Talk:Johann Pachelbel/Archive 1

Initial text
I like the rise in popularity section, but isn't having two charts that say the same thing a little much? -R. fiend 23:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - it was overkill. I removed the graph and fixed the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 February 2005 (UTC)

Date of Birth
The article states "August 1653", but elsewhere on the net you can sometimes find webpages that indicate September 1st, 1653 as his date of birth. Which one is the correct one? Jashiin 20:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He was baptized Sept 1, 1653, which indicates he was most certainly born in August. &rarr;Raul654 21:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see.. Thank you for clearing this up! Jashiin 21:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Its not an important issue, but should the date at the beginning of the page be changed to "baptized Septemeber 1, 1653" instead of "August 1653"? Ludwig van Beethoven does that, and I'm sure I've seen other articles that used the same format. Jashiin 11:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would agree with using that as a precise date (New Grove does so too) - since the August birth is covered in the article itself, it's fine to just give a baptism date. -Sesquialtera II 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So now, the "Background Information" section and opening paragraph both say he was baptised on different dates.and_e_r 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Timelessness
isnt the commentary about the "timelessness of classical music a bit POV and also superfluous? one could argue that a piece remains timeless even when the entire society descends into mass stupidity -80.133.23.22

Canon in D
Hardly his most important composition; many classical musicians have nothing but disdain for it. His substantial body of keyboard works deserves more attention. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%. I was planning to expand the works section with more detailed information but decided to update the biography section first. By the way, thank you for the compliments on the JCF Fischer article - its the first time someone thanked me for this sort of thing :) Jashiin 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture
Question: Where did the picture come from? It couldn't be Johann Pachelbel since the date is 1748. -64.174.7.191

ALSO - he did not have a middle name which further discredits the picture as being authentic. It could be an unrelated person with the last name of Pachelbel.


 * I'd like to know that too. I don't have any good books on my hands.. but in several Usenet discussions people have repeatedly stated that there is no known Pachelbel portrait. Maybe we should remove the image? Or add a caption with details about it, if anyone knows any. Jashiin 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK to leave it for now, but I am really curious as to who that really was. To my knowledge, Johann Pachelbel did not have any sons named Johann Christoph. (PTDC)

