Talk:Tadd Dameron turnaround

Backdoor progression

The Tadd Dameron turnaround has nothing to do with the "backdoor" progression. The Tadd Dameron turnaround is three tritone substitutions in for the chords in an ordinary (iv-ii-V-I) turnaround. Would you mind if I corrected this? Rmkeller (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. The source didn't say anything about the "backdoor" progression, I don't know where that came from.BassHistory (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I was already working on a revision, I'll be bold and re-edit, with a reorganization of the content already present, to show how the backdoor progression and the motion by descending major thirds come into play. (Actually it is a quick teaser of the analysis of the source you just removed. Inferior or not, it's clear there, and marginally relevant to the rationale for the turnaround in its all-major-sevenths form*: a recap of the modulation in the song.) I'll agree it was sort of confused before; after reading the sources and grokking the main points, I have done my best to contribute to the article. You guys tell me what you think. Please also check my wording and syntax: English is not my first language. 151.66.224.148 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: * my bad, not really - according to Lyons the "original" turnaround was Cmaj7 - E♭7 - A♭maj7 - D♭7. 151.66.224.148 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT #2: BassHistory, I changed back the "optional" part without noticing, since I had a draft based on the previous version and I thought you had only changed the lede. No biggie, right? C'est (presque) la même chose. Your version is indeed (probably) better than positing an all-major-sevenths sub then a change back to a dominant in the bII. Regards. 151.66.225.186 (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

a) The author, Jason Lyon, doesn't always seem to know what he is talking about, and the self-published web article is full of claims that aren't backed up by examples or references. I also find the analyses to be full of leaps of logic that are based on assumptions or the author's own hopeful imagination, not on a thorough understanding of actual practice or established analytical methods.

b)The paraphrase of his analysis, which appears in this article, misinterprets the article on a few key points.

• As a compromise I will edit the article to better represent the source, but I don't want to leave that source there indefinitely. Note: If you read the article carefully, the author never claims that the "backdoor" turnaround has anything to do with the turnaround found in the last two bars of Lady Bird. He is claiming that the Lady Bird turnaround also contains a modulation a major third down:

"Now let’s twist the turnaround (bars 15-16) by using tritone subs on everything except the C chord [ ... ] and switch the Ab chord quality to major. There you have it – the same modulation that appears in the tune is now momentarily implied in the turnaround as well."

The earlier bit about the "backdoor" progression is among the more dubious claims he makes, and has nothing to do with the turnaround.

Again, I mean this as constructive criticism: a) Find better sources b) Read more carefully, and if you are unsure of something ask othere editors on the talk page before you insert it into the article.BassHistory (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can read, thank you very much. Speaking of careful reading, I didn't "insert" content into the article, merely reorganized it (what was there before your 12/18 edit, that is), and this expressly and deliberately, to show where the backdoor and major third bits came from, since I was originally as puzzled as you were; nowhere was it stated that the "backdoor" progression had anything to do with the turnaround, neither in paraphrase nor in the source itself - you removed that part, fine; oh, and the author doesnt' "claim" that the modulation is in the turnaround: it's just there (I'd call it a tonicization, but whatever). He claims it's there as a recapitulation of the modulation halfway in the tune, which is intriguing albeit unprovable. Your edit hardly better represents the source, merely removes something that 1) you found more contentious then the rest, 2) was not directly relevant to the subject of the article. Regards. 151.66.225.186 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC) EDIT: OK, it also fixed a couple passages in my broken English. 151.66.225.186 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I did notice, after my previous talk post here, that as you said, the paragraph never expressly said anything about the "backdoor" progression having anything to do with the turnaround. I'm glad we agree then, that there is no reason to keep it in the article (this is not an article about Lady Bird, it's about the turnaround). I'm sorry if I was rash in my thinking that you misinterpreted the source. My misunderstanding may have been due to an earlier version of the article that I assumed you were responsible for, since you put back some of the info that I had removed.BassHistory (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We're cool, let's move on. I've got a question (about the article) for you and Hyacinth and WIMC; I'll start a new section here as soon as I can. 151.66.225.186 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Turnaround_(music)

I am proposing that this page be merged with Turnaround, as there is no reason to expand on the topic Tadd Dameron turnaround further. See Talk:Turnaround_(music). BassHistory (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would there be no reason to expand on this topic further? Hyacinth (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what the Coker source says, this turnaround is not very common. It is nowhere as common as iii-vi-ii-V, for example. Additionally, I can't imagine that any sources go into much depth about this topic, as this is just a turnaround, not fundamental concept like tritone substitution.

BassHistory (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because it isn't within the scope of your imagination does mean it isn't possible. I can't imagine owning a car, but many people do. Hyacinth (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK: Do you have any sources that go in depth on this topic? It's just a fancy I-vi-ii-V.BassHistory (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to prove a negative here (that it's not rare). You are asserting that sources don't cover it, and if they do, not in depth. Obviously you can't cite every source the turnaround isn't discussed in. Also, since you don't cite sources, when we disagree that means I'm attacking your personal opinion, not questioning the content of a book you read. Hyacinth (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, this isn't that big of a deal to me. It seems like it could be part of the turnaround article. If you consider notability, try putting this in your google searchbar:

"Tadd Dameron turnaround" site:books.google.com

Nothing pops up.BassHistory (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So? Hyacinth (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)