Talk:Cadence - Knowledge (XXG)

449:

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? -

251:. 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). 762:

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. -

78:, 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. — 1285: 1108: 277:

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

1266: 342:, 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. - 1894:

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

1731: 1812:

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.

1739: 1099: 820:

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

713:

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.

1162: 1141: 1516:

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?

1172: 509:

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?

2065:

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.

1830:

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.

1811:

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

1515:

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

727:

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 Knowledge (XXG)) 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

712:

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 Knowledge (XXG), and not yet an expert on music theory, but based on what I have learnt

408:

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

173:

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

1997:

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

1893:

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

716:

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

389:

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

271:

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

181:

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

143:

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

2196:

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

1603:

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

1504:

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,

559:

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?

298:

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,

260:

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

210:

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 Knowledge (XXG). No one except a music theory student would need

65:

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

2112:

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

1470:

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,

508:

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

1912:

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

1805:

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

761:

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

394:

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

379:

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

497:

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

448:

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

276:

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

819:

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 Knowledge (XXG) article, the New Grove article, and any other relevant

541:

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

638:

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

152:

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

979:

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.

929:

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

202:

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"?

717:

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. -

525:

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.

1546:

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.

1292: 639:

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.

21: 409:

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.

908:

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.

337:

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

1501:, 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. 1273: 138:

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

311:

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.

804:, 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). — 369:

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. -

2000:

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.

2216:

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.

1511:

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?

1706:

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

2085:

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.

2267: 1654:

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.

294:

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

1651:

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.

148:"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. 1913:

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.

999:. 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. 1890:

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.

130:

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.

1897:

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????

748:

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. -

380:(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. 2289:

The c in lemma cadence means 'contrastive' meaning detachable, distinguishable, that is the result of camparative sounds scientifical observations. Cfr. contrastive in linguistics

307:

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

2337: 1228: 1322:

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.

1193:, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 170:

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

164:

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 ...

2312: 2352: 1218: 1399:

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

261:

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.

2327: 2322: 2357: 2260: 671:

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. —

542:

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? -

1194: 498:

second, on this page it's substituting political judgment for the predominant aesthetic considerations. I suggest it be removed or reworked somehow. --

2033:

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.

476: 281:, but something like "Schluss" which is a term used only in German theoretical discussion is not appropriate for an English language encyclopedia. - 1505:

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.

1112: 39: 2342: 2332: 320:, 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. 2347: 1251:

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?

153:

harmony, which distinguishes between chord progressions and chord regressions, but it's a bit of a stretch to apply them to plagal cadences. --

366: 339: 295: 278: 248: 1528: 1949:. Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles. 1185: 1146: 467:

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.

2120: 1074: 874: 1970:"Each cadence can be described using the Roman numeral system of naming chords" The link for "Roman Numeral System" of chords directed to 1979: 1035: 693: 228: 98: 1019:

Is there anyone who has an audio file to attach to this article, which gives an example of this(Phrygian cadence) in classical music?

584:

That's an interesting link. I think that provides enough information about the usage now, it probably doesn't need any more change. -

272:

has yet to appear on the German wikipedia). As a rule, German language terms do not appear in English language texts on music theory,

2158:

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.

2049: 1871: 783:. As long as you cite your work from the textbooks, they seem like they will be interesting and helpful additions to this article. 43: 1887:

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

2317: 1494: 1121: 423:

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

2017: 1067:

to wit: "An examination of such a cadence rarely exists..." That just makes no sense at all. Sorry to be a complainer. JOF

930:

reminiscent of a perfect cadence). Can it be that musical tradition has prevented this from being acknowledged or named?

174:

what a cadence is, aswell as defining it. Dictionaries are there to define, Encylcopedia's are there to give knowledge.

134:

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

2275: 395:

appear in English, then it seems they should be removed from the topics list. Should we delete the redirect pages (like

1836: 1817: 945:

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.

661:

Would a V-I fall under the category of a perfect authentic cadence? This article fails to mention if this is so. --

1974:

which mentions the music theory usage in one sentence near the bottom of the section. I have changed the link to

1581:

There is no "backdoor progression"… Says 500 years of Western Music history vs. Jerry Coker. I'm taking this out.

