Talk:Cadence

What happened here? I was asleep for 3 months and missed this. Good use of acronyms too!!

"Cadence fanatic composers"

I removed the following section, entitled "Cadence fanatic composers":

Bach, would seem to be the most inffatic and wide user of cadences. A number of his compositions involve using such devices and his choral works are particularly filled with it. Using auxillaary notes and modulations he manages to create whole new ideas with just simple chords. The amazing thing is that he has managed to keep all of his ideas separate and original!!

I can only guess what inffatic is supposed to mean. Perhaps it's supposed to be fanatic, the same as in the section heading. However, I don't think anyone would claim that Bach's use of cadences was fanatical (except, presumably, the author of this section). If you can find an authoritative source calling Bach's use of cadences fanatic, I'll be impressed. Moreover, the text is not at all NPOV (and is riddled with spelling errors, although that would be easily rectified). Finally, Bach is hardly the "most wide" user of cadences; practically every composer of the common practice period ended almost every phrase with a cadence. — Caesura 19:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Emphatic", perhaps? Spoxjox 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

66666 198.181.42.99 (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Forbidden

Caesura, how does it look now? Hyacinth 00:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few confusing passages

In music of the common practice period, there are four main types of cadences: authentic, plagal, half, and deceptive. Each of these types can be further distinguished as perfect or imperfect.

Each? Are there imperfect plagal cadences? Perfect deceptive cadences? You only provide a definition for authentic ones.

It should be noted that these chord sequences do not necessarily constitute a cadence — there must be a sense of closure, as at the end of a phrase. Early music cadences, for instance, are different and more varied, being based upon dyads.

These two sentences don't really go together. I might suggest that rhythm plays an important part in determining whether a particular chord progression is perceived as a cadence. And the early music sentence isn't that illuminating; perhaps we need new sections on Gregorian chant cadences (where the term originated) and cadences in early Renaissance counterpoint, with a few notated examples.

"Forbidden" progressions may be reconsidered as allowable progressions. For example, I-V-IV-I, which is disallowed owing to the V-IV motion, may be considered a doubled plagal cadence: I-IV/V-V-IV-I.

What is a "forbidden" progression? V-IV progressions may be less common, but they're easy enough to find examples in Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and even Beethoven (not to mention early Baroque composers such as Charpentier and Monteverdi). Maybe you're referring to H. Riemann's theory of functional harmony, which distinguishes between chord progressions and chord regressions, but it's a bit of a stretch to apply them to plagal cadences. --Wahoofive

A different tone to the writing?

I can see that this page has been carefully edited since it's inception, but now I want to throw a spanner in the works, with a simple statement. Here it is ...

"Wikipedia is an open-Encyclopedia, not a Dictionary".

OK, let me explain. I came to Wikipedia looking for knowledge as I often do. This time I was looking to learn what a cadence is, within musical composition.

My complaint about the page is that surely it should be here to correctly explain (with clear examples), what a cadence is, and not to simply "define" what a cadence is. I feel like I have visited a page that has long been fought over, to define what a cadence is. I was looking for someone to explain what a cadence is, aswell as defining it. Dictionaries are there to define, Encylcopedia's are there to give knowledge.

Thanks for listening.

Perhaps you could give some examples from some other field. I don't quite understand the difference between "explaining what something is" and defining it, except that a definition is usually just one sentence long, something which certainly doesn't apply to this article. We could certainly use some notated examples, however. Also, please sign your talk-page posts with ~~~~. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Common Note Cadences

I'm a little bit confused about what a "Common Note Cadences" is. I understand that it involves a common note... but that's it. Could someone more knowledgeable on music theory please either include common note cadences in this page, or perhaps write a new one for "Common Note Cadences"? --Hidekatsu

This strikes me as a little too detailed for the article. In terms of definition, there's not much more to it than what you said. Beyond that, it's more how-to; I don't see much point in trying to create a music theory textbook inside Wikipedia. No one except a music theory student would need to know anything beyond the definition you provided. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

66666666 198.181.42.99 (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Foreign language names

