Cadence Terminology Poll

[mducharme]

Hello,

I am researching terms for cadences, which are different from country to country in some cases. I would like to conduct an informal survey to see what cadence names you teach your students (if you teach them cadences).

If you teach your student cadences, could you reply with which cadence naming system you use (American, British, RCM-Canadian, or other) and your country/state/province.

American (V-I is 'Authentic', ?-V is 'Half', V-vi is 'Deceptive', IV-I is 'Plagal')
British (V-I is 'Perfect', ?-V is 'Imperfect', V-vi is 'Interrupted', IV-I is 'Plagal')
RCM-Canadian (V-I is 'Perfect', ?-V is 'Imperfect', V-vi is 'Deceptive', IV-I is 'Plagal')

NOTE: The American system also sometimes uses two subtypes of authentic cadence, named 'perfect' and 'imperfect'. In the British and RCM-Canadian systems, the equivalent subtypes of perfect cadence are named 'fully-closed' and 'semi-closed', since the words 'perfect' and 'imperfect' are already in use for cadence names.

Or if you use another system, please specify. I am wanting to get a general idea of what cadence naming systems are taught to children younger than college-age.

Thank you!

[superman1980]

RCM-Canadian, Western Canada obviously 

[keypeg]

RCM-Canadian, Western Canada obviously  

To me "RCM-Canadian" suggests that in Canada outside of the RCM system, different terminology is used.  (I didn't quite get the joke since the RCM is used a mari usque ad mare)  

[mducharme]

Keypeg - that is exactly the case, Canadian music students learn the RCM-Canadian method first and when they go to University to study music, they are then required to erase the RCM-Canadian terms from their brain and switch to the American system. This is consistent at pretty much all Canadian universities.

Therefore, Canada really uses a few different systems - RCM-Canadian for up to age 17, and then American for age 18 and older and enrolled in University level study in music.

I have looked into Conservatory Canada as well, and they seem to use the British system rather than RCM-Canadian, so we then have three different systems for naming cadences in standard use in Canada.

To my knowledge, this does not occur in the USA or Britain - I believe it is likely that the British terms are used in Britain for both ABRSM and University level study, and it is also likely that in the USA the American terms would be used across the board. It seems to be only here in Canada where we have this unusual mixture of systems.

[mducharme]

One of the things I would like to understand through this poll is:

What is the reason that the RCM-Canadian and British terminologies continue to be regularly taught to Canadian children, when the American teminology has become the de facto standard for University-level music study in Canada?

[schumaniac]

I've always been taught the American terminology, but then again, I live in the US. We seem to do a lot of things differently- e.g. we also call notes "quarter notes" and "half notes" instead of "crotchets" and "minims..."

[mducharme]

We call them quarter notes and half notes in Canada as well, rather than the British 'crotchet' and 'minim', etc.

[dcstudio]

Keypeg - that is exactly the case, Canadian music students learn the RCM-Canadian method first and when they go to University to study music, they are then required to erase the RCM-Canadian terms from their brain and switch to the American system. This is consistent at pretty much all Canadian universities.

Therefore, Canada really uses a few different systems - RCM-Canadian for up to age 17, and then American for age 18 and older and enrolled in University level study in music.

I have looked into Conservatory Canada as well, and they seem to use the British system rather than RCM-Canadian, so we then have three different systems for naming cadences in standard use in Canada.

To my knowledge, this does not occur in the USA or Britain - I believe it is likely that the British terms are used in Britain for both ABRSM and University level study, and it is also likely that in the USA the American terms would be used across the board. It seems to be only here in Canada where we have this unusual mixture of systems.

you Canadians can't have one system....eh?

lol   

[schumaniac]

you Canadians can't have one system....eh?

lol   

HA! ^

[mducharme]

 

[dcstudio]

my family is from Thunder Bay...   sorry.. (sore-ey)   what are you rolling your eyes about--I mean aboot--eh?

cmon.. it's funny to us...lol  if it wasn't for those 3 words--you would speak just like those of us in the states..

embrace your uniqueness...  I mean no harm...