2241: 2222: 2124: 1552: 1532: 1284: 869: 1127: 1078: 2256:

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

1983: 232: 102: 2294: 2271: 1330: 1246: 1031: 697: 429: 2116: 2037: 2005: 1070: 1023: 689: 1832: 1813: 1256: 412:

By the way, thanks for asking my opinion on the topic, I was glad to exercise my brain and determine just

2182:

which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —

1764:

bass (3rd of the chord/scale degree 6M) down by whole-tone → bass (the root of the chord/scale degree P5)

800:

The analysis of a plagal cadence as an extension of an authentic cadence probably stems from the work of

2290: 2071: 2045: 1750:

bass (3rd of the chord/scale degree 6m) down by semi-tone → bass (the root of the chord/scale degree P5)

1586: 821: 780: 1252: 2041: 985: 801: 468: 1305: 1098: 204: 2237: 2218: 1902: 1660: 1548: 965: 950: 864: 809: 737: 676: 644: 216: 187: 1605: 618: 87: 2013: 1938: 1795: 1781: 1716: 1684: 1637: 1568: 1476: 1450: 1430: 1389: 1381: 1364: 1350: 1325: 1313: 1052: 1027: 1004: 914: 895: 787: 564: 513: 484: 479:... (actually, the redirect should perhaps be removed instead and the redlink allowed to stand?) 2139:

The very first musical example: I don't like the bass–alto relationship, first to second chord.

1265: 365:

in the Virginia Tech music dictionary (which could have been the source from which inclusion on

2105:"resembles the semitone heard in the ii–I of the 15th-century cadence in the Phrygian mode." ?? 31: 2202: 1868: 1629: 1609: 1410: 851: 144:

term originated) and cadences in early Renaissance counterpoint, with a few notated examples.

35: 1467: 729: 362: 304: 2163: 2067: 1582: 935: 749: 585: 543: 450: 371: 361:

To follow up, the only online reference I have found to "Schluss" in a non-German source is

343: 282: 960:

As I recall, Persichetti refers to this and similar movement by 3rds as an elisive cadence

2147: 2094: 1921: 981: 317: 53:

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

1522:

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

1490:

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

2233: 1898: 1699: 1656: 1498: 961: 946: 805: 733: 672: 640: 212: 183: 154: 1730: 2306: 2252:

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

2183: 2009: 1946: 1942: 1791: 1777: 1712: 1703: 1680: 1633: 1564: 1472: 1446: 1426: 1385: 1377: 1360: 1346: 1309: 1048: 1000: 910: 891: 825: 784: 763: 718: 561: 510: 480: 400: 321: 262: 252: 118: 1761:

the Lydian half-cadence ends with the movement from a iv6 (raised by half step) → V

2198: 1625: 1190: 1177: 847: 527: 499: 472: 464: 381: 79: 1486:

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

1359:

Also note that this article is about cadences, not classroom voice-leading rules.

20: 1776:

The above doesn't seem quite right. I split it into bullets to help dig through.

2159: 1711:

The above was removed as either inaccurate or less clear than the current text.

931: 662: 471:, but full cadences are always authentic. This should be remedied before (say) 396: 313: 247:

I added the foreign language names for the cadences because they were listed in

1806:

changed the image but I was not at my computer at the time to render a new one.

617:, I have rephrased the statement to avoid the accusatory tone of the original. 2140: 2087: 1914: 1288:

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

1167: 308: 182:

notated examples, however. Also, please sign your talk-page posts with ~~~~. —

1738: 843: 836: 1975: 2232:

Nevermind - it looks like the edit that caused that was reverted. (Thanks

1247:

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

997:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cadence_(music)&oldid=11790140

300: 61:

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

1756:

root (scale degree P4) up by whole-step → octave (scale degree P1/P8)

391: 1770:

root (scale degree 4+) up by half-step → octave (scale degree P1/P8)

1161: 1140: 995:

Mistakes such as these may often be checked in the article history:

66:

that he has managed to keep all of his ideas separate and original!!

