Examples of Perfect and Imperfect cadences.

[DaveyM69]

Originally Posted by Bainbridge

I think the evidence is weighing toward "an English thing".

I've done a little more research into this as I don't like to not know something that may be needed when communicating internationally. Not conclusive yet, but it appears that the half, authentic etc are "a US thing".

A subtle and unimportant distinction (we've all got used to the US hald diminished chords, triangles for major 7ths and - meaning m[minor])!

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by Bainbridge

DaveyM69 says perfect/imperfect is what the ABSRM teaches. I haven't seen it in five of the most prominent harmony texts in the US, nor heard any of my colleagues ever use that terminology. I think the evidence is weighing toward "an English thing".

So the real question is why change or re-name what was all ready in use?

If it is as is being called an "English use" then it would more and likely be a European use.
With the way the USA developed its nation, mass imigration from older established nations, then the "English thing" may well not be the original use but a common use.

So for me it is just a matter of interest about what was it about the original that was so wrong it had to be changed?

If i was at all interest in labouring a point i would point out that if the English/European use was correct then you are indeed teaching it wrong, because the original idea was changed to suit some other thinking....which i do not have the experience or knowledge to see or understand (not that i need to) but i accept that there are and will be other names, spelling, etc for many things in this world.

Originally Posted by Bainbridge

You mean the phrygian half cadence (phrygian imperfect cadence?)? That's iv6 V, not VI V. The best example of such a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuosfi94fCw

LOL, no i mean exactly what i said, and i said IVb-V not VI-V and certainly not IV6 - V.
Again terminology, is it a weak cadence or a feminine one, is it a semi cadence, and by who's system is it going to be judged against?

I get the feeling you want to talk in absolutes, which is fine if you are in that place where an absolute works, but this is the web, so neither the U.S. or Europe, so correcting me when i am not wrong has an arrogance about it rather than any effort to teach the musical ideas or relate to how other cultures see and use them......just saying.

[lsabina]

Originally Posted by longfinger

use Bach Choral to show harmony in it's essence.

The way I learned it is this.

PAC - V-I chord, with 5-1 in the bass and a 7-1 or 2-1 in the soprano. As long as the tonic ends with 1 in the melody. (Approach by 7 or 2 are both fine)

IAC- V-I chord, with 5-1 in the bass and a 2-3 or 4-3, or 5-5, 6-5 in the soprano. As long as the tonic ends with non-1 (3rd or 5th) in the melody. Or any vii7 - 1.

Similar to what Bainbridge wrote except that 2-1 is good choice for PAC in the melody for me. After doing some Schenker studies, it seems that over the long run, 2-1 in the melody ends up being the stronger cadence than 7-1 in the melody.

If you want modern songs... just pick any tune over

I- vi - IV - V - I

one time, end with a root in the melody, another end with a 3rd or 5th.

This is correct and addresses the terminology used by the OP (Perfect and Imperfect). However, I get the sense that the OP meant to use the terms Full and Half in his query.

[Russell L]

Just wanna say I haven't thought about the names of cadences since I got my music degree in 1976. Heh, heh, this is a blast. I dunno who's right or wrong, but no matter to me.

[DaveyM69]

Originally Posted by Russell L

I dunno who's right or wrong, but no matter to me.

Me neither, although many years ago I used to work with a jazz quartet called "Perfect Cadence" - not "Perfect Authentic Cadence"...

[MarkMgibson]

I'm a bit lost with this terminology, though I think I know what the OP meant. I remember terms like "resolved" and "unresolved", but that's about it. Still, I learnt this stuff a long time ago, so I'm not surprised that terminology has changed over the years, and my memory isn't the best either.

[longfinger]

Terminology changes... Fergie Fulton wrote a little bit about a "feminine" cadence... Yeah old books, like mid 20thc, 19thc and earlier mention "feminine" and "masculine" as adjectives to describe sound in all sorts of ways like harmony, orchestration, rhythm, instruments.. Wow, that is very out of date. That is soooo not late 20th century teachings of North American schools.

Things change...

