Talk:English cadence

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Image request[edit]

I don't have the software to do it - but this article would benefit hugely from a notated example. Barnabypage 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I know what all the words in the article mean, but it's still difficult to conceptualize. A visual aid would help immensely, if I do say so myself. Adso de Fimnu 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone provided one image, no sound file. Hyacinth (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources![edit]

Nice article, but, hey, where's the bibliography, where are the cross-references to websites supporting the theories given here? Ogg 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll resurrect myself briefly to add an unsourced statements tag; if anyone disagrees with me, feel free to remove it. I may not return for some time.--Dark Green 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a half-hour feature about the English Cadence on BBC Radio 3 (19-May-2002). Here is the evidence, and I still have a personal recording of it somewhere... http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/programmes/between_the_ears.html Aquae 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting little article, but...[edit]

... there are more problems than just the lack of citations (which does need fixing):

Is a key signature for A major assumed in the example, or not? There is contradictory evidence in the score itself, and in this note: "(Incidentally, the editor has helpfully put a courtesy accidental on the tenor's G natural, which would not have been present in the original publication. See musica ficta.)" Ficta, schmicta: which notes are sharpened, and which are not? Is the first C sharpened, or just the last, in the manner of a tierce de Picardie? How about the two Fs?
The lead has this: "The hallmark of this device is the dissonant minor ninth produced by a split seventh scale degree." Where's the minor ninth? I would have thought an augmented octave was the distinguishing feature (G-G# in the example). [I've now fixed that.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]
A general copyediting is in order. I can do this, or someone else. But we need technical details fixed first, I'd say.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who added the example, I can answer some of your questions. No, there is no key signature. The alto's C is natural. It is not in A major, and anyway trying to apply the major/minor system to Tallis isn't really valid. This is an internal cadence so it can't really be a Picardy third, but I suppose you could argue that the same mindset is present. The accidentals (other than the parenthesized natural) are in the original. The tenor's G must be natural because of the voice leading between the two F naturals. The reference to musica ficta is bogus.

That said, I must note that I've never heard the term "English cadence"; I just came upon this page and determined from the description that this must be what they're talking about, and it's certainly characteristic of Tudor-era music, so I found an example. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"augmented octave produced by a split seventh scale degree" is both confusing and inaccurate. The hallmark of the English cadence is the dissonance produced by the minor seventh (here G) against the major seventh (G#)... but the major 7th can occur above or below the minor, or indeed in the same octave.

Perhaps more examples would help, especially given the confusion over the current one. I'm happy to contribute to an overhaul. Aquae 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English?[edit]

Is the use of the term 'English cadence' useful or correct, given that precisely the same cadential formulas are present in Netherlandish composers' works (especially Gombert)? Perhaps this was mentioned in the radio talk mentioned above, which I missed. The peculiarly English features that I can identify in its use are the relative lateness (well into the seventeenth century in the case of Gibbons and Tomkins, and even Purcell), and the deliberate seeking out of the dissonance for expressive purpose, for example in Byrd's 'Ad Dominum cum tribularer', or his extraordinary canon 'O Salutaris Hostia'. Gombert's false relations seem to be the result of the constraints of constant imitative polyphony in 6 or more parts.Coprario (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations[edit]

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because only two statements in the whole article (references to Spem in Alium and to Morley) are sourced. Barnabypage (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other statements need to be sourced and why? Hyacinth (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why - see WP:SOURCE.

What - for starters, "described as archaic or old-fashioned sounding", "so named because of its use primarily by English composers of the High Renaissance and Restoration periods", "it is generally found in works with four or more parts", "it is common for it to be combined with a Picardy third", "primarily used in choral music", "Its use cadentially, however, gives it a peculiar, recognizable framework, which in part defined the works containing it as specifically English", "the device fell out of use in the early part of the seventeenth century", "This was due partly to a period of decline for music and composition in England", "many (predominantly English) musicians consider the device humorous", "is a common in-joke among church choirs to insert spurious English cadences into any piece containing a suitable perfect cadence".

In other words - anything where there might be scope for debate or disagreement. Barnabypage (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would any of statements listed have scope for debate or disagreement? Hyacinth (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone could come along and say "oh no, the English cadence didn't fall out of use in the early seventeenth century at all; in fact it became more popular". And if the assertion remains unsourced, it's their word against ours.

I agree the lack of sources in this particular article is hardly one of the bigger issues facing Wikipedia. But that is why the citations-needed tag is, justifiably, there. Barnabypage (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it became popular in the 17th century or that someone will say that? If not there is no issue. We could put a tag on the article warning readers the moon might strike the earth, since it could. Hyacinth (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was going to challenge something it would be the statement about the "common" in-joke among choirs, since I don't recall ever encountering this in my choral days! Speaking seriously, though, I'm not sure why you think this particular article should be exempt from WP:SOURCE. There are some broad statements in there, for example "a period of decline for music and composition in England", which could be credibly challenged. And that's why it is tagged as needing citations. Barnabypage (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think I think, "this particular article should be exempt from WP:SOURCE," since I never said any such thing. It seems like an especially ridiculous assumption since I have added seven sources. Didn't the lack of sources inform one that the article doesn't have sources? What I'm not sure of is why without any of the statements being challenged and without having challenged or being willing to challenge any of the statements, or for any other reason you are willing to explain, you want to tag an article with a warning that tells one something that is readily apparent from quickly glancing at the article. It seems like a misuse of your time and the tag. However, perhaps we should leave it at this. Hyacinth (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag the article, it was done by a user called Dark Green - see the edit history and also further up near the beginning of the Talk page. You've added a lot of sources which look good, there are still a few unsourced statements, and though it would be nice to have sources for them I really don't think it's a big deal in the great scheme of things. I was merely defending the "needs additional citations" tag added by Dark Green because it wasn't wanton or unjustified. Barnabypage (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]