2109:

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

1978:

for a more relevant link. Just trying to keep things streamlined.

1753:

fifth (scale degree P1) up by whole-tone → fifth (scale degree 2M)

1283: 1264: 1767:

fifth (scale degree 1+) up by half-step → fifth (scale degree 2M)

1675:

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

609:

As there is nothing inherently "sexist" about the musical use of

1471:

such as in establishing tonality, then it is not doing its job.

779:

You can make your own sandbox under your userpage, for example,

1971: 420:

prefer having foreign words in a music dictionary/encyclopedia.

2298: 2279: 2245: 2226: 2206: 2186: 2167: 2152: 2128: 2099: 2075: 2053: 2021: 1987: 1960: 1926: 1906: 1840: 1821: 1799: 1785: 1720: 1688: 1664: 1641: 1613: 1590: 1572: 1556: 1536: 1480: 1454: 1434: 1416: 1393: 1368: 1354: 1334: 1317: 1260: 1092: 1082: 1056: 1039: 1008: 989: 969: 954: 939: 918: 899: 881: 855: 828: 813: 790: 766: 752: 741: 721: 701: 680: 665: 648: 621: 588: 567: 546: 530: 516: 502: 487: 453: 432: 403: 384: 374: 346: 324: 285: 265: 255: 236: 220: 191: 106: 90: 15: 167:"Knowledge (XXG) is an open-Encyclopedia, not a Dictionary". 1384:) 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) The seventh resolves down... 1747:

The Phrygian cadence ends with the movement from iv6 → V

1604:

reference to one of the other sections? Please clarify.

996: 211:

to know anything beyond the definition you provided. —

1865:

The Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music and Musicians

1525:

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

890:

Unfortunately that's not a very persuasive argument.

2197:

subject so I could probably only cite the positive.