The problem with a picture the accuracy of which is not certain is that the error is replicated very fast on other sites of the Internet. I noticed a so-called portrait of "Louis Couperin" (in fact, of his nephew François) that you can see everywhere, when simply looking at his whig and clothes says that it's not of a man who died in 1661 - this error was dispatched by. I think you should remove the picture if you are not sure tht it portrays Johann Pachelbel with certainty. Gérard 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the picture until someone can clear this matter up a bit. I also removed the middle name "Christoph", since I haven't seen it elsewhere (not mentioned in Grove, for instance) - I guess it was added by someone who noticed it on the picture. Jashiin 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Images
I found two images in the German language Wikipedia: - where Pachelbel is buried, - Church of Saint Sebald in Nuremberg. Does someone else want to add these to the article? I can't figure out what kind of license is GNU FDL/GNU and whether the images should be uploaded here or to Wikimedia Commons.. Jashiin 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * GFDL is a free license (All text on Wikipedia is under the GFDL) and yes, the commons is a good place for GFDL images. Raul654 23:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I added three images. The ones I linked to earlier and an autograph letter (PD, no?) from Karadar. I hope I didn't screw up and the images won't get deleted. If anyone has a better idea of how to place them - you're welcome! :) Jashiin 08:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Works
I've been working on this offline for several days. I'm planning to write a little bit more about organ works (chaconnes, toccatas, fantasias, fugues etc) later. A lot of information is from the online edition of New Grove (I'll reference it later), the rest comes from all kinds of sources. I'll add four sound samples from commercial recordings (one for each section). I've got some questions for you, too, if you don't mind :) - 1) Under "Organ Works" there's a description of Pachelbel's own chorale model. I'd like to know if its clear enough. All the descriptions I found were pretty complex and I hope this one is understandable for anyone. What do you think? 2) Some of Pachelbel's harpsichord suites are numbered, the numbers range from 25 to 36. Does anyone know why? There are only 21 suites.. Do the numbered ones come from a different source? Or is there any evidence of more suites by Pachelbel? I was unable to find anything on this topic. 3) Whatever is Ingressus? From what I understand, its a part of Vespers, but that article doesn't contain the term. I tried googling for it but only miscellaneous music compositions pop up, and no explanation of what Ingressus actually is. I'd appreciate any information on that. 4) Does anyone think there should be separate headers for liturgical and non-liturgical works in "Organ Works" and "Vocal Works"? I didn't add any because I thought it would clutter things up. Jashiin 16:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble making sense of the text "...or Pachelbel's chaconnes in Passacaglia in D minor by Kerll..." EncMstr 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's "of", not "or". Maybe a typo. What I wanted to say is that Pachelbel's fantasias have their roots in Kerll's "Toccata..", while Pachelbel's chaconnes sometimes borrow from Kerll's Passacaglia in D minor. Jashiin 20:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. Probably that very text should appear:  "Pachelbel's fantasias have their roots in Kerll's "Toccata", while Pachelbel's chaconnes sometimes borrow from Kerll's Passacaglia in D minor".  EncMstr 02:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes, Jashiin! That was a lot to read.  Impressive depth and detail--and well structured.  Hope I didn't mangle it.  The most controversial edit was changing a sentence to be "Pachelbel probably used the notation to make his work more familiar."  That's according to a piano teacher relative--who won't go on the record.  EncMstr 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great job! Thank you so much for doing this :) I do have a couple of technical problems with it though, namely:
 * The similarities are compelling even for inexperienced listeners (for example, Kerll's Toccata Cromatica con Durezze e Ligature and Pachelbel's fantasias or chaconnes in D minor).
 * Ends abruptly with "chaconnes in D minor". As I said here on talk, I wanted to compare the fantasias to the Toccata Cromatica AND the chaconnes to the Passacaglia in D minor. I'm not sure whether what you did was intentional or a typo. Maybe we should only leave the fantasias-toccata cromatica comparison to avoid confusion. What do you think?
 * No, it was a goof on my part. I think both should appear. EncMstr 02:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did some research and I no longer think the sentence is accurate enough. Basically because Kerll's "Toccata.." and those Pachelbel's fantasias are written in a style called toccata di durezze e ligature. So they're not a good example of Kerll's influence on Pachelbel. I'm not sure what to replace the sentence with.. maybe this would work? -
 * The similarities are compelling even for inexperienced listeners, some of Pachelbel's organ chaconnes' movements being reminiscent of Kerll's works in the genre (Passacaglia in D minor, Chaconne in C major). Jashiin 15:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * requires a tuning system with D-sharp, A-sharp, E-sharp, and B-sharp, which is not the case with meantone temperament
 * The point here is that I think any tuning system had these notes, the problem was that they were, usually, kind of out of tune. So when I wrote "that handles the notes... well", I meant exactly that. I'd change it back but maybe you've got a better way to say this?
 * My understanding of meantone temperment is that some tunings lack some notes—that's what I was attempting to address. My music theory is sadly minimal so maybe I misunderstood?  EncMstr 02:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll have to consult someone about this, although I believe you still had all the notes, its just that they sounded wrong in some keys. Jashiin 15:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well - it depends on the instrument - but most instruments would not have an E sharp, because they would have an F instead - it would take over 20 keys per octave to cover all the sharps and flats. Any key is exactly one note (e.g. either A flat or G sharp) - unlike our enharmonic equivalence of today. -Sesquialtera II


 * Okay, I'm leaving EncMstr's version as the more accurate one. Jashiin 08:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, in the paragraph about the organs Pachelbel used, you changed all "pedal" to "pedals". I'm pretty sure that common practice dictates that it should be "pedal" ( for instance), referring to the pedalboard, but I'm no expert. Did you change to plural because you felt it was right or because you know for a fact that its used like that? Or maybe both forms are used?
 * How about "pedalboard" instead? A pedalboard contains many pedals.  Do you know of an organ with more than one pedalboard?  Perhaps I'll inspect the organ at Oaks Amusement Park…
 * Sounds good. I'll replace all instances of "pedals" with "pedalboard". Jashiin 15:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be more appropriate to say "a pedal division" instead of "pedalboard". Actually, the reason this sounds a little weird is because usually pedals are not mentioned when mentioning the specification for an organ, unless there are no pedals.  It's sufficient to say an organ is 27 stops and two manuals. -Sesquialtera II