[mducharme]

my family is from Thunder Bay...   sorry.. (sore-ey)   what are you rolling your eyes about--I mean aboot--eh?

cmon.. it's funny to us...lol  if it wasn't for those 3 words--you would speak just like those of us in the states..

embrace your uniqueness...  I mean no harm...

Don't worry, no offence taken.   Aboot is an east coast thing I believe. I've never heard anyone say it, the only time I hear it is Canadian jokes that come from the U.S.. I've never said "eh" myself though I have sometimes heard relatives say it. These pronunciations are often due to local or regional accent differences.

[dcstudio]

Don't worry, no offence taken.   Aboot is an east coast thing I believe. I've never heard anyone say it, the only time I hear it is Canadian jokes that come from the U.S.. I've never said "eh" myself though I have sometimes heard relatives say it. These pronunciations are often due to local or regional accent differences.

mine is all from my relatives... not jokes...    Northern ON--not quit Bob and Doug McKenzie but damn close.  I am from TX so I got lots of crap for saying "y'all" from my cousins

[keypeg]

I was surprised when I found out that university uses the American terminology.  I have had to expand my own terminology when talking to Americans but assumed our own higher education would continue with the same terms as taught in earlier grades i.e. the RCM.  This is crazy.

Btw, I noticed that the RCM recently added some things to what they were teaching when I started studying.  They have added letter name chords and figured bass, but they have also added movable Do solfege in order to discuss certain melodic elements.  Now this makes me wonder about the French side, because they use fixed Do to name the pitches.  I can imagine what a challenge it will be on the French side to teach both fixed Do and movable Do without mixing up the kids.

[mducharme]

I was surprised when I found out that university uses the American terminology.  I have had to expand my own terminology when talking to Americans but assumed our own higher education would continue with the same terms as taught in earlier grades i.e. the RCM.  This is crazy.

Yes, I agree, I do not think it makes very much sense. Part of the issue is that all of the textbooks suitable for higher education use the American terms, even those rare University-level textbooks written in Canada use the American terms instead. Some of the most important theoretical writings over the past 20 years or so also use the American terminology. If you read advanced theoretical papers on JSTOR, for instance, you would extremely rarely find mention of the cadences using the Canadian terminology, and instead find the American terms everywhere.

I fully understand why higher education in Canada is using the American terms, because they are so ubiquitous and necessary. What I do not understand is why there is no communication back to the RCM and ordinary piano teachers that their terminology should be adjusted to match what is being done at the Canadian higher education level.

Thankfully, the RCM actually DOES allow use of the American terms since the 2008 syllabus update. The issue is that their books are still promoting the Canadian terms, and so the students are not having to learn the American ones until they reach University. I am of the opinion that the RCM should be changing the recommended default terminology to the American to get rid of this silly double-system, since they have the ability to do so, whereas it is not realistic to expect Canadian Universities to switch to the RCM's terminology.

When I teach RCM harmony, I am having the students learn the American terms, since the RCM allows those terms. That way, they will be able to continue the same terms when they get to University.

The American system is also used in France and Germany, and Britain in the 19th century was using both the American and British terms until they standardized on the British in the 20th century, probably due to the ABRSM choosing a standard. Therefore, the American system is not simply some strange system for naming cadences devised by the US.

Btw, I noticed that the RCM recently added some things to what they were teaching when I started studying.  They have added letter name chords and figured bass, but they have also added movable Do solfege in order to discuss certain melodic elements.  Now this makes me wonder about the French side, because they use fixed Do to name the pitches.  I can imagine what a challenge it will be on the French side to teach both fixed Do and movable Do without mixing up the kids.

I think you are referring to sequences. The RCM appears to have created names for sequences using solfege (do-fa-ti-me for descending fifths, for instance). I have not seen this outside of the RCM and do not particularly understand why they are doing this. Even the non-solfege terms they use for the sequences are occasionally confusing.