I added the foreign language names for the cadences because they were listed in Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics. Presumably if they are listed there, the terms are occasionally used in English literature (in discussions of music theory, I assume) and need to redirect to this page. However, if there is no reference to them here then one won't know why it redirects here or which cadence it refers to (at least if they don't have a good understanding of German and can't consult that page). If it's confusing where it is, then maybe there's a better place to put them. The German wikipedia seems to have separate pages for the different sorts of cadences...I agree that if we did that then it would be better to put them there, but I'm not sure there's really enough information to require individual articles (though musical examples would make the descriptions clearer). Rigadoun 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: the reason why not French, etc. is that I haven't seen them included in that list (I haven't looked at all 46,000 entries, so they might still be there). As German is a far more common language for music theory (the main one until recently), the French (etc.) terms are probably very infrequently used in English, and unlikely to be a search query. One could add them for completeness, but of course in this format they would be cumbersome. Rigadoun 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My reason for removing them was that this is an English language page, and the sidebar links to other languages more than adequately allows a person to find versions of the same term in other languages (except in the case of viertelton, which I suppose is an obscure enough term to begin with that it has yet to appear on the German wikipedia). As a rule, German language terms do not appear in English language texts on music theory, unless the text is an English language translation of a German original, in which case the original terms are sometimes preserved (usually in parentheses). In those cases it is only to retain the meaning of the original text that they appear. Our English wikipedia page is not a translation of a German source; it is an English source, and as such no reference to German terms is appropriate. (You will find the same with translations of French texts, Italian texts, et cetera, but as you've said, the German ones come up more because the more common writings on theory are German.) Some foreign language terms that appear in scores (which English musicians learn because scores are generally untranslated, as per tradition), such as "allegro" or "am steg", are worthy of Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics, but something like "Schluss" which is a term used only in German theoretical discussion is not appropriate for an English language encyclopedia. - Rainwarrior 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they aren't needed for somebody who wants to know how to say something in German (or whatever), since they probably understand the language enough to use the interwiki links. However, the Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics is a compilation of keywords found in major English-language music encyclopedias and as such WP should have an entry for each one (please see the WikiProject page for an explanation). The appearance of a term on such a list implies they are occasionally used in untranslated form (though, obviously, not nearly as often as such terms as Urlinie). I therefore disagree that Schluss is never used in English-language music theory discussions; I admit I've never encountered it, but why else would it appear in the other encyclopedias? I created a redirect for Viertelton so that anybody who runs across that word and wants to look it up is directed to the right place; however, if they don't know any German, they might not understand how or why unless the word appears somewhere on the target page. Trugschluss is trickier, because the word doesn't mean Cadence (music), but rather a specific kind mentioned on the page, and the non-German-speaking user who encountered the term would have no idea which was meant. Rigadoun 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If neither of us has ever encountered these words in an English text on music theory, then neither of us has the power to assert that reference to them belongs on English wikipedia. I don't know specifically why "Schluss" appears on the Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics, but it could even be that someone added German terms they saw in a German encyclopedia. (I doubt it should be there.) Even if it happened to appear in something like the New Grove encyclopedia (I don't know if it does), it doesn't necessarily belong here. Unless you can find examples in music theory literature (that is not a dictionary entry) where someone would come across it, I don't think we need a reference to it. - Rainwarrior 19:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To follow up, the only online reference I have found to "Schluss" in a non-German source is this entry in the Virginia Tech music dictionary (which could have been the source from which inclusion on Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics was decided). It seems it is that dictionary's policy to provide the terms in several languages (also including Cadenza, Cadencia, and the alternate German Kadenz), which I don't think should be adopted by wikipedia. - Rainwarrior 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to come and weigh in here. I would have predicted I would be in favor of including the translations, since their appearance on the topic list implies their use in music theory. I'm not sure that I do. However, this article can and should cover cadences as they appear in Germany (and elsewhere), since, judging from the above conversation, there might be something relevant to say about that. These foreign terms could definitely be introduced in such a section. Tuf-Kat 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the common practice section is mainly German or German-influenced music. If there's ever a section on the history of the theory of cadences, and much of it deals with Germany (I guess that would be the case but I don't know for sure), then maybe it would make sense to add it there (e.g. if the English word for certain cadences was a calque of the German names--I don't actually know the origin of the names). I suspect the terms (if they were ever used) were more frequent in older sources, so it's hard to base this on web searches alone. Is there a way to find out which encyclopedia(s) the entries were from? If the terms really don't appear in English, then it seems they should be removed from the topics list. Should we delete the redirect pages (like Trugschluss)? Rigadoun 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Music is its own language...but it includes words from several languages. In order for a musician to fully understand his/her music, he/she must be able to understand the words written on the page. Because sheet music is seldom translated, it is important for every music dictionary to include foreign words, for example..."Fagotte" is a foreign name for the bassoon. When it comes to words like "Violon", it translates as "violin," but that is not obvious to the person who knows there are also violas, violoncellos, piccolo violins, and viols.

