Talk:V–IV–I turnaround

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Twelve-bar blues?

Wow, this is just one style of cadence on a blues. Does it need its own article?BassHistory (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "wow" mean? Why would it need its own article if it was more than one style of cadence or if it wasn't on "a" blues? Hyacinth (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear. I was surprised that this article existed. There is already an article Twelve-bar blues. This turnaround usually happens only within 12-bar blues. I don't think this needs to be its own article. It probably should be merged with Twelve-bar blues.BassHistory (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this article is unlikely to be expanded or that it requires the context of twelve-bar blues per Wikipedia:Merging#Rationale? Hyacinth (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both.BassHistory (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was in favor of this being merged with twelve-bar blues, because that is the only progression it relates to. I don't think it should be in Turnaround (music), as it only relates to one chord change.BassHistory (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have an opinion about this topic if you don't know about it? Obviously if a stub about "New York Style Cheesecake" was to be merged it would be merged with "cheesecake" and not "New York". Hyacinth (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contribute to articles on topics that I don't know about. This turnaround doesn't exist outside of the blues progression.BassHistory (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite a source. Hyacinth (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you.BassHistory (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see {{Original research}}: "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." Thank you. Hyacinth (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Why, what, where, and how does this article contain original research? Hyacinth (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources."

If there is no reliable source, than it is original research. You need to provide a source that says that:

a) The V-IV-I turnaround is "considered tonally inadmissible"
b) The V-IV-I turnaround "may be interpreted as a doubled plagal cadence"
c) The V-IV-I turnaround is related in some way with secondary dominants

BassHistory (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a dose of your own medicine: Why, has someone challenged that material? Hyacinth (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can challenge unreferenced material. That is a fundamental rule here, as I'm sure you know. I am challenging those three contentions. Find a source, or I will delete the material.BassHistory (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source that directly states: the V-IV-I turnaround "may be interpreted as a doubled plagal cadence."BassHistory (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Everett — The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men through Rubber Soul (p. 288) http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-As-Musicians-Quarry-through/dp/0195141059: When reconstructed as I - bVII - IV — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPGACoast (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tonicization and Modulation

There is no modulation in the basic blues progression. The blues progression stays in one key. I can see your point about plagal cadences, although it is quite abstract, and by no means a standard analysis. You need to provide references for such an original analysis. The V-IV-I turnaround is usually explained as follows:

In the rules of Western harmony, when V is introduced, V or one of its substitutes (vii etc.) must precede the return to I. Therefore, V-IV-I turnaround breaks the rules of traditional European harmony by moving from IV directly to I following the introduction of V. Nonetheless, this turnaround is pervasive in the blues tradition. This may be explained by a preference for the affect of the plagal cadence rooted in African American church music.

BassHistory (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With sources that would be great content. Hyacinth (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I chime in? Disregarding the tonic in bars 7-8 for a moment, how about a deceptive cadence (V-IV) plus a plagal (IV-I)? I know this is close to a non-explanation in functional terms, and leaves out the I-V part of the progression (but one does't usually go great lenghts to give a functional explanation of the I-V part in the first strain of passamezzo moderno). The best I can offer in support is [1]: in Schönberg's words, a "total effect of ascent", i.e. two weak progressions adding up to a strong one, namely V-(IV-)I. Et voila! (Please let me know what you think as I have no academic expertise whatsoever.) As for the double-plagal interpretation, I also find it somewhat suspicious: in said measures 7-8, I doesn't sound particularly IV/Vish to my ear; melodic material also does not (seem to me to) support this either. Well, the closest thing I can think of right now is not from a 12-bar: "Oh yeah, she don't stand no cheatin'" on bars 5-6 of Willie Dixon's "My Babe", where vocal melody anticipates the dominant on the following two bars. But, again, no undisputable scent of IV/V-V there either. Over. 151.66.224.148 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is welcome. Firstly, to be clear, we are talking about bars 9-10 in a shuffle-type blues. This is not the "standard" or "most basic" blues, although is is probably the most common blues turnaround to be used by rock guitarists. The most basic form, that predates V-IV-I, is simply V-I, with dominant for two bars. Tonic moving to dominant is not a special circumstance, there is no reason to analyze I-V as "IV/V-V." In Western classical analysis, it can only be considered a modulation if there is the introduction of a leading tone (in this case "#4" of the home key).BassHistory (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I could have touched the individual points in a better order.

the V-IV-I turnaround occurs in bars 9, 10 and (all or first half of) 11, but the section of the article on "Tonicization and Modulation" also deals with the preceding tonic. So I said: ignoring said tonic for now, here's my hypothesis on V-IV-I, with a source. Please discuss (it per se and it being suitable for the article, possibility of WP:SYN on my part etc.);
Then, back to the proposed interpretation of the extended sequence I-V-IV-I (bars 7 to 11) as a doubled plagal cadence IV/V - V + IV(/I, out of courtesy) - I, I started thinking aloud, not really convinced but looking for melodic "evidence" in support, and finding an iffy one (from a different structure).

As for the turnaround discussed in the article not being "the most basic" or "standard", I didn't understand your point at first since I had not claimed otherwise; then I saw you have been busy editing the 12-bar article accordingly. By all means go on, as long as sources back you up; this said, I guess we can all agree at least on V-IV-I being veeerry common, first of all in blues blues, not just in rock guitarists' basements, and not unknown to jazz cats either: "Sack O'Woe" comes to mind. And no, I have no source at hand: just agree inter nos then? 151.66.224.148 (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree that V-IV-I is in blues and jazz (check out "After Hours" from Dizzy Gillespie's Sonny Side Up), just as II-V-I is in blues (BB King, "Every Day I Have the Blues"). However, I think it is safe to say that not only is V-I the most basic turnaround, it also predates both II-V-I and V-IV-I. As for "blues blues," well, there are the blues artists that influenced the rockers (Howlin Wolf, Muddy Waters) and then there are many others (Robert Johnson, Bessie Smith, Louis Armstrong). I think the reason that some sources will probably say "V-IV-I is the standard turnaround" is because those early electrified bluesmen and the 60s rockers that emulated them played that turnaround. This doesn't reflect the long and diverse history of the blues though. I also think that since Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and were trying to explain conceptually in general terms what's going on, V-I is a better jumping-off point, and besides it's more universal to all styles and variations. That being said, don't worry: I'm not trying to erase all evidence of V-IV-I from Wikipedia.BassHistory (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]