For instance, 'descending fifths' and 'ascending fifths' are pretty standard terms. However, the RCM uses the term 'descending thirds' for the so-called Pachelbel sequence, and although that term is sometimes used, it is more commonly known as the descending 5-6 sequence. The RCM does not allow calling the sequence by this more common name. They also cover what they call the "ascending 4ths" sequence instead of the similar (but more ubiquitous) ascending 5-6 sequence. This name is likewise confusing because an astute student will rightly ask "isn't a descending fifth the same as an ascending 4th?"

The sequences are named rather inconsistently from the RCM's side. Descending fifths means that each chord goes down a fifth, and ascending fifths means that each chord goes up a fifth. The descending 3rds sequence, on the other hand, refers to the fact that every *other* chord in the sequence is a third lower, rather than a sequence that just moves down directly in thirds (this is part of the reason why the standard name is descending 5-6, because the chordal alternation results in an figured bass of 5--6 5--6 etc, and this name therefore refers to the chord-by-chord progression rather than having to ignore every second chord). What they confusingly call the 'ascending 4ths' sequence refers to a sequence that leaps up by a fourth and then down by a third in alternation, and the name just seems to be chosen to try to keep it somewhat similar to the other sequences.

To be fair to the RCM, the more standard name for the sequence they call 'ascending 4ths' is the unwieldy title 'ascending by step with voice-leading 5/3 chords'. I can understand why they don't use this name for obvious reasons - but why even teach this sequence in favor of the more important ascending 5-6?

And yes, I agree, these solfege syllable names for the sequences would be quite confusing for French students, due to their fixed-do pitch names.

[keypeg]

No, I was not referring to sequences.  In regards to sequences themselves, I studied those in the old book and have not actually used the new edition.  I just happened to glance through the new edition last time I was in a store and the addition of figured bass, letter name chords, and movable Do solfege caught my eye. There was a summary of terms in the first chapter as a kind of overview, with definition.  I did not see how it was used.

I did immediately surmise why they were introducing movable Do solfege.  The reason is that when I was in public school in the 1960's, an enterprising teacher taught us m.D.s. one year and it became entrenched as my only reference to music for some decades.  Years later when I finally started to study music and pay attention, I noticed that my sung "fa mi" and "ti do" was closer than a semitone when I checked with the piano, and somebody told me "You're not off pitch.  You were taught this way and internalized it." and I learned about different temperaments.  This, in turn, is related to voice leading, and the "pull" of the 7th degree to the Tonic.  I.e. you are less likely to go "ti la" in music, and more likely to go "ti do".  And this "rule" is something that apparently I internalized vocally when I was 7 years old because of that primary teacher.  We learn it again in 4-part harmony.

The movable Do solfege gives us the degrees, so I guess instead of writing 7^-8^ (I seem to remember that ^ is the symbol for degree of a note in a scale) they are now using Ti-Do.

In regards to sequences, because of my decades of m.D.s., I do tend to hear them in my head Do-Fa-Ti-Mi-La-Re...  which of course when considering where the notes fall on a major scale = 1-4-7-3-6-2.... but I learned it as a movement of fifths (including the fourth as related to the fifth as you wrote).  I just happen to hear it that way.  I find it useful to have this instant access to the degrees as well, since the solfege syllables are fused to the degrees in my mind, but I don't know whether I would promote teaching it.  The big thing is - what about the French kids, who are also learning pitch names as fixed Do solfege? That has got to be rough.

This learning of movable Do solfege as primary reference provided me with both an advantage and handicap.  My sight singing of music, as long as it didn't do too much with modulations or go into whole tone or similar, was out of this world.  I could glance at a score and hear it instantly, and thought it was that way for everyone.  But when everything instantly translates itself into degrees, and you're doing work outside of that, then you have no reference.  All you have is tra-la-la-la.    Whereas B is always B.  Later I read a passage I think by Piston, saying that movable Do solfege leads to very fast learning in the beginning, and then becomes a stumbling stone for more advanced music - which is what I had found.

