It is requested that one or more musical audio files be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
What happened here?
I was asleep for 3 months and missed this. Good use of acronyms too!!
I removed the following section, entitled "Cadence fanatic composers":
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)
Caesura, how does it look now? Hyacinth 00:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Each? Are there imperfect plagal cadences? Perfect deceptive cadences? You only provide a definition for authentic ones.
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.
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
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 V7-I is considered a Perfect Cadence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.14.42 ( talk) 02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Mention if in rap music has cadences, and give examples. Jidanni ( talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
As I recall, Persichetti refers to this and similar movement by 3rds as an elisive cadence Bandcoach ( talk) 03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
Shall it be called the half or the imperfect cadence and why? Hyacinth ( talk) 10:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
The above was removed as uncited. Hyacinth ( talk) 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The above was removed as either inaccurate or less clear than the current text. Hyacinth ( talk) 08:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
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)