Talk:Retrograde inversion
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
2026 Overhaul
[edit]Many of our music theory articles focus too much on advanced applications of the subject. The forest is lost for the trees. In its previous version, this article was 4 paragraphs long. The last was about two minor composers with a tangential connection to the topic. Half of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were a muddled detour into Stravinsky's variation on the subject.
The first 1.5 paragraphs adopted the kind of breezy gloss that is a recurring defect in our articles, where the tone is reminiscent of a conference talk at a seminar rather than an encyclopedic entry for the general reader. For example, the opening sentence read, "In music theory, retrograde inversion is a musical term that literally means 'backwards and upside down': 'The inverse of the series is sounded in reverse order.'"
That sentence had a citation that went to Bruce Benward's textbook without a page number. It doesn't seem to be anywhere in the book. More importantly, why would the lead sentence in a Wikipedia article include a quotation? A lead section "should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view". The quotation immediately makes things unclear. A reader's first thought is, "Who is being quoted?" Their next question might be, "What is a series?"
Melodies have been inverted and reversed for ages. There was no mention of the history of the technique. As far as the article was concerned, retrograde inversion was an invention of the 20th century. It also relied on terms that were undefined like "prime".
I have tried to clarify the lead. There is a simple and clear definition of the subject. Most importantly, all of the statements in the article are now supported by citations. All of the terms which a general reader might not understand are now defined. Where there were 5 cited sources, there are now 14. The biggest alteration I made was to provide historical context for the term.
On that issue, I think more could be done. "Retrograde inversion" has not always meant what it means here (see examples from 1855, 1903, & 1908). When people refer to Bach's use of retrograde inversion, it is not identical to Webern's. Stravinsky's version of it might seem dyslexic, but it's also quite literal: the retrograde is inverted. I made a cursory search about the history of the term. If I'd found anything, I would've added it. In my view, this is the chief remaining defect in the article. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)