2179: 1189:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1972:http://en.wikipedia.org/Roman_numeral#Modern_usage 1376:What about this real world example on the guitar? 1933:Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)" 74:is supposed to mean. Perhaps it's supposed to be 2338:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Arts 2266:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 1976:http://en.wikipedia.org/Roman_numeral_analysis 1269:ii-V7-I progression in C, realized on guitar. 1519:Here are some of the chords used, I believe: 8: 477:Knowledge (XXG):Music encyclopedia topics/15 316:is trickier, because the word doesn't mean 2212:Engraving problems with very first example 2178:There is a move discussion in progress on 2114: 2061:Comparison of Cadence and Voice Inflection 1135: 1493:I want to understand a particular song, " 367:Knowledge (XXG):Music encyclopedia topics 340:Knowledge (XXG):Music encyclopedia topics 296:Knowledge (XXG):Music encyclopedia topics 279:Knowledge (XXG):Music encyclopedia topics 249:Knowledge (XXG):Music encyclopedia topics 26:It is requested that one or more musical 2313:Knowledge (XXG) requested audio of music 1859: 1857: 1737: 1729: 1702:: As the Phrygian cadence ends with the 1203:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Music theory 686:A V-I is considered a Perfect Cadence. 390:English word for certain cadences was a 1853: 1425:Why might four-part harmony be better? 1137: 1096: 2328:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Arts 2323:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles 2285:cadence is also about spoken languages 2261:Dvorak Slavonic Dance Op 72, No. 2.wav 1998:I cite a source that will verify this. 1304:I have added quite a few, but always 299:not nearly as often as such terms as 7: 2353:Top-importance Music theory articles 2066:I don't know where to look for such. 1183:This article is within the scope of 44:Knowledge (XXG):Requested recordings 1126:It is of interest to the following 1679:The above was removed as uncited. 1403:Chaloux's academic sensibilities, 1345:What's your basis for this claim? 861:Of course rap music has cadences. 14: 2358:WikiProject Music theory articles 1206:Template:WikiProject Music theory 846:has cadences, and give examples. 1170: 1160: 1139: 1106: 1097: 160:A different tone to the writing? 38:and included in this article to 19: 1223:This article has been rated as 117:Caesura, how does it look now? 2343:C-Class vital articles in Arts 2333:C-Class level-5 vital articles 2246:01:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 2227:01:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 2081:Overplays the scope of cadence 2054:22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC) 2029:Image not in the right section 1647:Structure and correct examples 1557:00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 702:02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 2348:C-Class Music theory articles 2299:20:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 2207:19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC) 2192:Perfect Cadence voice leading 2187:22:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC) 2168:03:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 2153:02:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 2129:18:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC) 2100:05:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 1988:04:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC) 1927:05:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 1665:09:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 1614:20:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 1481:09:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC) 1197:and see a list of open tasks. 955:16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 622:23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 303:). I therefore disagree that 221:18:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC) 91:23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 2280:09:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC) 2022:05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 1642:10:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 1591:05:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC) 1573:10:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 1318:10:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 1057:10:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 589:03:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 568:22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 547:20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 531:14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 517:00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC) 503:15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 192:03:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC) 2174:Move discussion in progress 2076:18:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 1863:Don Michael Randel (1999). 