[keypeg]

When I teach RCM harmony, I am having the students learn the American terms, since the RCM allows those terms. That way, they will be able to continue the same terms when they get to University.

This makes sense.

[anamnesis]

No, I was not referring to sequences.  In regards to sequences themselves, I studied those in the old book and have not actually used the new edition.  I just happened to glance through the new edition last time I was in a store and the addition of figured bass, letter name chords, and movable Do solfege caught my eye. There was a summary of terms in the first chapter as a kind of overview, with definition.  I did not see how it was used.

I did immediately surmise why they were introducing movable Do solfege.  The reason is that when I was in public school in the 1960's, an enterprising teacher taught us m.D.s. one year and it became entrenched as my only reference to music for some decades.  Years later when I finally started to study music and pay attention, I noticed that my sung "fa mi" and "ti do" was closer than a semitone when I checked with the piano, and somebody told me "You're not off pitch.  You were taught this way and internalized it." and I learned about different temperaments.  This, in turn, is related to voice leading, and the "pull" of the 7th degree to the Tonic.  I.e. you are less likely to go "ti la" in music, and more likely to go "ti do".  And this "rule" is something that apparently I internalized vocally when I was 7 years old because of that primary teacher.  We learn it again in 4-part harmony.

The movable Do solfege gives us the degrees, so I guess instead of writing 7^-8^ (I seem to remember that ^ is the symbol for degree of a note in a scale) they are now using Ti-Do.

In regards to sequences, because of my decades of m.D.s., I do tend to hear them in my head Do-Fa-Ti-Mi-La-Re...  which of course when considering where the notes fall on a major scale = 1-4-7-3-6-2.... but I learned it as a movement of fifths (including the fourth as related to the fifth as you wrote).  I just happen to hear it that way.  I find it useful to have this instant access to the degrees as well, since the solfege syllables are fused to the degrees in my mind, but I don't know whether I would promote teaching it.  The big thing is - what about the French kids, who are also learning pitch names as fixed Do solfege? That has got to be rough.

This learning of movable Do solfege as primary reference provided me with both an advantage and handicap.  My sight singing of music, as long as it didn't do too much with modulations or go into whole tone or similar, was out of this world.  I could glance at a score and hear it instantly, and thought it was that way for everyone.  But when everything instantly translates itself into degrees, and you're doing work outside of that, then you have no reference.  All you have is tra-la-la-la.    Whereas B is always B.  Later I read a passage I think by Piston, saying that movable Do solfege leads to very fast learning in the beginning, and then becomes a stumbling stone for more advanced music - which is what I had found.

I agree with Piston, which is why I have switched to fixed do (with chromatic inflections).

Contrary to popular belief, fixed-do --if taught right--does use the concept of scale degrees.

Think of it as an expanded version of movable-do where you learn multiple diatonic vocabulary patterns, which you superimpose the aural concept of scale degrees on.  You just don't name the scale degree out loud.  It's just kept in the back of your head as an aural concept.  You never run into the problem of tra-la-la with modulations or vague tonalities. 

If you also make students use it to read music with rather than letters, they will constantly be practicing audiating all the time as they practice on their instrument, if only passively. With movable-do students have to read letters at and are not likely going to take the time to keep translating.

[keypeg]

I agree with Piston, which is why I have switched to fixed do (with chromatic inflections).

Contrary to popular belief, fixed-do --if taught right--does use the concept of scale degrees.

Think of it as an expanded version of movable-do where you learn multiple diatonic vocabulary patterns, which you superimpose the aural concept of scale degrees on.  You just don't name the scale degree out loud.  It's just kept in the back of your head as an aural concept.  You never run into the problem of tra-la-la with modulations or vague tonalities. 

