Talk:Pachelbel's Canon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Different Renditions

I think some discussion of the different renditions (different arrangements, composers, etc.) might be useful for readers to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kngspook (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also usually in a quartet setting, the viola will play the 3rd violin part. Having an alternate part for the viola usually will only happen when there are enough violins to cover all 3 parts.

Different Arrangements

I think we need some examples of the different instruments that have played this song before. For example, I am in a guitar ensemble and we are doing an arrangement for four guitars (one on chords (basso continuo), three on the violin parts). That's one example, and I've seen many other examples in (of all places) iTunes. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to detail specific notable arrangements, but I don't think it should be done by instrumentation. Plenty of instruments can play the same musical range as those in the original arrangement; so just transposing it to another instrument is no significant feat, and has been done too many times to be worth enumerating without secondary sources. -Verdatum (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When and where was the work published?

The article states: "The piece, whose score was discovered and first published in the 1920s". But was the work first published in 1920 through 1922, or in 1923 through 1929? (It matters.) And in which country was it first published? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the statement is incorrect and I'll change the article accordingly after I answer here. The canon (alone, without the gigue) was first published in 1919 in Gustav Beckmann's article "Johann Pachelbel als Kammerkomponist". Now, the edition the article currently refers to is, presumably, Max Seiffert's 1925 edition: Organum III. Nr. 24. Kassel: Bärenreiter; Leipzig: Kistnel & Sieger, 1925. Problem is, I think it may have been Seiffert's arrangement of the piece rather than the original; at least that's how it's listed in Perreault's catalogue entry for Canon & Gigue. I couldn't figure out when the original (i.e. with the gigue) was first published.

But then, why does it matter? The music is in public domain, so unless someone wants to upload a particular editor's edition (i.e. with added slurs and suchlike miscellany), there should be no copyright problems. --Jashiin (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It matters because I want to make damn sure that the music is in the public domain even in countries whose copyright law starts the clock at first publication no matter when the author died. The United States, home of Wikimedia Foundation, applies pub plus 95 for works first published between 1923 and 1977. The 1919 pub date clears the Canon. But the first publication of the Gigue that anyone watching this article is aware of was in 1925 in Germany, and Germany has had a copyright treaty with the United States for decades. So how is the Gigue PD? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, I'm not a copyright expert, but I'm pretty sure that publication date + 95 years does not apply here, since the music was almost certainly PD in Germany already back in 1925. I've been working on early music articles and following early music stuff here and there for years now, and this is the first time I hear of any potential copyright problems. Also, there is a difference between Pachelbel's work and any edition of it; Seiffert's 1925 edition may be copyrighted still, but the original? After 300+ years?.. Anyway, you'll have to take it up with someone more knowledgeable. --Jashiin (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Complex piece of music"

I believe I contributed that line. I was simply referring to the fact that a three part canon is a complex piece of music by definition, let alone a three part canon over an ostinato bass. It didn't occur to me that anyone would dispute that; apparently I was wrong and it's just my opinion. Feel free to rephrase it in any way you wish. --Jashiin (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If I was not the person responsible for that tag, then I certainly agree with it. Perhaps our opinions differ here, but it does not seem to me that a three-part canon is complex "by definition" at all. Who would call "Three Blind Mice" or "Scotland's Burning" complex compositions? In context, it appears this is meant to refer to the simultaneous combination of a three-part canon and a ground bass but, once again, in whose opinion does this constitute "complexity"? This is in fact a rather commonplace procedure. Thank you for identifying yourself as the contributor of that statement, and for permission to change it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Canon and the ground of the Canon

I was making exercises in writing canons from various melodies and by an accident found out the following thing: the bass line of Pachelbel's "Canon" can be used as a basis for a 16 voice canon. The melodic line naturally creates several parallel fifths and octaves, but it works tonally. It reminds me of J.S. Bach's "Canon trias harmonica" (BWV 1072). As nobody else seems to have mentioned it, I thought it might be an interesting piece of knowledge to share.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djehutymes (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference error