By the way, thanks for asking my opinion on the topic, I was glad to exercise my brain and determine just why exactly I do prefer having foreign words in a music dictionary/encyclopedia.

Also, I think we should indicate the different foreign names for the word on the page that it is redirected to, if applicable.

Musically,

Bob 18:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Historically, the earliest theorization of cadences was written in Latin in the 10th century, if I recall correctly. It's not a word that was born in the common practice period. "Kadenz" was likely borrowed from Latin, but "Schluss" I don't have any clue about. Authentic and plagal are very old terms, "deceptive cadence" might actually be borrowed from the German theorists of that time. If we're talking about scores, though, it's quite evident that Italian was the preferred language for markings through the common practice period. Theoretical writings from this time, on the other hand, are in appropriate vernacular languages. The only form of "Cadence" I've ever seen on a score is the Italian "Cadenza", which doesn't even have the meaning being discussed on this page. If you think it's important to have translations of the types of cadences, I certainly wouldn't stop you from putting a table in its own section on this page giving the terms in other languages, but at least have columns for French and Italian, if not more languages. (I just don't think it's worthwhile because, as I've said, these words to not appear in scores, and as such there are going to be versions in every language.) Having a redirect for "Trugschluss" seems pointless. Would it be appropriate to have a "Deceptive cadence" redirect on the German wikipedia? - Rainwarrior 19:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Full cadence

Since Full cadence redirects here, it should be defined here, but it isn't. Apparently it is not identical to an authentic cadence, at least according to e.g. this source, but full cadences are always authentic. This should be remedied before (say) Full cadence is removed from Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/15 ... (actually, the redirect should perhaps be removed instead and the redlink allowed to stand?) Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear

I'll admit I'm never the most tolerant of postmodernist theories, but I don't mind seeing them on pages where it's relevant. This idea about "masculine" and "feminine" endings is disputable and highly contentious. Firstly, commonsensically there's nothing inherently "gendered" about music, and second, on this page it's substituting political judgment for the predominant aesthetic considerations. I suggest it be removed or reworked somehow. --Knucmo2 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your complaint. "Masculine" and "feminine" cadences are the most recognized names for the phenomena. Those who avoid the terms agree that there's nothing inherently "gendered" about music and thus they should not be so called, but no other terms have become common. Others think that's obvious and a name is just a name, and the political and aesthetic considerations are separate. The concept should not be removed, as it is certainly a notable type of cadence, and because it shows the classification by rhythmic instead of merely harmonic considerations. How should it be reworked? Rigadoun (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

From my own experience I have never heard them referred to as "masculine" or "feminine", even my harmony teacher never called them that. They were either perfect, imperfect, plagal, whatever. If that's what musical teachers call them by in addition, fair enough. --Knucmo2 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard them, but only in passing reference. I've never actually seen it in theoretical writings though (feminist ones included). While I agree that they are the "most recognized" names for these things, I'm used to seeing descriptions like "cadence on the downbeat" in writings. I think the reference to these terms should stay, but I doubt the accuracy of "no substitutes have become as common", and that sentence should perhaps be revised? - Rainwarrior 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed that a bit and added a citation from SMT guidelines on their preferred non-sexist language. I think the names masculine and feminine should be included as the more traditional names (see the citation itself), although perhaps if they are now less common they should be mentioned afterward? Rigadoun (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting link. I think that provides enough information about the usage now, it probably doesn't need any more change. - Rainwarrior 03:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As there is nothing inherently "sexist" about the musical use of masculine and feminine, I have rephrased the statement to avoid the accusatory tone of the original. Spoxjox 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I came across the terms in 1978 in a 1961 Colliers Encyclopaedia article about Beethoven and his use of cadences in his work. When I used the two phrases in an assignment for class my female teacher gave a smirk and a chuckle. I then explained the source and she was fine with the usage. It is seriously wrong to rewrite centuries of writings simply because we object to certain terms today - the historical introduction of these phrases was not meant to rob anyone of dignity or respect, and was simply used to best describe an observed phenomena. Bandcoach (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

V⁷-I?