1537:08:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1463:Lead/Introduction: Tonality 1455:02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 919:21:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 488:01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 57:"Cadence fanatic composers" 2374: 1907:03:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 1841:13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1822:13:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1800:04:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 1786:04:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 1721:08:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 1599:"Classic cadential trills" 1435:01:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1417:01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1394:00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 1369:02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 1355:02:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 1335:15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 1261:20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1244: 1229:project's importance scale 1009:20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 990:06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 970:03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 829:01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC) 814:00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC) 791:20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 767:18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 753:15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 742:15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 722:04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 681:16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 666:01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 649:03:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 1993:Deceptive Cadence Example 1961:00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1883:English vs US terminology 1689:23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 1222: 1155: 1134: 1083:01:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) 1040:18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 940:12:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 900:23:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 237:09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 121:00:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 107:09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 82:19:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) 46:for more on this request. 1186:WikiProject Music theory 882:01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 856:00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 454:19:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 433:18:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 404:16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 385:00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 375:19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 347:19:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 325:18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 286:20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 266:14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 256:14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 125:A few confusing passages 1790:Okay, image corrected. 1624:Shall it be called the 1563:What is your question? 708:Modernizing the Article 2318:C-Class vital articles 1966:Changed Link Direction 1743: 1735: 1734:Phrygian cadence on E. 1300: 1281: 243:Foreign language names 177:Thanks for listening. 70:I can only guess what 1741: 1733: 1287: 1268: 1245:Further information: 1209:Music theory articles 1120:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1113:level-5 vital article 781:User:Anti2390/Cadence 86:"Emphatic", perhaps? 2113:the other as well. 1742:Lydian cadence on E. 1542:Backdoor progression 198:Common Note Cadences 1445:How's it look now? 925:A slighted cadence? 40:improve its quality 2272:Community Tech bot 2135:Poor voice leading 1939:a formal RM action 1744: 1736: 1726:Lydian vs Phrygian 1301: 1282: 1122:content assessment 975:the Dahlhaus quote 2131: 2119:comment added by 2057: 2040:comment added by 2025: 2008:comment added by 1958: 1937:I have initiated 1630:imperfect cadence 1620:Half or Imperfect 1243: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1073:comment added by 1043: 1026:comment added by 802:Heinrich Schenker 704: 692:comment added by 50: 49: 36:Wikimedia Commons 2365: 2150: 2145: 2097: 2092: 2056: 2034: 2024: 2002: 1959: 1956: 1924: 1919: 1875: 1861: 1670:Removed: Uncited 1413: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1295: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1276: 1211: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1164: 1157: 1156: 1151: 1143: 1136: 1119: 1110: 1109: 1102: 1101: 1093: 1089:Notated Examples 1085: 1042: 1020: 877: 872: 867: 687: 475:is removed from 23: 16: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2303: 2302: 2287: 2268:nomination page 2254: 2214: 2194: 2176: 2148: 2141: 2137: 2107: 2095: 2088: 2083: 2063: 2035: 2031: 2003: 1995: 1968: 1955: 1952: 1935: 1922: 1915: 1885: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1862: 1855: 1728: 1696: 1672: 1649: 1622: 1601: 1544: 1529:111.118.144.173 1488: 1465: 1411: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1274: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1249: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1176: 