Question on Music theory
Could you help me by informing the difference between full close cadence and perfect cadence?
Another question: If the second last chord is in G major, and the last chord is the B Minor triad, what would be the cadence? Since the last chord is in B minor (and the key signature showed 2 sharps), I suppose, the scale is B minor.
I believe that full close cadence and perfect cadence are the same thing. As for your second question, I don’t understand it. What do you mean by “the chord is in G major?” Are you saying that the chord is a G major tonic triad?
Actually, in my theory exam, I had a question like that with the options including both, full close cadence and perfect cadence. So, I guess there is any subtle difference.
I believe that a perfect cadence is a type of full close cadence, with the special characteristics of resolving to the tonic in both the bass AND the soprano (or melodic) voices.
VI-i is a form of Plagal Cadence - you have a chord without dominant function moving towards the tonic. It ends up feeling like a suspension so it's not commonly used - the problem is you share the third and fifth with your tonic chord so the resolution is fairly weak.
My understanding is that a perfect and full close cadence are the same thing:
I wonder how many composers really care about the names of the cadences they use? When I compose I'll use a cadence that works and is appropriate to the context, and not worry about its formal, pedagogical, name (which I've probably forgotten anyway).
Trevor you're probably right. Kandinsky likely didn't wake up one day and say to himself, "I think I'll become an abstract expressionist" either. To understand relationships in hindsight, though, it's helpful to have names for things. In chemistry we talk about halogens and alkali metals. But we could just as easily say "Group 17" and "Group 1," respectively, for those elements. Likewise a Plagal Cadence could just be called a IV-I. When Mozart was writing his Symphony No. 41, my guess is that word "fugue" was in his head.
It would be interesting to actually see the music. Played on piano, the progression does not sound very "cadency" to me. Who wrote the piece?
"Full close" and just "Perfect" aren't terms generally used in the US.
We need to keep in mind that a cadence is "a point of rest".
We can argue strict definition vs. open definition of a plagal cadence all day, but the reality is both I and you are correct depending on the text used and the source cited. The problem here is that music theory is a descriptive tool and not a set of inviolable rules. The VI chord is very closely related to the IV chord - in fact it shares 2/3 pitches with it, most importantly it shares the tonic pitch. In C major, the IV chord contains F A C and the VI contains A C E. At it's loosest definition I would define any cadential movement (e.g a breath or end) that moves from a non-dominant function chord to the tonic as a plagal cadence.
IV and vi are related (they share two tones), but not really interchangeable before I. I don't think you can call vi-I any kind of cadence, including plagal. The reason is the chord quality: at the piano (if you have one), try IV-I. Then try vi-I. Big difference, right? It's because IV is major, and vi is minor. Totally different sounds even though the chords share two pitch.
All very interesting (in a minor, harmless kind of way).