This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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?
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.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)