Would a V⁷-I fall under the category of a perfect authentic cadence? This article fails to mention if this is so. --MosheA 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A V-I cadence is authentic; whether it's perfect depends on the voicing of bass and soprano. Whether there is a seventh in the V chord is not relevant. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A V⁷-I is considered a Perfect Cadence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.14.42 (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Modernizing the Article

I find that this article is quite extensive, which it should be. However I find that it is also missing most of the more recent developments in music theory related to cadences. I will admit to being both new to Wikipedia, and not yet an expert on music theory, but based on what I have learnt so far, most of this article is "wrong." Of course, it's not actually wrong, but it does not agree with the new theory that I have been taught (from William Caplin's "Classical Form," among others). This treatise relates specifically to Classical music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, and I am wondering if there is interest in developing a section devoted to this.

I would like to go beyond this, and propose that this article could use a brief description of the many types of cadences, with other articles giving greater detail on each type. For instance, I could write the article on Classical Period cadences, and with some review, also the article on cadences according to the Royal Conservatory of Music. Somebody else could fill in with Baroque Era cadences, and for early polyphony, and so on. At the very least, I would sleep better if I could just say that the "plagal cadence" is now not usually considered to be an actual cadence. -Anti2390 04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A piece of advice: don't assume anything is "wrong" just because it disagrees with what you've been taught. Our whole world (let alone Wikipedia) would be in a lot better shape if more people could absorb that principle. However, there's certainly room for more information here if you'd like to be bold and add it. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the plagal Cadence is "now" not usually considered to be an actual cadence? And in what repertoire? There is much music in which it is unquestionably used as a cadence. - Rainwarrior 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A plagal cadence, in all of the university textbooks that I have read (which is admittedly only three) is labelled as a kind of post-cadential extension - plagal prolongation of tonic following a cadence. The reasons for this become clear as the repertoire is studied, but I ought to keep in mind that I have been taught so far only the Classical Era principles, and that there may actually be plagal cadences in other repertoires. Also, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before about labelling this article as simply wrong. I stated before, and I know that it is not, wrong, but simply not what I have been taught. This field is music THEORY for a reason. Is there a place where I can develop these changes, gathering input from other users, before publishing them in the main article? I've heard of a sandbox for testing, but there seems to be no place specific for this article. -Anti2390 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can make your own sandbox under your userpage, for example, User:Anti2390/Cadence. As long as you cite your work from the textbooks, they seem like they will be interesting and helpful additions to this article. Rigadoun (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The analysis of a plagal cadence as an extension of an authentic cadence probably stems from the work of Heinrich Schenker, and certainly applies primarily to music such as Mozart and Beethoven. It's easy enough to find genuine plagal cadences in Brahms and other late Romantics (not to mention earlier composers such as Schütz and Monteverdi). —Wahoofive (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have begun work on a new article. As of now, it has been written straight through with no revision, and contains the ideas of one textbook only. Before settling, I intend to include material from two others, the current Wikipedia article, the New Grove article, and any other relevant sources which I either find, or have recommended to me. Also, especially since it has been noted as a possible flaw in my article, I will pay special attention to clearly stating which practices are valid only for Classical Era music. Time providing, I will myself research and write information about cadences for other eras and movements. Comments about the so-called new article are welcome. Anti2390 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cadence in rap music

Mention if in rap music has cadences, and give examples. Jidanni (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course rap music has cadences. bibliomaniac15 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not a very persuasive argument. Hyacinth (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason that of the potentially infinite number of musical genres and styles we would need to single out rap for mention as one which also includes phrases and sections whose conclusion is indicated through harmonic means. Hyacinth (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A slighted cadence?