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by longfinger

Terminology changes... Fergie Fulton wrote a little bit about a "feminine" cadence... Yeah old books, like mid 20thc, 19thc and earlier mention "feminine" and "masculine" as adjectives to describe sound in all sorts of ways like harmony, orchestration, rhythm, instruments.. Wow, that is very out of date. That is soooo not late 20th century teachings of North American schools.

Things change...

It's not so much old school as "politically in-correct" to use the feminine and masculine adjectives. Many European languages still have a feminine and masculine use, and with so many cultures around us Europeans are very multi-cultural.
All i say is use the common use for your situation, but being aware of how others use it is not only expanding your references, but is also being respectful of other cultures and ways, not everyone relates to English, and the use of American English (known as Microsoft English, because spell checker used to correct spellings to an American version) can soon become the norm around the world.
Because of the amount of American culture exported around the world (and those computers with spell checker) that influence so many it may be that what the media say is correct will be correct.
It seems that historical films can play around with the facts to make a plot line, by adding a character from a different era, or blurring boundaries in time, and people will accept that as the Historical truth, they believe it as fact.

As Ransom Stoddart was told "In the West when the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[Bainbridge]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

So the real question is why change or re-name what was all ready in use?

The English terminology is very old. I'm guessing that the differences between English and American music terms might have its origins in European immigration and generally 'updating' things for a different era. A departure that is often pointed out (as I did previously in this thread) is our naming for rhythmic durations. Here is what we use in the US:

Whole note - Four quarter note counts, underlines a bias toward the 4/4 time signature (fills up a "whole" bar).
Half note - Half of the whole, two beats.
Quarter note - A quarter of the whole, one beat.
Eighth note - Same deal. This stuff is obviously based on mathematical proportions.
Sixteenth note, thirty-second note, sixty-fourth note, one-hundred-and-twenty-eighth note...


And the UK equivalent:

Semi-Breve - "Half short". Equivalent of a US whole note. Name comes from another duration, the "breve" ("short"), which is twice as long.
Minim - From Latin "minimus", "smallest".
Crochet - Because the notes look like hooks, or "crochets".
Quaver - The name implies a vibrato-like sound, "quavering" between notes.
Semiquaver - Half of a quaver.

Beyond this point, you English folk start putting a mishmash of Latin and Greek prefixes in front of "quaver". Demi-semi-quaver (half-half-quaver), hemi-demi-semi-quaver (half-half-half-quaver), and then the cycle starts again: semi-hemi-demi-semi-quaver, demi-semi-hemi-demi-semi-quaver, hemi-demi-semi-hemi-demi-semi-quaver... Mind you, you're not likely going to see anything smaller than a hemi-demi-semi-quaver (although there are plenty and smaller in the music that was around when this nomeclature came into being), but I think that most of us have an easier time conceiving of a 64th note than a hemi-demi-semi-quaver.

I think that the US system wins in this case, purely from a logic perspective. I mean, the longest note you're likely to encounter is called a "half-short"? There is a note called a "long", but unless you're studying mensural notation, you're unlikely to ever see it. The use of "breve" in the US and UK is identical, but only because nobody ever uses that note and thus there is no need to update its name (although it is sometimes called a "double whole note" in the US).

Whether something similar happened with the cadences, I don't know.

If it is as is being called an "English use" then it would more and likely be a European use.
With the way the USA developed its nation, mass imigration from older established nations, then the "English thing" may well not be the original use but a common use.

So for me it is just a matter of interest about what was it about the original that was so wrong it had to be changed?

I did a little research in the European languages I know. Here's what I found:

French -
Cadence parfaite - V-I, "Perfect cadence", PAC
Cadence imparfaite - V-I, "Imperfect cadence", IAC
Demi-cadence- V, "Half cadence"
Cadence plagale - IV-I
Cadence rompue/Cadence évitée - V-vi, "broken" or "avoided" cadence

http://j.chuste.free.fr/solfasil/pages/cadences.php
http://www.universalis.fr/encycloped...ence-musicale/

German -
Vollkommene Ganzschluß - V-I, "perfect full close", PAC
Unvollkommene Ganzschulß - V-I, "imperfect full close", IAC
Halbschluß - V, "half close"
Trugschluß - V-vi, "false close"
Plagalschluß - IV-I, "plagal close"

http://www.musiklehre.at/10_006.htm

I also saw "authentische Kadenz" somewhere.