 * Allright, I removed all mentions of pedal/pedalboard in organ descriptions. Jashiin 08:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the rest, it's magnificent work, I love :) Jashiin 09:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. About the new sentence, I'm not sure I understand.. more familiar in what sense? Like, familiar to whom? First time I looked at it everything seemed fine but now I feel a bit confused. Jashiin 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was meant to be more familiar to performers and musicians. They had their established ways and changing to a new writing style probably wouldn't help them embrace the music; instead there'll be head scratching, confusion and maybe refusing to perform a new piece.
 * Ok, I understand now. But while this may be true for the chorales (most of the ones in white notation were published), I doubt that Pachelbel would really want his secular organ works to be more familiar to performers.. noone would perform those anyway. And since the pieces that use white notation are all written in old-fashioned/outdated styles (except the ricercars), I think both mine and your explanations should be featured. I can't think of a good way to do this, though, because we'll also have to explain why white notation was more familiar. Here's a replacement text I did; I don't like it, but its a start and maybe you'll be able to tighten/shorten it somehow:


 * Some pieces (several chorales, all ricercars, some fantasias) are written in white mensural notation [1]. This notation system has hollow note heads and omits bar lines (measure delimiters). It was widely used since the 15th century but was being dropped in favor of modern notation during the 16th-17th centuries. In most cases Pachelbel used white notation for pieces composed in old-fashioned styles, to provide artistic integrity, as it were. In chorales, he may have used the notation to make the works more familiar to performers and musicians, most of whom were not used to the modern system. Jashiin 15:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding 1) - writing about that kind of theory in English is always difficult, so I would recommend not worrying too much about the language itself - instead, the thing to do, I think, is to give a musical example, both in score and recording form, of a typical chorale that is set in this way. That way, the reader doesn't have to do as many mental acrobatics.
 * I agree, but at the moment I've got no scores and no recordings of this kind of Pachelbel's compositions. Jashiin 08:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding 4) - Perhaps you could split up the "Works" section into more sections, e.g. "Keyboard works" (liturgical organ, secular organ, other keyboard), and then "chamber music" and "vocal music" could either each get a section or be subsections of "other works" - just some possibilities. -Sesquialtera II
 * I'll think about it. I like the introduction to the organ section (which is going to look a little out-of-place if its moved to something like "Keyboard works") and the fact that each section of "Works" has a musical sample of its own (at the moment, we don't have samples to cover both liturgical and secular organ music). Jashiin 08:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sound samples
I've added four sound samples as promised. Opinions welcome on the samples and I'd like to know if anyone objects against using them in the article. Jashiin 09:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seem fine; the midi bothers me a bit because it's not an actual recording - maybe I'll find that piece and do a live recording. -Sesquialtera II 16:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

List of works
Does anyone think an article for a complete list of Pachelbel's works is needed? The "Pachelbel Street" website has one, but the website is old and hasn't been updated in a while and I fear it might go offline all of a sudden. Some sort of a copy on Wikipedia would be nice, no? Jashiin 08:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly, this kind of article is excellent. I haven't looked at Perreault yet, but it's probably very easy to make a list from there; also from New Grove. -Sesquialtera II
 * I haven't looked at Perrault either, and probably won't have the opportunity to do so. I only know of Bouchard's numbering system, which only covers organ works, and Welter's, which has an odd way of organizing things. The Tsukamoto system on the website I mentioned looks more complete and is organized nicely (sorted by genre, alphabetical order for each genre subsection, pieces from published collections come first). It also provides a helpful chart with both Bouchard's and Welter's numbers for each catalogued piece. I think I won't be starting the article just now, tell me when you look at Perreault's system, like, if you think its good or not. If its better, we'll use Perreault, if not, I guess I'll copy the Tsukamoto catalogue and later someone might import Perreault's numbers into it. Jashiin 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Canon
This hasn't been addressed yet, but the "Pachelbel Canon" is not mainly a canon, it's a passacaglia or chaconne, because it is a ground bass piece. I'll write about this in the next few days if no one else gets to it first. -Sesquialtera II
 * I rewrote a part of "Chamber Works" where the Canon is discussed, does this look better? Also, consider the article on the canon itself (Pachelbel's canon). Maybe its more appropriate for extensive information about the piece. Jashiin 09:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. I agree that more detailed analysis belongs in the canon's own article. -Sesquialtera II 16:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

the opening
Hi, contributors; good article, but the opening needs surgery:

Johann Christoph Pachelbel ['paçəlbεl] (päkh'əlbĕl) (baptized 1 September 1653 – 3 March 1706) was a German baroque composer and organist. He was an acclaimed composer and organist during his lifetime, and was also regarded as an outstanding teacher. Today Pachelbel is considered to be one of the most important organ composers of the middle Baroque

Organist mentioned twice; composer three times. Can someone remove the repetition to make a punchier opening? (Or I will.) Tony 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I was working too hard on other sections to notice this. Anyway, I can't think up a good way of saying all those things without constantly repeating the word "composer".. if you can do something about it, please do so! :) Jashiin 08:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've revised it, but it could still use some attention. -Sesquialtera II 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better now, good job both of you :) Jashiin 09:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Great article!! I take issue, however, with the statement that Johann Pachelbel did not have much influence on Johann Sebastian Bach. This is not true. J. S. Bach copied a manuscript book that belonged to his older brother, Johann Christoph who had been a student of Pachelbel. Therefore, the earliest influence on Sebastian was the Pachelbel school. This is wonderfully illustrated in a very early work (composed at 13 or 14?) of Sebastian: the Partita on Wenn Wir in Höchsten Nöthen sein which shows a very strong influence of Pachelbel. Later, after Bach had traveled to Luneburg to study with Böhm, his style of compostition radically changed reflecting the influence from the north. Philip T. D. Cooper 27 September 2006

Praise
this has got to be the most detailed pachelbel info i've seen on the web o-o hats off~ -Phaust


 * I have to agree... it's been a while since I checked out the Pachelbel article... but someone has been adding some nice stuff. This looks like it'll be FA very soon. 32.97.110.50 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Toccata in C audio file
Nice to have a complete track, but I wonder whether it does justice to the composer. The organ's pretty ordinary, and I'm sorry to say that the performance is robotic and over-legato (in my humble opinion). Tony 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, although I don't reckon we can expect more of a MIDI file. Maybe someone can make a real recording of this piece? I am not an organist. And I assume you mean the Fugue in C...? Trisdee 10:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the Fugue in C major MIDI, it is indeed only a MIDI and I agree with what you said. I reckon we shold keep it for now, since it makes a.. decent illustration for the point about repeating notes; Sesquialtera II was willing to record some pieces for the article so maybe he'll be able to do a recording of this piece as well. Alternatively, someone can use a good sound font to make the MIDI file into a better sounding .OGG. Jashiin 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can make a recording of this piece. However, I question whether its inclusion in this article is justified at all, except in the interest of completeness.  It is one of the shortest fugues I have ever seen.  Does it illustrate some aspect of Pachelbel's style that other fugues do not?  (The point about repeating notes?)  But I'll go ahead and record it anyways, because it's only three lines. -Sesquialtera II 15:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NY Times statistics
Looks quite like original research to me. But more importantly, quite flawed research. It doesn't take into account any other plausible explainations, such as the fact that the newspaper has grown in size in the last century and that the coverage of non-news events (such as concert reviews) has also increased dramatically. Nor does it provide any comparisons to composers who've possibly had a more constant level of popularity. The facts given simply don't support the drawn conclusions. --BluePlatypus 17:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the problems of alternative explanations, and suggest that we turn these numbers into something like this: "Pachelbel was virtually unknown to the U.S. before the 1930s, and only achieved significant fame in the 1970s.". I also think "Rise in popularity of the Canon in D" is not a good heading, and propose that if we are to keep this section of the article, that we rename it to "Fame" or something similar.  I also propose that we move the bulk of this section to the Pachelbel's Canon page, since most of this information pertains only to the canon. &mdash;Sesquialtera II 15:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about rewriting the whole section, but maybe you're right and it should be moved to Pachelbel's Canon. Instead, I think a short summary of Pachelbel's influence (on Walther and, to some extent, Bach) would look nice. Jashiin 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The chorale image
Hi Jashiin: my responses are interpolated below. Tony 12:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony, bars 35-54 are the ones shown on the picture. Bars 1-34 are the chorale fugue, which isn't included because its just a fugue, and bar 35 is the beginning of the actual chorale; the first bar of the picture is bar 35. I didn't mark bar numbers on the picture since the books I own on music theory never really do that when quoting music. Do you think I should edit the picture so that it included bar numbers?

