 1 to key 2.
Like, the example used for key change, there's no modulation process, it just jumps. But in for example, the star trek lower decks theme, the A section in concert Bb uses chords I (Bb) for 4 beats, V (F) for 4 beats, I (Bb) for 3 beats, VIIb (Ab) for 1 beat, VIb (Gb) for 3 beats as the IV of the new key, then does a V-I (Ab-Db) into the new key of concert Db for the B section. So the modulation would be the getting from the Bb in bar 3 to the Db, the key change is landing on the Db.
I went to college for Music and it was always explained to me (and I still think of it this way) modulation is the verb of changing to a new key.
If you stay in that key for an extended period of time, you have a key change.
But, if you modulate to a new key for only a couple of bars, then return to the original key, you have "tonicized" that new key for a moment, then returned.
It seems your definition of modulation, would be my definition of tonicization.
Not saying one is right or wrong, but I like the word tonicization, because it implies a shift in the tonic, or tonal center, for awhile. but it then returns to the original tonic.
Whereas, if you modulate to a new key, and stay there, you have changed keys.
Here lies the difference in definition: Modulation can occur in both a key change AND a "tonicization"
You tonicize a new section to a different tonal center WITH a modulation, then return. Often with another modulation back to the original tonic.
You key change the rest of the piece WITH a modulation, then stay there.
I enjoy thinking of it this way.
But that's just me.
Love your vids!
I never thought about this distinction before, but it's very useful in jazz to have distinct definitions, because calling that dip into A major that you showed a "key change" feels inaccurate to the structure of the song. It's not like the overall song changed key, it just introduced new tonality before returning to the main key of the song
I like to understand these 3 terms in this order: tonicization < modulation < key change
Where the first one is for example a secondary dominant, the second is a temporary change and the last one is permanent
I love this channel 🔥🔥
I guess I see it as a question of whether "modulation" can have a definition as a noun where it can refer to a short passage of a key change. Everyone seems to agree on the Verb definition, the act of changing keys with harmonic motion. Tonicization seems to be the noun used to prevent the confusion between multiple definitions of modulation.
Great video.
Fast talker, I had to replay a part, lol... Fun convo and very thoughtful and well considered. And your playing is really wonderful! Now I just came over here because Rick Beato has a vid "The Disappearance of Key Changes in Modern Music" and many of us still have the question, WHY. What has influenced this stylistic choice? I don't always love key changes - the ones at the end do often seem over the top. But some were really effective. So I'd love to hear your take on why they're 'out.' Anyone else here, feel free to chime in.