Based on aural grounds alone, shouldn't the III-I chord sequence be dealt with as a cadence? I have never seen it described as such, but it can easily be used as the last two chords of a piece of music with a impression of completeness. (Adding the 5th as a bass note makes it a little more reminiscent of a perfect cadence). Can it be that musical tradition has prevented this from being acknowledged or named? Elroch (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a not heard as a III-I sequence, but simply as a V-I, where the dominant has the 6'th instead of the 5'th. 99android (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, Persichetti refers to this and similar movement by 3rds as an elisive cadence Bandcoach (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

the Dahlhaus quote

For one, there's no closing quote mark; one might guess that the quote ends after the displayed 256/243 given the placement of the citation, but one shouldn't have to. For two, does Dahlhaus really call 256/243 "irrational"? That's either a mistake or a singularly unfortunate word choice. 4pq1injbok (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes such as these may often be checked in the article history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cadence_(music)&oldid=11790140. Dahlhaus is actually talking about other people's experience of the interval, not mathematical definitions of ratios. It looks like he may have been quoted in Judd (1998), who added the ratio. Hyacinth (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Audio File

Is there anyone who has an audio file to attach to this article, which gives an example of this(Phrygian cadence) in classical music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done? Hyacinth (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Caplin quote

to wit: "An examination of such a cadence rarely exists..." That just makes no sense at all. Sorry to be a complainer. JOF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.226.250 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Notated Examples

Further information: Talk:Secondary dominant § V/V in C example (right below circle of fifths)

This is a nice page and I'm going to use it for my theory class. It could use some notated examples, should I just upload mine if I make them? Ericbarnhill (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ii-V7-I progression in C, realized on guitar.

ii-V-I progression in C, four-part harmony (Benward & Saker 2003, p.90.).

I have added quite a few, but always WP:BE BOLD. Hyacinth (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of these feature incorrect voice-leading as well. For instance, the very first example has a seventh of the V chord resolving up. These will need to be fixed. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What's your basis for this claim? Hyacinth (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also note that this article is about cadences, not classroom voice-leading rules. Hyacinth (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this real world example on the guitar? Hyacinth (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) The seventh resolves down... Hyacinth (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing truly objectionable about that example on the basis of voice-leading, but I think an example in four-part SATB would be better (and more pleasing to Monsieur Chaloux's academic sensibilities, non?). —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why might four-part harmony be better? Hyacinth (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How's it look now? Hyacinth (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead/Introduction: Tonality

WP:LEAD says that the lead section or introduction "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." If the lead does not contain reference to the context and importance of cadences, such as in establishing tonality, then it is not doing its job. Hyacinth (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

is this a new use of cadences? And is it something to consider mentioning or not?

I am not sure but this seems relevant to me to post here in the discussion about Cadence

I want to understand a particular song, "Love Song" by Sara Bareilles, already with its own article on wikipedia, and which has very unusual musical cadences. What is going on in this song, historical or truly new use of cadences? I am curious to understand as a wikipedia user and cannot find my way.

Love Song starts in Gm and appears to be in that key, but truly it is in F. The song seems to totally avoid the standard cadence resolution of V I eg C7 to F, and unless you had someone tell you who knew, you might not realise, this is actually in the key of F, because it keeps hitting the Bbsus2, as labelled on sheet music I have seen, which is Bb C F over Bb bass, resolving to Gm, over and over, and the tonic chord F has a very minor role.

Is this new?

So I'm looking to understand a song that in my view was a huge hit partly BECAUSE of the unusual chord progressions, cadences in other words, and historically, this must have roots and been used before, or not?

I have found the references to modern examples very useful on other pages, for example, this or that Beatles song uses a backdoor plagal cadence, that is very clear. Sara Bareilles Love Song seems to define a new modern use of cadences, but presumably to comment about that would be original research unless someone happens to recognise existing published works that may be relevant? I suppose I am asking, if someone redwing this discussion is expert enough to recognise this modern use of a historical and documented cadence, can something be modified in the article to make it easier to relate the historical cadences to such a popular modern song?

Here are some of the chords used, I believe:

Gm. Bbsus2. Dm. F. Gm. There are transitional chords briefly played as follows:

Gm. Am Bbsus2. C Dm. C/E F. D/F# Gm... And repeat.