Yes! 35, 40, 45, etc, would be good, just big enough to be clear. I like the idea of colouring the chorale, but why not the same colour throughout? By the way, you've use 'chorale melody' in the caption, but 'melody' is redundant—the 'chorale' IS what the sopranos sing. The four parts together are a chorale harmonisation.


 * Allright, I'll add bar numbers later today. Would three be enough (one for each grand staff)? As for different colors, I thought it'd help someone unprepared to distinguish chorale phrases. If you think its too much I can redo the coloring as well. You're right of course about the "chorale melody" thing, my bad. Jashiin 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the anticipation in lower voices, perhaps I should've used "imitative" instead of "fugal". If you look at the beginning four notes of the chorale phrase, you'll see a distinctive pattern of two repeated notes (B-D-D-B) and a kind of a similar pattern occurs in the seventh bar shown on the picture, first in the 3rd voice, then in the 4th, then in the 2nd, and then the chorale phrase starts in the soprano voice.

Yeah, I see it now, but I think it's too abstruse unless you spell it out. First, the fact that he filled in the ascending and descending thirds with passing notes will be more obvious aurally than notationally; second, the opening anticipation is at a different pitch (E - G ...), and doesn't articulate the descending third—that put me off the scent, even. You could colour the E, G, G, and likewise (in a different colour again) the B, D, D, B in the other voices, although it might get a little messy. Is diminution too technical a word here? Maybe.


 * Exactly, I didn't color any of them because it'd be a mess (like three different colors for lower voices, another color for the chorale phrase and maybe some kind of color for the first four notes of the chorale phrase.. yikes!). And um, I could color E-G-G- for instance but how many more notes to color after these three? Maybe we could add a short explanation to the caption instead? Jashiin 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I can change the picture to highlight the notes, do you think it should be done? Also, perhaps this isn't exactly anticipation (you'd think there's the actual chorale phrase happening in lower voices, but..), but apparently New Grove and others think it is, as this is THE chorale they give as an example. Jashiin 08:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is exactly the same example as that which is given in New Grove, that's a little disappointing. There are tons to choose from!


 * Ah, well, New Grove give two examples for this type of chorale and have a very short explanation about this anticipation thing. I could take a different piece for the illustration but virtually all other chorales of this type are much longer than the one I used, the picture would have to be like two or three times bigger. And the way it is it covers three chorale phrases, showing both instances of chorale phrase anticipation and simple thematic interplay without one. Jashiin 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we really going to keep the audio recording of the Toccata in C? Am I treading on someone's toes by suggesting that it's not good enough? (I'd really rather use a 30-second 'fair use' excerpt of a commercial recording, unless someone can record one that has some life in it.


 * I have a commercial recording of the piece but the article already has four fair use samples from commercial recordings and I'm reluctant to add more. Jashiin 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the Fugue in C, a 30-second excerpt would be the entire piece.. :) -Sesquialtera II 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, I didn't think of this. Anyway, I don't think we actually need it in the article, so I guess delete the MIDI and don't record it. Jashiin 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, just as long as the performance has pulse, and is crisp in a non-legato sense. All those repeated notes—you have to DO something with them~ Tony 06:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think a single colour would be better for all three chorale phrases; it is, after all, one phenomenon in a complex texture. Perhaps the caption should be shorter, just pointing out the three chorale phrases (in red, say), which are relatively slow against a faster moving background. Then you could discuss the technical points in the main text, including the fugato anticipations, giving bar numbers. Yes, I do think that a different chorale would be preferable; WP needs to distinguish itself from New Grove; in some ways, it should be better, and to repeat their example is a bit ... obvious. I know that's a lot of work, so I'll understand if you decide not to. The score excerpt need only be of part of a piece; all the better if a 30-second recording accompanies it.