Reference number #11 (as of right now) contains an invalid template, it uses {{last=Welter| as the name of a template, instead of as a named parameter. And I can't fix it without knowing what the template is supposed to be. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the Template:Citation, as used with some of the other citations in this article, for example Dohr (2006). Hyacinth (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Audio of the Canon & Gigue

Per a suggestion from one of the other page editors, I added a digital realization I made of the Canon and Gigue to the Media section. Given the recent demise of a couple of the old media links, I hope this is a useful addition to the article. JCHall (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the best and most heart rending variations on the whole theme is a choral piece called Santus performed by the English Boys Choir 'Libera'. When I first heard the piece I was unsure about the melody and structure, but it picked at the same part of the brain that the original score and various instrumental and orchestral arrangements do. It took some time to identify difinitively the underlying harmony, but once found it filled in the last piece of the musical jigsaw. Initially the identity of the performers and the piece itself was unknown to this listener, so some research was required. Libera have sung many variations of the piece composed/arranged by Robert Prizeman, the Musical Director of the choir. This human voice variation on the theme does I believe does highlight the strength of the simple but at the same time, complex structure and harmony of the original as dictated by the composer himself. (Dmwpeet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmwpeet (talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

List of variations—complete?

Do the different versions of the canon also have different variations? I compared the list of variations given in the article with the score which I have (Pachelbel/Seifert; Organum), and it doesn't fit: First of all (but not really important), I think that "1." should be denoted as "0.', because it is the theme. (One could discuss whether bars 3 and 4 are a variation of bars 1 and 2, but I think, here, sections of 4 bars should be regarded.) Then, between 8. and 9., there is another 4 bar section—16th-note extension of the theme with 32nd-notes in place of the second 16th-note in each quarter. Finally, between 11. and 12, there is a 2 bar section which in my view (not a music scientist) is not a variation but rather just an endpiece. This sums up to 2 + 4 (Theme) + 11×4 + 2 + 4 + 1 (last note) = 57 bars (to make it easier to compare). Unfortunately, I have no access to the work of Kathryn J. Welter. Can anybody solve this discrepancy? Sorry for possible mistakes—no native English speaker 134.76.80.91 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no "theme", so I'm OK with starting the numbering at one. Whether they are called "variations" or something else is a semantic point. This is just one author's interpretation, although its interesting to split it the work up into sections providing a bit of a play-by-play. You are correct, there is something between 8 and 9. And you are also right that the four-bar pattern stretches out by two bars at the end. The two-bar separation between the three canon parts remains intact until the very end though. Anyone have a copy of Welter's paper?DavidRF (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of Welter's paper, and it was me who put her analysis into the article. It is indeed slightly odd, as you and the anonymous editor have pointed out, but it's the only scholarly analysis of the work I ever came across. I'm not sure if we should keep it (since we can't modify it without producing a breach of WP:OR); my reasoning back when I added it was that some analysis is better than none at all. --Jashiin (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Of course, I respect that I can't simply add "my" version of analysis. Letting all the analysis go would not be very good, as Jashiin has already said. I hope, the "dubious" tag is the best way for handling the problem for the moment. 134.76.80.91 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the "dubious" tag is that it suggests that the representation of Welter's analysis is inaccurate, rather than that her opinion may be contested. I have Welter's dissertation in front of me now, and I see nothing contentious about it whatever. FWIW, variation sets often include interludes or transition passages between variations. The analysis as a variation set is in fact Welter's own—the score does not label these as such. Perhaps this could be made plainer in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just revised the wording of the passage in question in an effort to clarify things, but I've left the tag in place, since I'm not sure whether the questions have now been satisfactorily resolved. What do you think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your version is better, thanks. In my (personal) opinion, the analysis is still unclear: Although there may of course be interludes, measures 35 to 38 (for which Welter's analysis lacks a description) are (my opinion) more obvious a variation than measures 31 to 34 (to which she refers to as "8.", as I understand). Does Welter write sth. about measures 31 to 34? — Well, we can only get out of this discussion with a second source or if we ask Welter directly ... As I am no expert in Wikipedia habits, I would like to leave it to you whether to let the tag there or not. 134.76.80.91 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Welter's analysis is not as clear as one might wish for our purposes here. It should be kept in mind that her dissertation is a comprehensive treatment of Pachelbel's life, works, and career as an organist and teacher. The Canon and Fugue, for all its modern celebrity, is not a particularly significant work in his output. Welter spends just over one page on the Canon (nothing at all on the Gigue), preferring to spend her time on five of his major works, the Erster Theil etlicher Chorale, Hexachordum Apollinis, Musicalische Sterbensgedancken, Musicalische Ergötzung, and Erbhuldigungs Musik, as well as his thirteen settings of the Magnificat in their context of the Vespers service. Nearly half of her one-page analysis of the Canon consists of the table reproduced here, the rest consists of just six sentences ("Pachelbel sets a difficult contrapuntal task for himself …", "Over an ostinato bass that occurs 28 times in two-measure phrases …", "Making [things] more complex … is Pachelbel's construction of a set of variations …" "… the canonic melody is simple, yet appealing …", "Just as in his Musicalische Sterbensgedancken and the Hexachordum Apollinis, he utilizes numerous techniques of variation …", "Each of the twelve variation sets is four measures in duration …", and "This elaborate construction appears deceptively simple on the surface, which may account for its tremendous popular appeal …"). The fourth and sixth sentences are actually redundant. Welter plainly is not interested in this piece, and included it only because of its prominence in the popular repertory.