111.118.144.173 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Backdoor progression

I have a question concerning the plagal cadence section. Apparently, a minor plagal cadence is known as the "backdoor progression". However, my definition of a minor plagal cadence is the use of the minor iv chord in a major key instead of the regular IV chord. Heavenlycheese (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Ed

What is your question? Hyacinth (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no "backdoor progression"… Says 500 years of Western Music history vs. Jerry Coker. I'm taking this out.BassHistory (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Classic cadential trills"

The article says there is a subtonic trill in the final cadence of BWV 140, Wachet auf etc. The 7th, final, section of the piece is the four-part chorale harmonization. Samples of all seven parts can be heard at the wiki article for that piece. I can't hear a trill of any kind at the end. Is this a reference to one of the other sections? Please clarify. JohnOFL (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Jack

Half or Imperfect

Shall it be called the half or the imperfect cadence and why? Hyacinth (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Structure and correct examples

I agree with Anti2390, this article must be split up in different sections. A main section with the common and continuous cadences through the music history, and then cadences for different periods.

The examples in "cadences in common pratice tonality" are full with mistakes, I simply don't have the time to correct this matter right now, but I hope another expert will take the time, it's much needed. 99android (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed: Uncited

• Isus2-V-I and IV-iv-I are also common.{{fact|date=February 2012}}

The above was removed as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lydian cadence

• Lydian cadence: As the Phrygian cadence ends with the final approached by semitone from above and the fifth and octave by whole tones from below, the Lydian cadence ends with the tonic of the final chord approached by whole-tone and the fifth and octave approached by semitone.

The above was removed as either inaccurate or less clear than the current text. Hyacinth (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Lydian vs Phrygian

Phrygian cadence on E.

Lydian cadence on E.

• The Phrygian cadence ends with the movement from iv6 → V
  • bass (3rd of the chord/scale degree 6m) down by semi-tone → bass (the root of the chord/scale degree P5)
  • fifth (scale degree P1) up by whole-tone → fifth (scale degree 2M)
  • root (scale degree P4) up by whole-step → octave (scale degree P1/P8)
• the Lydian half-cadence ends with the movement from a iv6 (raised by half step) → V
  • bass (3rd of the chord/scale degree 6M) down by whole-tone → bass (the root of the chord/scale degree P5)
  • fifth (scale degree 1+) up by half-step → fifth (scale degree 2M)
  • root (scale degree 4+) up by half-step → octave (scale degree P1/P8)

The above doesn't seem quite right. I split it into bullets to help dig through. Hyacinth (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, image corrected. Hyacinth (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I corrected what was originally there. If you had downloaded the original audio files to the right, both images for each cadence looked identical and the audio files were correct. What was written for the Lydian cadence was highly confusing and the current text is my change to it. I would have changed the image but I was not at my computer at the time to render a new one.

The reason it works when you move the whole firs-inversion 4 chord up by one half step is because when you make a Roman numeral analysis, you don't mark that the iv6 is raised up one half step. In pop notation though, say if the iv6 was a D (as in the example on the page), and the scale you are using calls for a D natural, to get Lydian you build the same chord on D#. So the notation would be iv6 D6 or iv6 D#6. I don't have a citation for it, probably the original citation for what the Lydian cadence is would work, I just don't have the book it came from and all I did was make it a bit clearer on how the chord was build and moves to the V. The bullets you have above is correct. Sardonicus (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

One other thing though, it maybe should be noted somewhere in that section why they are called Phrygian Half and Lydian Half cadences and how it works (the chord used for the iv6 is the same as what is found in each of those modes). It's a modal change for a single chord back into the original mode. Sardonicus (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

References

English vs US terminology

When learning cadences years ago now (1977-1980) my references were Wiliiam Lovelock's books on Harmony: 1st year, 2nd, 3rd year.

He did not bother with the use of the phraseology Authentic or inauthentic and certainly kept the use of the word imperfect for something entirely different to what I have read in this article.