 * Okay, I'll try to locate another chorale of this type and maybe a commercial recording of one, but this is going to take a while.. and I'm not sure I can find one. Jashiin 18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just replaced the picture with a new one, with bar numbers and one color for every chorale phrase. Is this better? Jashiin 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any stated limit on the number of 'fair use', 30-second excerpts that can be used in each article? I haven't seen a rule about it. If the excerpts are clearly educational (esp. through reference to their features in the text), I think it might be OK. I think the current Toccata recording is pretty boring, and I'd rather have nothing. Pachelbel's textures can be crisp and bouncy at the hands of a good player; to 'sell' his music to the modern ear, I think that nothing less will do. Tony 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no limit specified, not to my knowledge anyway, but I believe we have to be reasonable about the number of commercial recordings used since the copyright status isn't as clear as one would want it to be. Otherwise extreme cases can happen, like 31 excerpts from commercial recordings to illustrate every piece from the Goldberg Variations. Anyway, since I think you're not the only one to complain about the MIDI, do remove it. Jashiin 18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that, if each of the fair use samples are from different recordings, then it is fine. -Sesquialtera II 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The gigue and gavotte are nice—well tapered at the end, too. The Chaconne in F is a little gloomy (the mid-range is kind of 'fat', and there's a slight shimmer, which might be fixable on ogg. Also, it's a pity that the excerpt comprises the same phrase three times ... Tony 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its the Chaconne itself that you don't like, not the recording. Every other performance I have/heard has the features you're talking about (except John Butt's version, but he's playing it on a chamber organ). I can supply a different chaconne with a less repetitive and more "jumpy" beginning, but I reckon the F minor piece has to be included somehow since its his most famous organ work and also one of his finest. Jashiin 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's a beautiful piece; my objection to the performance is that the first and second repetitions contain no ornamentation; I have no evidence, but I'm practically sure that Pachelbel would think that odd. We're not talking extravagent roulades here, but just a few discreet elaborations in the melodic part, or a mordent here and there. It's the rationale for the immediate repetition of a phrase, isn't it? Tony 01:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be right.. unfortunately, I don't have the score. I'll try to compare it to other recordings a bit later, maybe Allcoat is deliberately repeating a bar or two, or maybe repeats are specified and ornamentation is left to performer, I don't know. Jashiin 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I know the score (I've performed the piece). I don't think there are any indications for localised ornaments, such as trills and mordents. I wouldn't expect any—performers were used to adding them as an essential, improvised part of playing. Tony 06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

problem sentences
Unsure why progress as an organist is demonstrated by composing:


 * "composing (not improvising) chorale preludes, and composing a large scale work every year to demonstrate his progress as organist"


 * Well, lets say if he composed a brilliant toccata last year, this year he had to compose an even more brilliant toccata to demonstrate that his composer abilities grew. Here's a quote from his Erfurt contract:


 * He shall annually on the festival of St. John the Baptist, June 24, after the completed afternoon service, in remembrance of his admission as organist [he was appointed organist on around June 22], for one-half hour play a recital using all the registers of the organ in a pleasing and melodious harmony, and thus at the same time for the entire congregation demonstrate anew how he has improved himself throughout his year of office.


 * I only provide this quote to clarify the matter, though; it comes from a Usenet post, and even though the post gives information on where this is from, I guess we can't use Usenet as a reliable source. Jashiin 07:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's just a little hard for the reader to infer that from the sentence. It's no big deal, anyway. Tony 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe it should be changed to something more readable. I'll be adding stuff to the "Life" section soon, I guess I'll try to do something about it. Or you can change it now if you're interested. Jashiin 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Fame" section
I'm copying the old contents here; I made - with a heavy heart - a decision to remove its contents entirely, basically because most of it was either POV or possible original research (see the issue raised by BluePlatypus some months ago, under "NY Times statistics"). Hopefully the new section is more in tune with the rest of the article. If anyone has any objections or suggestions, please express them here. Jashiin 21:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original section:

It is sometimes supposed that classical music is intrinsically timeless and is not subject to the caprices of fashion. Pachelbel's Canon may be said to both support and refute this assertion. As tracked by mentions in The New York Times (Reference: Numbers shown are numbers of results obtained in search on term "Pachelbel" in "ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851–2002)."), Pachelbel was all but unknown to United States audiences before the 1930s:

During the 1930s, his organ music, particularly the chorale prelude Vom Himmel hoch, da komm' ich her ("From Heaven Above to Earth I Come", German's most popular carol before Silent Night), began to be played regularly by church organists during the Christmas season, and performances of other works are occasionally mentioned, such as organ chorale variations, a motet and a Magnificat.

Canon in D was first mentioned on March 15, 1871, and the context, "a Bach fugue and a Pachelbel canon" suggests that the work was not familiar. However, by May 20, 1977, it was being referred to as "the famous Pachelbel canon."

Thus, on one hand the Canon is a musical piece that, entirely divorced from its temporal context, managed to attain wide popularity in Western culture, thus supporting the "timelessness" of classical music. However, it may also be said to be a piece which went unnoticed in its own time and which, with the changes in vogue and popular culture in later years, underwent a change of fortunes; in effect, its time had come. The latter understanding would indicate that, like everything else, classical music (and the 'Canon' is certainly a classic in all senses of the word) is subject to changes in fashion.

