Talk:Sixteen-bar blues

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sixteen-bar blues article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Music theory

	Music portal 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.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Stub[edit]

This page seemed like it could exist. I'll come back and add more in the next couple days hopefully. Guypersonson 09:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and musical reasons[edit]

This article is a good stub. It would be greatly improve by cited information discussing the musical reasoning behind repeating the D-S progression before going to the tonic. Hyacinth (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name[edit]

should have a hyphen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.104.118.88 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Twelve-bar blues?[edit]

This could easily become a section of Twelve-bar blues, maybe along with Eight-bar blues in a new section called "Blues progressions of other durations" or something?BassHistory (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this article is unlikely to be expanded or that it requires the context of twelve-bar blues per Wikipedia:Merging#Rationale? Hyacinth (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is long enough, as this chord progression is one of the less common ones, and mainly occurs in only one style (blues) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are many satellite articles to Twelve-bar blues at this point, it's a bit of a mess. They all need the context of Twelve-bar blues to make sense. There is also a high chance of overlap, because they all have material in common. They should really all be merged to one article. Twelve-bar blues could have a section for "Blues progressions of various durations", or something to that effect, to explain Sixteen-bar blues and Eight-bar blues, which are simply variations of 12-bar blues, not really distinct progressions.BassHistory (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... merging this with Twelve-bar blues would be like merging Fugue and Canon (music), or car and truck. They are distinct musical forms with different histories and uses. Guypersonson (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most composition and analysis types would probably agree that each commonly used blues form (8, 12 and 16) should have their own article as they are distinct forms. The 12 bar blues with a bridge (i.e., John Coltrane's locomotion which is 12, 12, 8 for the bridge and another 12) is a derivative of the 12 bar blues and would need to be inside that article for context. The 8 and 16 bar blues are considered distinct blues forms and not necessarily derivative of the 12 bar form. An examination of early blues reveals the 12 bar form wasn't even the most common so arguing that they all need to be examined in light of the 12 bar form makes no sense whatsoever. It would be better yet to have an article on the BLUES and a link to separate articles describing the different forms as including harmonic analysis of the different forms in the Blues article would make it cumbersome.

And the "TSD" designation is not the preferred method for harmonic analysis, despite modern attempts to make it so. I, IV, V will usually suffice, or even a progression in the people's key of "C". ZL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.234.107 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]