Spanish -
Cadencia auténtica perfecta - V-I, PAC
Cadencia auténtica imperfecta - V-I, IAC
Semicadencia - V
Cadencia rota - V-vi, "broken cadence"
Cadencia plagal - IV-I

http://www.class.uh.edu/Music/Koozin.../CADENCIAS.htm

If i was at all interest in labouring a point i would point out that if the English/European use was correct then you are indeed teaching it wrong, because the original idea was changed to suit some other thinking....which i do not have the experience or knowledge to see or understand (not that i need to) but i accept that there are and will be other names, spelling, etc for many things in this world.

If I was at all interested in laboring a point (which I am), I would point out that the labeling systems in three non-Anglo languages would seem to reflect the system that is used in the US, that there is no precedent those systems (as far as I can tell) for the use of "imperfect" to describe what everybody else calls "half:, and that I have been open to accepting that there is a difference in terminology since the start of this thread.

Unless you've all learned from some system that I am unfamiliar with, the definitions of "imperfect" in this thread are completely off.

It's evident that we are using two different systems of terminology.

I am thinking that perfect/imperfect is some English thing

"Imperfect", as it applies to musical cadences, has hugely different meanings in British and American English. I literally have never encountered that usage of the word before this thread, so it's reasonable that I would think it to be incorrect. But, once again, I continually iterated that we might be dealing with a difference of definitions.

LOL, no i mean exactly what i said, and i said IVb-V not VI-V and certainly not IV6 - V.
Again terminology, is it a weak cadence or a feminine one, is it a semi cadence, and by who's system is it going to be judged against?

Ahem...

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

VIb - V

http://music-theory.ascensionsounds....-half-cadence/
http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdiction...ancadence.html

I could have understood VIb, as that looks like ♭VI to me, which at least captures the essence of the bass movement. Not correct, by any means, but it's closer than IVb (♭IV? ♭iv? Both are non-diatonic.).

I get the feeling you want to talk in absolutes, which is fine if you are in that place where an absolute works, but this is the web, so neither the U.S. or Europe, so correcting me when i am not wrong has an arrogance about it rather than any effort to teach the musical ideas or relate to how other cultures see and use them......just saying.

I only want to make sure the OP is receiving correct and complete information (although it looks like he is either scared of me, is trapped on a desert island, or didn't care that much for the thread he began in the first place). If you read through the thread, you'll see that I have not only posted clear parameters for what constitutes the various cadences, but names of authors who are considered authorities on this terminology. You can open up a copy of Tonal Harmony and see this information in print. I may not be the most tactful or diplomatic poster in the world, but I at least make sure that my information is correct to the best of my knowledge.

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by Bainbridge

I may not be the most tactful or diplomatic poster in the world, but I at least make sure that my information is correct to the best of my knowledge.

I have to agree with the sentiment of the post, and of course apologise for the typo on my behalf, i did mean IVb-V when talking Phrygian, not VIb - V.

I always have the greatest respect for anyone that takes time to post with authority and relevancy, if you can work on your tact you you may find people like the OP hang around a bit longer, and others will not get drawn into protracted long conversation over the perceived presentation, and focus more on the info.

Again i have nothing to add to the already fine information you have supplied, but i find that talking on absolutes, or insisting in labouring a point, is a waste of time if any or all the points are agreed understood....but maybe that comes with a wide experience of this world and the futility of ideology.

[topo morto]

Music theory : ruining the fun, one piece of ambiguous, poorly-understood terminology at a time.

[MarkMgibson]

Semi-Breve - "Half short". Equivalent of a US whole note. Name comes from another duration, the "breve" ("short"), which is twice as long.
Minim - From Latin "minimus", "smallest".
Crochet - Because the notes look like hooks, or "crochets".
Quaver - The name implies a vibrato-like sound, "quavering" between notes.
Semiquaver - Half of a quaver.