1171: 1169: 1149: 1117: 1107: 1091: 1068: 1065: 1021: 1017: 977: 927: 875: 870: 865: 840: 710: 659: 495: 485:Sound the Note! 461: 318:Cadence (music) 245: 200: 162: 127: 115: 59: 12: 11: 5: 2371: 2369: 2361: 2360: 2355: 2350: 2345: 2340: 2335: 2330: 2325: 2320: 2315: 2305: 2304: 2286: 2283: 2264: 2263: 2253: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2238:Radioactivated 2219:Radioactivated 2213: 2210: 2193: 2190: 2175: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2136: 2133: 2121:71.164.136.246 2106: 2103: 2082: 2079: 2062: 2059: 2030: 2027: 1999: 1994: 1991: 1967: 1964: 1953: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1884: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1825: 1824: 1808: 1807: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1754: 1751: 1727: 1724: 1709: 1708: 1700:Lydian cadence 1695: 1694:Lydian cadence 1692: 1677: 1676: 1671: 1668: 1648: 1645: 1621: 1618: 1600: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1576: 1575: 1549:Heavenlycheese 1543: 1540: 1508:Is this new? 1499:Sara Bareilles 1487: 1484: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1420: 1419: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1357: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1232: 1225:Top-importance 1221: 1215: 1214: 1212: 1195:the discussion 1182: 1181: 1165: 1153: 1152: 1150:Top‑importance 1144: 1132: 1131: 1125: 1103: 1090: 1087: 1075:70.245.226.250 1064: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1016: 1013: 1012: 1011: 976: 973: 958: 957: 926: 923: 922: 921: 905: 904: 903: 902: 885: 884: 842:Mention if in 839: 833: 832: 831: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 772: 771: 770: 769: 756: 755: 745: 744: 709: 706: 684: 683: 658: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 552: 551: 550: 549: 536: 535: 534: 533: 520: 519: 494: 491: 460: 457: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 427: 424: 421: 410: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 330: 329: 328: 327: 289: 288: 244: 241: 240: 239: 224: 223: 199: 196: 195: 194: 161: 158: 150: 149: 141: 140: 132: 131: 126: 123: 114: 111: 110: 109: 94: 93: 68: 67: 58: 55: 52: 48: 47: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2370: 2359: 2356: 2354: 2351: 2349: 2346: 2344: 2341: 2339: 2336: 2334: 2331: 2329: 2326: 2324: 2321: 2319: 2316: 2314: 2311: 2310: 2308: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291:Sabrina.ponsi 2284: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2262: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2211: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2191: 2189: 2188: 2185: 2181: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2144: 2134: 2132: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2110: 2104: 2102: 2101: 2098: 2093: 2091: 2080: 2078: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2060: 2058: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2028: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 1992: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980:76.31.117.115 1977: 1973: 1965: 1963: 1962: 1950: 1948: 1947:Scale (music) 1944: 1943:Musical scale 1940: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1920: 1918: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1882: 1873: 1872:9780674000841 1870: 1866: 1860: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1810: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1769: 1766: 1763: 1762: 1760: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1746: 1745: 1740: 1732: 1725: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1652: 1646: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1619: 1617: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1598: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1541: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1523: 1520: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1506: 1502: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1485: 1483: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1462: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326:Devin.chaloux 1321: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1296: 1286: 1277: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1248: 1230: 1226: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1179: 1168: 1166: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1129: 1123: 1115: 1114: 1104: 1100: 1095: 1094: 1088: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028:Borninbronx10 1025: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 974: 972: 971: 967: 963: 956: 952: 948: 944: 943: 942: 941: 937: 933: 924: 920: 916: 912: 907: 906: 901: 897: 893: 889: 888: 887: 886: 883: 880: 879: 878: 873: 868: 860: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 838: 834: 830: 827: 824:are welcome. 