Talk:Vi–ii–V–I

Nomenclature and Chromatic Version

I have two concerns with this article. First, I'm not aware of any academic sources that use the term "circle progression" in music theory. Typically this is referred to as the Descending Fifths Sequence (or Progression). That's a better descriptor for what actually is occurring in the passage and thus is more commonly used. (See Steven Laitz, The Complete Musician, 2011; Miguel Roig-Francolí, Harmony in Context, 2010; Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading, 2010; et. al)

One of the reasons this is a better descriptor is because it can occur both diatonically and chromatically. Circle progression usually refers to going around the circle of fifths, which happens in the diatonic version and one of the chromatic versions. However, there is a symmetrical chromatic sequence which does not obey those rules. I'd be less inclined to call that a circle progression because you'd have to cycle through 12 chords to get to the end of the progression instead of 8. Usually this symmetrical version doesn't go all the way around compared to its diatonic counterpart. An example of this using roots would be (C-F-Bb-Eb-Ab-Db-Gb(F#)-B-E-A-D-G-C).

I would like to add this example above but I don't think it deserves its own page, but it doesn't fit here either. Any suggestions? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

An explicit fully chromatic circle progression seems to be very rare. The only example I have seen is near the end of Morte, from Alkan's Trois morceaux dans le genre pathétique, Op. 15 (bottom of page 51 on IMSLP). The passage is in E-flat minor, and consists of all major chords except the last (on B-flat), which is a dominant seventh. (The analysis would look pretty silly: V/V/V/V...) Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Article titles, specifically WP:COMMONNAME.

Someone can tell if I'm walking in a circle without seeing me do a loop. The circle progression never has to go all the way around, it's still a circle progression (a-la: ii-V-I). Hyacinth (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've heard Descending Fifths Progression more than the circle progression. Also, I wasn't trying to imply that the circle progression goes all the way around; however, the symmetrical one I stated doesn't function harmonically (unlike the diatonic version). Thus, the symmetrical version is a prime suspect for causing a modulation (pretty common) given that it disorients the listener. For this reason, I find it different than the "circle progression" which often is characterized by the ii-V-I turnaround. Do you see the dilemma? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And to add to that, the article Ragtime progression is essentially a chromaticized circle progression. Again, I don't think Ragtime progression a "common name" for that progression. I've literally never heard that term before. These articles could be merged together to create a large and comprehensive article. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And if I've never heard of it it must not exist.

Sounds like you're talking about moving towards or away from the tonic. One creates tension, one calm/one destabilizes, one stabilizes. Seems like a good point for the article. Hyacinth (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I consider myself pretty well versed in music terminology. However, you raise a good point. I'll counterpoint it and say that the so-called Ragtime progression (i.e. a chain of secondary dominants) has existed since the Baroque period. Thus, the term Ragtime progression is incredibly anachronistic. Second, I'm not talking about moving towards or away from the tonic. All of these descending fifth sequences create some sort of tension. All of them can be used to return to the tonic. All of them can be used to modulate. There's not a single function for any of these that I have explained. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What source(s) indicate(s) they are "the same" so that ragtime progression and circle progression should be merged? Hyacinth (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the concept of the two are the same. They're both sequences (or the more "correct" theoretical name is linear intervallic patterns (LIPs)). They are fundamentally related to each other in that sense. Much like how you combined my article leading-tone triad into the leading-tone article. If you look at textbooks historically, you'll see that the two are related, but often split due to pedagogical reasons (as secondary dominants are usually a later topic before sequences.) Nevertheless, they are fundamentally the same thing. A ragtime progression is a type of circle progression, much like a square is a type of a rectangle. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice that on Wikipedia we don't use the least anachronistic name, we use the most common name... Hyacinth (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did a search online for "Ragtime Progression" and it only comes up in a few jazz books. I don't think it is "the most common name." I'm going to sandbox my idea of combining the two articles into one larger article. I'll retain both the terms "circle progression" and "ragtime progression." Maybe once you see it, it'll make sense. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) Don't merge These are fundamentally different progressions. (1) They have a different relation to the key. This progression starts on the one chord, the "ragtime" starts on the three. (2) They use different chords . The "ragtime" is all major dominant 7th chords, the circle progression (at least as described in Wikipedia) uses the the appropriate enharmonic chord: major, major, 6th (major 1st inversion/major with 3 in the bass, whatever you call it), minor, minor, minor, major. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it will make a difference, since we can generously consider Ragtime progression (and "Bridge" as well) as a substitution of Circle progression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.176.26.38 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't merge Bridge (music) into Circle progression. The statement in that article "Bridge may be considered as a substitution of the classic Circle progression." is (a) not referenced and (b) may only be true in the context of certain uses of the word "bridge", and (c) substitution would not necessarily mean they are the same thing. I think they are different concepts (type of chord progression vs type of section (music)) and should not merge.