If you also make students use it to read music with rather than letters, they will constantly be practicing audiating all the time as they practice on their instrument, if only passively. With movable-do students have to read letters at and are not likely going to take the time to keep translating.

What you are saying is very interesting.  When I finally had lessons on the first instrument that I studied with a teacher, he seemed "bilingual".  That is, he had letter names, plus fixed Do, but when he saw my orientation he would instantly "translate" what he was saying by telling me the same thing in movable Do - just switch.  If you have fixed Do plus degrees, you can do that, because it's a small step between 4 and movable Do "Fa".

I learned movable Do at around age 7, and nothing else.  I was given a little air blown organ age 8, and a book meant for self-teaching adults - a total of 16 pages.  Recently I found that book after almost 50 years - I had not looked at it since childhood!  I saw that everything had been in the key of C major until the last two pages.  Therefore I had also learned to associate piano keys with Do Re Mi which would have been fixed Do.  That was a subconscious layer, and rather weak.  The last page of this "beginner" music was complex 4-part harmony with syncopation in I think F major.  The "adult formula" of "go fast and impress" was alive and well in the 1960's. 

I audiated very well, but in relative pitch.  It works like this: "Find the last flat.  That's Fa." (which gives you Do).  Then you just fixate on "where Do is" and audially climb the ladder.  Modulate and you're into "tra-la-la".  Once it has modulated, your mind suddenly calls a new pitch "Do".  I'd wend my way through multiple modulations flawlessly, and never realize anything had modulated.  Awareness of pitch as pure pitch stays dead.  I stayed with this for 40 years!  Mind, it gave me some powerful abilities.

Almost a decade ago I was given an exercise of singing a scale while thinking degrees and "solfege flavours" (the tight Ti-Do for example) but saying letter names and listening for the correctness of each pitch.  I had an epiphany.  I'd sing C major, and there was G and Sol and 5.  I'd sing D major, there was that same G again, as F and 4.  Eb major and by golly, there was that G again, now as Mi and 3.  It was "There goes that same G!".  It is the first time that I consciously heard the actual pitch G as a separate entity.  Now I had the two sides that you have described, though viewed from the opposite end.  G as G is like "That's Charlie."  G as Sol and 5 is "That's the butcher, and Charlie is the butcher."  (Something like that.)

There were times when movable Do (or rather, degree awareness) was very handy.  But the notes must be within the context of some key, so when it moves around in modulation, or when you no longer have major or minor scales (whole tone, blues, octatonic) you have nothing to call the notes.

[mducharme]

I still use moveable-do for the most part myself, but I have practiced a fair amount of atonal sight singing (using the Adler book) because sometimes finding a note via intervals is easier than trying to hit a scale degree, particularly when leaps happen that one would not predict given the context. I did actually learn fixed-do first and then switched, so I'm able to use either system. I don't find the transition that difficult once I have practiced both.

I don't believe absolute pitch can always be learned, so arguments for fixed-do regarding absolute pitch training are probably slightly exaggerated.

And keypeg, I'm not sure which Sarnecki book you meant that has solfege syllables in chapter 1. I don't have his rudiments books, because I get the students after they have done rudiments and teach them harmony. I own his current Basic/Intermediate/Advanced books and see no coverage at the beginning of the book of moveable-do solfege.

Scale degrees are ordinarily covered in theory using the hat-notation ex. 7^ for the leading tone. This is how it is normally taught and this is what is still used in the current edition of the Sarnecki harmony books.

[keypeg]

And keypeg, I'm not sure which Sarnecki book you meant that has solfege syllables in chapter 1. I don't have his rudiments books, because I get the students after they have done rudiments and teach them harmony. I own his current Basic/Intermediate/Advanced books and see no coverage at the beginning of the book of moveable-do solfege.

I didn't even know that Sarnecki covers rudiments in any of his books.  I think that I saw the summary in the new edition of the 2nd level of harmony in the first chapter, perhaps as a kind of review. 