To whit: Perfect is given as V-I or V-i without any further qualification except to note that there were degrees of perfect-ness depending on the disposition of the voices Imperfect is given as I-V or i-V, i.e. the perfect cadence is reversed (yes some will say that is simply a plagal cadence but it is not functioning in that way in the examples that Lovelock uses) Plagal is given as IV-I and quoted as the Amen cadence Deceptive is given as V-vi because of the consequent chords relationship to the true tonic - it sets up a fell of Perfect cadence but instead rests on the relative minor Interrupted is given as V-anything else, as the cadence does not conclude with I Half-Close is given as either ii-V or V/V-V or IV-V

In the interests of making this truly encyclopaedic, should there not be some mention of the differences in terminology used on either side of the Atlantic or are we now just one nation????Bandcoach (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

William Lovelock was the millstone around my school music education, too. But here he seems to talk more sense than many traditionalist "authorities". Honestly, there's little reason to go beyond the special primacy of V–I, with a minor mention of the "plagal cadence" as a setting for "Amen". The slippery slope has to stop pretty suddenly, otherwise we'll be classifiying all sorts of weird and wonderful progressions with the C-word. The tonal system shows no evidence of behaving like that. Tony (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)"

I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.

Noetica^Tea? 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed Link Direction

"Each cadence can be described using the Roman numeral system of naming chords" The link for "Roman Numeral System" of chords directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral#Modern_usage which mentions the music theory usage in one sentence near the bottom of the section. I have changed the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis for a more relevant link. Just trying to keep things streamlined. 76.31.117.115 (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Deceptive Cadence Example

I was the one that added "A Summer Song" as a popular music example of a deceptive cadence. In less than a day, someone (and rightly so) attached a "citation needed" footnote to it. Not being a professional musician, I cannot state with 100% certainty that this is truly a deceptive cadence nor can I cite a source that will verify this.
I made this posting because this entire article (in my opinion) is highly technical and felt a reference to a popular song would make the concept more accessible and comprehensible to a greater number of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf1728 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Image not in the right section

There are too many images on the page for the image referenced in the 'Upper leading-tone cadence' section to indeed be to the right of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViolaPlayer (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Cadence and Voice Inflection

The article compares cadences with punctuation. I'm thinking that an analogy of cadence with voice inflection is better than an analogy of cadence with punctuation. It will probably be an improvement if anyone can find a reference to such an analogy and put in a bit of text describing the analogy. I don't know where to look for such.CountMacula (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Overplays the scope of cadence

This article assumes a compartmentalised model that ends up classifying many root progressions as "cadences" without explaining why they're anything more than just root progressions. Context is underplayed. Tony (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"resembles the semitone heard in the ii–I of the 15th-century cadence in the Phrygian mode." ??

Shouldn't this be II - I (or possibly bII - I) instead of ii - I?

Also, I'm assuming the I is capitalized to demonstrate a Picardy third or something (because that would make the iv6 - V progression resemble the II - I closer), so I wasn't going to mention it, but since one part of this progression seems to be capitalized incorrectly I figured I should ask about the other as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.136.246 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor voice leading

The very first musical example: I don't like the bass–alto relationship, first to second chord. Tony (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And all four voices fall, which isn't ideal for the main example on the page. Needs more contrary motion both for ii-V and for V-I. Syek88 (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cadence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Perfect Cadence voice leading

I was taught that the soprano tonic voice in a PAC must be approached stepwise; a google reveals many sources teaching the same and I probably have a hard source on my shelf somewhere. I'll add it if no one objects. I can couch it if necessary but I'm not aware of any scholarly disagreement on this subject so I could probably only cite the positive. Terez27 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Engraving problems with very first example

The musical example in the lead section is poorly engraved. It looks like the top voice in the upper staff has too many beats in the first measure, and the final chord in the last measure also looks misaligned. Radioactivated (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind - it looks like the edit that caused that was reverted. (Thanks Pokechu22) Radioactivated (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dvorak Slavonic Dance Op 72, No. 2.wav

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

cadence is also about spoken languages

The c in lemma cadence means 'contrastive' meaning detachable, distinguishable, that is the result of camparative sounds scientifical observations. Cfr. contrastive in linguistics Sabrina.ponsi (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed Landini reference in Phrygian cadence

I removed this line: "With the addition of motion in the upper part down to the sixth degree before rising to the tonic, it becomes the Landini cadence" from the section on Phrygian cadences, (a) because there is a section on the Landini cadence below, but also because as that section shows (b) a descending bass half-step is not common in the Landini cadence (only on the rare cadence to E, which generally only happens in first endings of B sections in the 14th/15th c.) and w/o the bass half-step there's no reason to lump it in with the Phrygian cadence section. Thanks all! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)