Those are the terms I was taught, and are still used by most musicians here. Your Latin explanations asides, those terms are very clear and concise. I think they are much better than "1/4 notes, 1/16th notes, ect", simply because they are purely musical terms. Much the same way that nautical terms (port, starboard, main-sheet,ect) are unique, and are not likely to be misunderstood. A "quaver is a quaver, but 1/4 note - a 1/4 of what? Such terms are much more likely to cause confusion in my opinion.

[DaveyM69]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

but 1/4 note - a 1/4 of what? Such terms are much more likely to cause confusion in my opinion.

I sort of agree with Mark here. I learnt breve, semibreve etc but teach both. As most 'modern' music is in 4/4 whole, half etc make more sense to a student initially but confuse later.

As for the breve - there are still plenty of places it is in use though mainly in older religious choral music. It is very handy when writing multiple parts such as SATB on only a couple of staves as you end up with a lot less quavers (eighth notes) or shorter so less black/beams etc which aids with clarity - especially useful if you are trying to sing/play one of those parts.

We've got totally off topic here - but it's good to know that there are differences so we can be prepared for when we encounter them - so useful in my opinion!

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by DaveyM69

I sort of agree with Mark here. I learnt breve, semibreve etc but teach both. As most 'modern' music is in 4/4 whole, half etc make more sense to a student initially but confuse later.

As for the breve - there are still plenty of places it is in use though mainly in older religious choral music. It is very handy when writing multiple parts such as SATB on only a couple of staves as you end up with a lot less quavers (eighth notes) or shorter so less black/beams etc which aids with clarity - especially useful if you are trying to sing/play one of those parts.

We've got totally off topic here - but it's good to know that there are differences so we can be prepared for when we encounter them - so useful in my opinion!

Of course we will get off topic because like most musical ideas it needs to be expanded into other areas to support its ideas.
One of the problems with modern teaching methods of any subject is the targeting of relevant information, getting to the point and teaching the point only.
This is seen as producing the desired conclussions because the answer is correct, but the reasoning, context and conclussions drawing from it have no viable foundation.

I too learned Brieve, Semi-Brieve etc, but because i know maths, it was obvious to see that they are whole note, half notes, quarter note etc....music did not teach me that, maths did. It is obvious, if not an in-escapable conclussion, that this is so.

Music was a language on its own, it ment the same to all whether German, Russian, Italian, French, Austrian etc, it was understood by all what was involved. Itailian or German terms....makes no difference i will relate it to an English word reference, but i will not use the English reference. I have no need to add another layer to it, there is no musical need to add another layer to it.

Our brains add the layers, we do it everyday, we learn to relate other meanings to what we see and do. Our brains do not need the absolute of one thing, it can deal with many.
If my friend says "goodbye" to me i know what he is doing, i know he is leaving or finishing something.
If we are in a pub then he is leaving, if on a phone he is finished talking, if we are standing on the pavement talking he is moving on, etc.

But if he says see ya, bye, laters buddy, Chow or Adios etc, i still know what he means and more importantly.... what is about to happen.
Even if i used pal, mate, buddy, bro, chum, etc, it still means the same thing, as does the use of the word bar in place of pub, or sidewalk in place of pavement. To be in context our own learned experiences makes the layer, to make the connection, to form the context, to come to a conclusion, that this is finished and we are moving on.....and all this in a split second.

When i said

So the real question is why change or re-name what was all ready in use?

One reasoning was because it was old......but everything in music is old, nothing is really new. If we still use the Greek names for modes then the idea that old is a reason does not hold up, lots of musical ideas are old.
As i said they related to the language of music so everyone learned the one musical language to relate to their country of origin.
Qwerty keyboard..whats the point and why call it Qwerty sort of deal?

Again this would have to have happened in Europe, beause so many countries and cultures are around each other there had to be one common language to commnicate musical ideas and that was music and music theory itself. No translations required, all that learned music learned the same ideas, and how to relate to variations within it.