A procedural remark: in the context of this discussion 2 mergers have been proposed: Both Ragtime progression and Bridge (music) into Circle progression. However, there are no tags at the destination page Circle progression and no explicit mention of the later merger proposal (Bridge (music)) in this discussion. Consider following Wikipedia:Merging for future merger proposals.

While reading Bridge (music), I posted a discussion about terminology at Talk:Bridge (music)#Bridge, bridge passage, transition, retransition, transitional episode.

I have not studied the other merger proposal (Ragtime progression) enough to say something useful about it except that it may also be worth looking at the overlapping Circle of fifths#Diatonic circle of fifths and Sequence (music). LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed: Uncited

• | isbn = }}</ref> It is also referred to as "ice cream changes," likely due to its use in the song "Ice Cream Fantasy" (music by Walter Donaldson, lyrics by Gus Kahn) from the 1934 film Kid Millions, in which a chorus of children chant "we want ice cream" on the respective root pitches of the chords I-vi-ii-V (which chords are played by the band).

The above was removed as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Vi–ii–V–I progression → Vi–ii–V–I The previous title of "Circle progression" has no basis in categorical logic (i.e. there are many short circular harmonic progressions), even though one or two textbooks might have dubbed one of them as such. In moving the title to a more explanatory name, which matches those of sibling articles, the new title flips to an initial cap. This is not technically correct, and should be fixed as lowercase. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Tony (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but how is this initial cap (the almost universal standard for Wikipedia articles) to be overcome? Another option, of course, would be to use the now-generally regarded-as-out-of-date all-caps format for Roman numeral analysis.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• {{fixit}} with {{lowercase title}}: [1] ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the technical issue of overcoming the initial twitch of the machine to uppercase (this one seems to straddle both: the ugly and wrong "Ii" in the category list, on my URL display top of browser, and at the top of the talk page; but "ii" in the displayed article title). Surely iPod didn't have to go through trauma to stop auto-upcasing of the initial? On your point about the possibility of going to all caps ... well maybe yes, but we'd need to get other opinions, too, and I'm unsure myself. I see a general tendency to case roman numerals with the default assumption of major mode (this way, I suppose, assumes that lowercase means minor or diminished triad, given the absence of the little superscript zero for chord vii). Hmmm. Don't know. Tony (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support - it's pretty clear this is progression, so go with the shorter name per WP:CONCISE. But the inital cap is not fixable (there's a template used on, say eBay that displays the title as lowercase initially, and that should be introduced immediately--I've got it.) Red Slash 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Never mind, it's already there. I maintain that the move should progress. Red Slash 16:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge?

I'd recommend merge this page with the II-V-I page. The progressions are indistinct, and rely on the same musical mechanics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.64.30 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A degree in music theory should not be required to read pages in music theory

This is on the believably confusing even to someone who is a musician. I have posted this on a few other pages about simple concepts in music. there is nothing simple on this page or easily understandable to the average person who comes here looking for information.

there should be no mention of jazz theory of any kind on a music theory page. Jazz theory and general music theory are two completely different things. Jazz theory is for jazz and jazz only. For everything else you don't use jazz theory.

Examples of the chord progressions should be shown. Which they are but only in their jazz format which is ludicrous the four notes should be shown in different ways. As in vi-ii-V-I in an A chord progression is F#-B-E-A. followed by other examples of the notes in the same progression.

That's it. This entire page can be summed up in two or three sentences with a couple of examples. Or even all 12 notes in the same progression would take up less space than the gibberish that is listed on this page. Especially the sheet music.

There is no reason whatsoever there should be sheet music on this page. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say whoever added it can't read it in the first place. So why is it here? This is such a simple concept over complicated by a bunch of crap that doesn't matter. just like almost every other page on Wikipedia about music theory. This is super simple stuff made way too hard and impossible to understand for the average reader.

We're not catering to the next Beethoven or Bach here. We're catering to the average person looking for information.

This should be a lot easier. :) Sickboy254698 (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• this is unbelievably confusing

Sorry for the typos :( Sickboy254698 (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)