[keypeg]

Scale degrees are ordinarily covered in theory using the hat-notation ex. 7^ for the leading tone. This is how it is normally taught and this is what is still used in the current edition of the Sarnecki harmony books.

That is also how I learned them.

The Solfege syllables, as I learned them when very young, also are supposed to have "flavours".  Ti pulls to Do.  Fa settles to Mi.  Sol is a resting place while Do is the final resting place.  Of course these same functions are contained in the chord degree names of Leading Note, Dominant, and Tonic for example.  I'm guessing that the movable Do terms were introduced for that aspect - or maybe they thought that  Ti is more evocative than 7^.  Whatever the reason, I noticed the additions in the new edition: figured bass, letter name chords, and movable Do solfege.

[mducharme]

I didn't even know that Sarnecki covers rudiments in any of his books.  I think that I saw the summary in the new edition of the 2nd level of harmony in the first chapter, perhaps as a kind of review. 

I somewhat doubt that there is a newer version of Sarnecki's 'Intermediate Harmony' out than the one I have (2nd edition, 2010), only because the latest one I can find for sale anywhere is the 2nd edition, and there is a new syllabus out next year and he would be unlikely to update the book before the new syllabus makes it necessary.

The 2nd edition 2010 does start with a "review" chapter that includes letter name chords and figured bass (partially since those were added in the 2009 theory syllabus). However, there is no mention of solfege syllables in this chapter at all.

In chapter 2, immediately following the introductory chapter (around page 30), sequences are covered, and that is when the solfege syllables come in. I suspect what you saw is this chapter, and didn't realize that you weren't in chapter 1 anymore. Either that, or you somehow saw an early release of a 3rd edition of the Sarnecki.

[keypeg]

I somewhat doubt that there is a newer version of Sarnecki's 'Intermediate Harmony' out than the one I have (2nd edition, 2010), only because the latest one I can find for sale anywhere is the 2nd edition, and there is a new syllabus out next year and he would be unlikely to update the book before the new syllabus makes it necessary.

2010 would be the "newer" version since the first one I had for first level would have been 2007.  I was in a music store, browsed through the book, noted the figured bass, letter name chords, and solfege, which had not been in the older edition. That's all.

The actual thing I was wondering about was how this would work in French, because in French fixed Do is used for pitches/names of notes on the staff.  I don't even know what text they use, but I assume that the syllabus and exam would cover the same material.  That is why I mentioned it originally.  (For non-Canadians - the country is bilingual, and the RCM theory exams are also bilingual).

[mducharme]

The solfege syllable names for the sequences are only one option - they don't use solfege syllables for anything besides sequence types, and even then, there are the alternative names I described above. I assume French students would use these alternative names instead of the solfege syllable names.

However, even if French students did use the solfege syllable names, they wouldn't necessarily be incorrect, even when applied to fixed-do. Although we often think of a descending fifths sequence as starting on the tonic and going down in fifths (do-fa-ti-me-la-re-so-do), it can really start at any point, since the sequence just cycles through in a big loop after it gets to a certain point. The same 'complete' descending fifths sequence in F major or F minor, using fixed do, would be fa-ti-me-la-re-so-do-fa, so it still contains the "do-fa-ti-me" pattern, but just at different parts of the sequence. The sequential patterns can at least continue to fit into a fixed-do framework, although they are most at home in a moveable-do environment.

I never know whether the harmony students I get have even learned solfege - many haven't, so calling the sequence "do-fa-ti-me" would just be confusing for them.

[keypeg]

If it only pertains to sequences, then yes, I see that.  And if in fact they also have the choice of 1^ 4^ 7^ 3^, instead of Do Fa Ti Mi etc. then that also solves it.  But I had thought that if for example they are analyzing a piece of music in G major, where that sequence would be G-C-F#-B, then mentally they are hearing So-Do-Fa(Fi?)-Ti, but would be saying Do Fa Ti Mi, while possibly also having acquired audiation of the former -- that is, an association of a pitch with syllable name.  That would create ambiguity.