We can learn other ideas, but we create the layers and relationships to other similar ideas or uses, to expect us to have to.... is ideology, and wars were fought, and still are, over ideaolgy.

Maybe a good thread would be, Does music terminology need up-dating to be relevant?
Are we talking about musical grammer or is it just a defence of our beliefs?

Great subject matter and of course it will show common ground, and maybe a bit of new learning and understanding all round that music is many things to many people.
I learned a very old idea, Greek again, about TetraChord Theory, it took less than twenty minutes to do, but it provided a life time of relevence to music.

I have seen so many individual lessons on scales, chords, keys, learning sharp keys, how to order sharps, learning flat key, how to order flats, cycle of 5ths, cycle of 4ths, en-harmonic notes, chromatic intervals etc.....but i learned all that with one 20 minute lesson on Tetrachord Theory.....i did not know it at he time, but that was the relevence of why i was taught it.
Today that statement gets interest because of the "20 minutes" part, but i teach it as part of Scale Construction so students have a grounding in learning to construct, not try and remember, scales....that in itself is a foundation to build on, maybe an old one, but a tried, trusted and solid one.

[jmclearnon]

Originally Posted by DaveyM69

It's been used for at least 30 years to my knowledge in the UK as taught by 'The' music estashblishment - Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM)

I agree +1

[jmclearnon]

When talking about classical music and matters of a several thousand year old art-form, please do NOT change the names of things that have been used for hundreds of years.

This current culture wants to change everything. Please call note names the correct way. You don;t go around saying i am playing in the group of that note in the third space of the stave? Whats the treble clef going to be called now? Are we going to get rid of all the lovely German and French expression marks?

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by jmclearnon

When talking about classical music and matters of a several thousand year old art-form, please do NOT change the names of things that have been used for hundreds of years.

This current culture wants to change everything. Please call note names the correct way. You don;t go around saying i am playing in the group of that note in the third space of the stave? Whats the treble clef going to be called now? Are we going to get rid of all the lovely German and French expression marks?

Yep, there's nothing wrong with the "old" terms; they're concise, and unique to music, and therefore can't be confused. I see no reason to change terms that have been used for hundreds of years, whatever language they originally came from. It seems to me there's a trend of "dumbing down" musical terms, but why? They're not that complicated in the first place.

[Fergie Fulton]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Yep, there's nothing wrong with the "old" terms; they're concise, and unique to music, and therefore can't be confused. I see no reason to change terms that have been used for hundreds of years, whatever language they originally came from. It seems to me there's a trend of "dumbing down" musical terms, but why? They're not that complicated in the first place.

It's like a laziness, the need to learn less, rather than more, seems to be championed as the way forward....only learn what is deemed relevant....trouble is what is relevant is subjective, not an actual defined element in to the subject.

[Clef_de_fa]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Yep, there's nothing wrong with the "old" terms; they're concise, and unique to music, and therefore can't be confused. I see no reason to change terms that have been used for hundreds of years, whatever language they originally came from. It seems to me there's a trend of "dumbing down" musical terms, but why? They're not that complicated in the first place.

I think it is mostly the case by people who doesn't have a musical education ... like most self-taught. So instead of using a language used for centuries and are understood by musician around the world ... they kind of created their own language.

To me it sounds dumb but sometimes it is the only way to be understood, especially here.

[Clef_de_fa]

[quote=Bainbridge;13797956]

French -
Cadence parfaite - V-I, "Perfect cadence", PAC
Cadence imparfaite - V-I, "Imperfect cadence", IAC
Demi-cadence- V, "Half cadence"
Cadence plagale - IV-I
Cadence rompue/Cadence évitée - V-vi, "broken" or "avoided" cadence

http://j.chuste.free.fr/solfasil/pages/cadences.php
http://www.universalis.fr/encycloped...ence-musicale/
QUOTE]

I'm from Québec Canada ... and this are the terms I learned during my college degree in music. Those terms are the one used for centuries ... why changed them ??? I think only those without any musical education change the names.

I much prefer using the original italian or german musical terms, any musicians should undertand them.