FWIW, I have checked the ProQuest database for dissertations on Pachelbel, or mentioning him as a keyword. I got 29 hits, dating back to 1952, including eight that are nothing more than summaries of DMA recitals that included one or more of Pachelbel's organ compositions. The rest studiously avoid the Canon and Fugue, with the sole exception of Welter. Perhaps this is a measure of the loathing with which the work is regarded by most performing musicians, who would rather that Pachelbel be known for another work—any other work. By itself, this observation is blatantly original research, but the article presently has no mention of the well-known fact that musicians by and large cannot abide the piece, and would rather perform even Vivaldi's Four Seasons or Handel's Messiah, if only they weren't offered huge amounts of money for wedding gigs where "Paco Bell's Cannon" is mandatory—preferably without the violins! Surely this sorry fact can be documented, and included as part of a "critical reception" section, which the article lacks up to now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again thanks for your investigations. Now I am satisfied with the analysis part.—By the way, as a classical (non-professional) musician, I honestly agree that one can be sick and tired of the canon. Yet, sometimes (when you are not paid for it …) it can also has its own worth.134.76.80.91 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you play it fast enough, it's not too bad! And thanks for catching that typo!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the best and most heart rending variations on the whole theme is a choral piece called Santus performed by the English Boys Choir 'Libera'. When I first heard the piece I was unsure about the melody and structure, but it picked at the same part of the brain that the original score and various instrumental and orchestral arrangements do. It took some time to identify difinitively the underlying harmony, but once found it filled in the last piece of the musical jigsaw. Initially the identity of the performers and the piece itself was unknown to this listener, so some research was required. Libera have sung many variations of the piece composed/arranged by Robert Prizeman, the Musical Director of the choir. This human voice variation on the theme does I believe does highlight the strength of the simple but at the same time, complex structure and harmony of the original as dictated by the composer himself. (Dmwpeet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmwpeet (talk • contribs) 01:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

When a Man Loves a Woman

The Wikipedia page of "When a Man Loves a Woman" points to this page on Pachelbel's Canon, just so you know. I don't know if the link between the two is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.208.240 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss it at When a Man Loves a Woman (song), then. Check the archives of this talk page. The chord progression for the Canon is clearly laid out here, but the dozens upon dozens of songs that may (or may not) use the same chord progression has been excised from this page. There's nothing for editors to do here.DavidRF (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)