Talk:Ii–V–I progression

ii vs II: Technical restrictions on article titles
shouldn't the title be ii-V-I because the ii is minor?68.173.5.230 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Hyacinth (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bearing that in mind, suggest the article be re-named to avoid the current misrepresentation of its contents. How about "The ii-V-I Turnaround"...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.113.215 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jazz - Clarity
The Jazz section offers examples in the key of F, whereas most of the pages that link to this page offer examples in the key of C. I will transpose these unless someone has a good reason not to. Persaonlly, I think the blues should be presented in E, it's traditional guitar key, but let's ignore bias and go for simplicity!

Also, I'm not sure that the first example's explanation is well worded, or indeed sensible. Could you please take another look?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.113.215 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do transpose it to C, where the relationships are clearer, especially for those of us who need help with something as basic as a ii-V-I progression! Learjeff (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

How long?
Article says the ii V I has been used "for a hundred years" - surely it's been around longer than that? Since Bach at least - probably before that too. Czgibson (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the function has been around since Aristotle, I'm sure. The idiom of using Roman numerals to indicate functional analysis or compositional shorthand probably really is barely 100 years old.--76.247.105.43 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Way too technical/badly written
I have been playing blues and rock for 35 years and have a basic amount of musical theory and I can't make head or tail of this article. There must be a better way of explaining what I believe is a fundamental technique in jazz improvisation. This article is utterly hopeless for anyone who wouldn't already fully understand the technique. It therefore fails as an encyclopedia article. ElectricRay (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For one, the "Jazz" section is entirely unsourced and appears to be personal commentary (tagged for original research since June 2019). Propose to remove it altogether, so others may be inclined to add more useful info. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)