Talk:Johann Pachelbel

Popularity of the Canon in D section
Not a content comment, but this section has some text in gray instead of black. For consistency's sake this should be fixed, though I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:E078:28F6:2963:BFA2 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The "text in gray" is enclosed in a citation request, so the inconsistency is intentional. The way to fix it legitimately is to supply a source that verifies the statement, or, failing that (eg. if it isn't actually true) to delete it. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Further to this: On checking, this text was initially added on different occasions by different editors, so finding a single source may be problematic. Some of it is backed by this, but as the information is also in the Canon article (here, and here), do we need any if this here at all? Or, if we are going to mention Pachelbel's influence on contemporary music, does it need it's own section? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the citation requests in that section in January 2018. The parts that need citation are rather narrow: "Its visibility was greatly increased by …" and "the Canon's chord progression has been used widely in pop music in the 20th and 21st centuries." The relevant sections in the Canon's article are more balanced for both claims. The recently added "See also" lines, without the need for a separate section heading, should be sufficient here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Michael: I've restored a bit, which was cut in November for no obvious reason (the edit summary doesn't cover it): This, and the comment about Ordinary People ("Its visibility..") can be supported by the Fink reference (p92). OTOH the "Rain and Tears" comment is a bit post hoc... and we could do without the hyperbole ('tremendous', 'greatly'). If you are OK with that, I'll go ahead and fix it (add the ref, take out the section heading and the OTOH stuff). As for the rest, I dunno if it's actually untrue, but we're probably better off referring people to the Canon article for a fuller treatment. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Decomposition
Johann Pachelbel (baptised 1 September 1653 – buried 9 March 1706) was a German composer, organist, and teacher who brought the south German organ schools to its peak. I've never seen this before in a BDP (aka BnonLP) and it has an unintended, morbid effect of causing the reader familiar with the conventions of Wikipedia to immediately ponder just how long Pachelbel's body lay decomposing in his favourite chair, before anyone attended to his ripe remains. &mdash; MaxEnt 20:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a footnote, in case anyone is confused by this. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Date of Birth
The de:wp article says that Pachelbel's baptismal date, 1 September, was a date in the Julian calendar: Is this true, does anyone know? Our Gregorian calendar article says that "Germany" changed to the Gregorian calendar in 1700, but the de:wp article says 1582 for the HRE (the Catholic states at least, which I assume included Bavaria). Does anyone know which it was? And if so, should we add a footnote, as in the article there? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nuremberg had been Protestant since 1525, so the Julian date is consistent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh! Live and learn! Anyway, I've put in a footnote. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Christoph? Johann Christoph Pachelbel
I have seen his name listed as Johann Christoph Pachelbel. If "Christoph" is a correct addition, can someone add it and find a reputable source? Misty MH (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"composed a large body of sacred and secular music"?
I wonder where there is evidence of his secular music? This is claimed in the itroductory words (see quotation above). When I read about the life of the composer I read about a deeply religious man who worked for the church (on organ music and other sacred music). Just because he composed music about other gods (Apollo's Arias) does not make it secular music. Could we just remove the addendum "secular"? MelchiorG (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I found one possibility: The Chamber musique "Musicalische Ergötzung" (musical enjoyment) may be considered as one. But could somebody find a reference confirming that this is indeed considered secular music?  (Otherwise the question above would remain.) MelchiorG (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Hexachordum Apollinis is in no way "about" Apollo, let alone dedicated to him. It's simply a sophisticated title aimed at the classicaly educated audience of the time.--Schreckgespenst (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Second potential image
I've already seen there was no evidence of the 1748 portrait being of him, but what about this one? It has also been associated with Pachelbel (although also with Corelli sometimes). Is there info on the origin of this photo?

https://europe-calling.bandcamp.com/track/johann-pachelbel-canon-in-d-major-pachelbels-canon Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)