823: 818: 817: 816: 815: 811: 807: 803: 792: 789: 786: 782: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 768: 765: 760: 759: 758: 757: 754: 751: 747: 746: 743: 739: 735: 732:and add it. — 731: 726: 725: 724: 723: 720: 714: 707: 705: 703: 699: 695: 694:218.186.14.42 691: 682: 678: 674: 670: 669: 668: 667: 664: 656: 650: 646: 642: 637: 636: 635: 634: 623: 620: 616: 612: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 590: 587: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 569: 566: 563: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 548: 545: 540: 539: 538: 537: 532: 529: 524: 523: 522: 521: 518: 515: 512: 507: 506: 505: 504: 501: 492: 490: 489: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 458: 456: 455: 452: 434: 431: 428: 425: 422: 419: 415: 411: 407: 406: 405: 402: 398: 393: 388: 387: 386: 383: 378: 377: 376: 373: 368: 364: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 348: 345: 341: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 326: 323: 319: 315: 310: 306: 302: 297: 293: 292: 291: 290: 287: 284: 280: 275: 270: 269: 268: 267: 264: 258: 257: 254: 250: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229:198.181.42.99 226: 225: 222: 218: 214: 209: 208: 207: 206: 197: 193: 189: 185: 180: 179: 178: 175: 171: 168: 165: 159: 157: 156: 147: 146: 145: 137: 136: 135: 129: 128: 124: 122: 120: 112: 108: 104: 100: 99:198.181.42.99 96: 95: 92: 89: 85: 84: 83: 81: 77: 73: 64: 63: 62: 56: 54: 45: 42:. Please see 41: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2288: 2265: 2255: 2215: 2195: 2180:Talk:Cadence 2177: 2142: 2138: 2115:— Preceding 2111: 2108: 2089: 2084: 2064: 2036:— Preceding 2032: 2004:— Preceding 1996: 1969: 1951: 1936: 1916: 1896: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1864: 1848: 1789: 1775: 1710: 1678: 1653: 1650: 1623: 1602: 1545: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1492: 1489: 1466: 1412:Mahlerlover1 1408: 1404: 1400: 1375: 1323: 1253:Ericbarnhill 1250: 1224: 1200:Music theory 1191:music theory 1184: 1178:Music portal 1147:Music theory 1128:WikiProjects 1111: 1066: 1063:Caplin quote 1018: 978: 959: 928: 866:bibliomaniac 863: 862: 841: 799: 715: 711: 685: 660: 614: 610: 496: 473:Full cadence 465:Full cadence 462: 459:Full cadence 447: 417: 413: 273: 259: 246: 201: 176: 172: 169: 166: 163: 151: 142: 133: 116: 75: 71: 69: 60: 51: 27: 2068:CountMacula 2042:ViolaPlayer 1583:BassHistory 1069:—Preceding 1022:—Preceding 835:Cadence in 822:new article 750:Rainwarrior 688:—Preceding 586:Rainwarrior 544:Rainwarrior 469:this source 451:Rainwarrior 414:why exactly 397:Trugschluss 372:Rainwarrior 344:Rainwarrior 314:Trugschluss 283:Rainwarrior 28:audio files 2307:Categories 1849:References 1833:Sardonicus 1814:Sardonicus 1306:WP:BE BOLD 1015:Audio File 982:4pq1injbok 426:Musically, 363:this entry 309:Viertelton 2234:Pokechu22 1899:Bandcoach 1867:, p.106. 1707:semitone. 1657:99android 1632:and why? 1495:Love Song 1116:is rated 962:Bandcoach 947:99android 844:rap music 837:rap music 806:Wahoofive 785:Rigadoun 734:Wahoofive 673:Wahoofive 641:Bandcoach 611:masculine 562:Rigadoun 511:Rigadoun 227:66666666 213:Wahoofive 205:Hidekatsu 184:Wahoofive 155:Wahoofive 113:Forbidden 2184:RMCD bot 2117:unsigned 2050:contribs 2038:unsigned 2018:contribs 2010:Wolf1728 2006:unsigned 1941:to move 1792:Hyacinth 1778:Hyacinth 1713:Hyacinth 1681:Hyacinth 1634:Hyacinth 1565:Hyacinth 1473:Hyacinth 1447:Hyacinth 1427:Hyacinth 1401:Monsieur 1386:Hyacinth 1378:Hyacinth 1361:Hyacinth 1347:Hyacinth 1310:Hyacinth 1071:unsigned 1049:Hyacinth 1036:contribs 1024:unsigned 1001:Hyacinth 911:Hyacinth 892:Hyacinth 826:Anti2390 764:Anti2390 719:Anti2390 690:unsigned 615:feminine 481:Schissel 401:Rigadoun 322:Rigadoun 263:Rigadoun 253:Rigadoun 119:Hyacinth 72:inffatic 32:uploaded 2199:Terez27 2149:(talk) 2096:(talk) 1923:(talk) 1628:or the 1606:JohnOFL 1468:WP:LEAD 1227:on the 1118:C-class 848:Jidanni 730:be bold 619:Spoxjox 528:Knucmo2 500:Knucmo2 493:Oh dear 382:Tuf-Kat 305:Schluss 301:Urlinie 88:Spoxjox 80:Caesura 76:fanatic 2160:Syek88 1957:oetica 1124:scale. 1047:Done? 932:Elroch 788:(talk) 663:MosheA 565:(talk) 514:(talk) 463:Since 392:calque 274:unless 139:dyads. 97:66666 1704:final 1616:Jack 1497:" by 1105:This 2295:talk 2276:talk 2242:talk 2223:talk 2203:talk 2164:talk 2143:Tony 2125:talk 2090:Tony 2072:talk 2046:talk 2014:talk 1984:talk 1917:Tony 1903:talk 1869:ISBN 1837:talk 1818:talk 1796:talk 1782:talk 1717:talk 1685:talk 1661:talk 1638:talk 1626:half 1610:talk 1587:talk 1569:talk 1553:talk 1533:talk 1477:talk 1451:talk 1431:talk 1407:?). 1390:talk 1382:talk 1365:talk 1351:talk 1331:chat 1314:talk 1294:Play 1275:Play 1257:talk 1079:talk 1053:talk 1032:talk 1005:talk 986:talk 966:talk 951:talk 936:talk 915:talk 896:talk 852:talk 810:talk 738:talk 698:talk 677:talk 657:V-I? 645:talk 613:and 233:talk 217:talk 188:talk 103:talk 2270:. — 1945:to 1559:Ed 1405:non 1219:Top 430:Bob 399:)? 34:to 30:be 2309:: 2297:) 2278:) 2244:) 2236:) 2225:) 2205:) 2166:) 2127:) 2074:) 2052:) 2048:• 2020:) 2016:• 1986:) 1905:) 1856:^ 1839:) 1820:) 1798:) 1784:) 1719:) 1687:) 1663:) 1640:) 1612:) 1589:) 1571:) 1555:) 1535:) 1479:) 1453:) 1433:) 1392:) 1367:) 1353:) 1333:) 1324:— 1316:) 1308:. 1259:) 1081:) 1055:) 1038:) 1034:• 1007:) 988:) 968:) 953:) 938:) 917:) 898:) 854:) 812:) 740:) 700:) 679:) 647:) 526:-- 483:| 418:do 416:I 235:) 219:) 203:-- 190:) 105:) 2293:( 2274:( 2240:( 2221:( 2201:( 2162:( 2123:( 2070:( 2044:( 2012:( 1982:( 1954:N 1901:( 1874:. 1835:( 1816:( 1794:( 1780:( 1715:( 1683:( 1659:( 1636:( 1608:( 1585:( 1567:( 1551:( 1531:( 1475:( 1449:( 1429:( 1409:— 1388:( 1380:( 1363:( 1349:( 1329:( 1312:( 1255:( 1231:. 1130:: 1077:( 1051:( 1030:( 1003:( 984:( 964:( 949:( 934:( 913:( 894:( 876:5 871:1 850:( 808:( 736:( 696:( 675:( 643:( 231:( 215:( 186:( 101:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index