Some classical music purists frown on the Canon if for no other reason than its popularity with the masses who are also unappreciative of Pachelbel's other works.

the lead
Jashiin

I've copy-edited the lead (bears a slight resemblance to my lead for the Bach article, but that's fine!). I have a few queries.
 * Thanks! I'm having a hard time editing this practically on my own :) I assure you the resemblance to the Bach lead was not intentional, I guess I subconsciously used it as a model. I wonder if you would be interested to work on two other sections, the "Posthumous influence and the rise of popularity of the Canon in D" and the "General information" in "Works"? I feel they could use some extensive copyediting, particularly the ending of the former - its hard to write about the canon without digressing to mentions of Pet Shop Boys or Brian Eno.


 * "experimented with different ensembles and instrumental combinations in his chamber music and, most importantly, his vocal music, much of which features exceptionally rich instrumentation". This seems to jumble up his chamber and vocal music (rich instrumentation in his vocal music?). Is 'ensemble' different from 'instrumental combination'?
 * Yes, I think it went a bit wrong there, definitely ensemble = instrumental combination. I think it'd be best to use the latter term. As for rich instrumentation in his vocal music, it IS rich there - scoring Magnificat settings for combinations of violins, violas, trumpets, timpani, etc. wasn't commonplace at the time.

Its explained in detail in the "Posthumous influence" section of "Life". Bach did study Pachelbel's music, but only his earliest compositions are directly influenced by Pachelbel (and even that isn't really proven, the Neumeister chorales' authorship is still questionable I believe), and northern composers were a much bigger influence. I tried to stress that he didn't have _much_ influence on Bach or later important composers.
 * Are you sure that his music had no influence on JSB?

Basically any of his contemporaries wrote more complex pieces. Buxtehude, and Walther with Bach after him, used all kinds of ornamentation and figuration for the cantus firmus; Pachelbel was the last composer to use none. Buxtehude's organ pieces almost all use pedals extensively and explore unusual-for his time-harmonies, not to mention his sectional preludes with all kinds of music combined in a single piece; Pachelbel's organ pieces seldom use pedals, almost none are sectional and harmonically they do not go too far; fugues tend to use scale degrees 1 and 5 only, etc. So its basically Buxtehude who I compare Pachelbel with, I don't think there was any other comparable figure back then. Bruhns and Biber maybe, but both wrote virtuosic pieces, while Pachelbel's music is almost never virtuosic. I mention Buxtehude and Biber elsewhere in the article several times I think.
 * Are you able to cite a composer whose counterpoint is complicated, and that lacks harmonic and melodic clarity (here, not in the article, I mean)?

Subject may be varied through the entries, different versions used for every entry. Or the subject can have several versions, for example, one for the two lower voices, another for the two higher voices. Episodes can develop using material other than the subject, treating this material using variation techniques. Unlike Bach, for instance, who tried to avoid additional themes whenever possible. (In this respect, Bach is influenced by Froberger, who too tends to use less motifs. Froberger, by the way, is another example of a musician whose style does not emphasize melodic clarity (his harpsichord pieces concentrate on harmony, rhythm and mood rather than melodies)). Jashiin 14:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would variation techniques be manifested in a fugue?

Tony 13:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll do more later. I think the variations point might raise questions if you don't immediately explain your reasoning. Better later? I'm not sure. Tony 14:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not crucial, so maybe that whole sentence can be reworded into something more neutral. The point is that he used variation techniques in basically every genre he worked with: lots of organ works with variations, chamber suites, variations are used in a few harpsichord suites and variations are used in some vocal pieces. I'm not sure how to say it in a brief sentence, maybe you can do it? Jashiin 15:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name
According to here: (entry of 2006-09-14), the German Duden pronunciation dictionary states three different pronunciations for Pachelbel. Only the last one (and to me not the most obvious one) is stated here. Maybe we should mention all three? The Duden is more or less the bible on German pronunciation... JAL 82.92.15.150 09:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In Germany and German-speaking countries, Pachelbel is unequivocally pronounced with emphasis on the middle sylable (Pach-el-buhl). The last syllable is shortened, the way it is with Handel (Hand-duhl)--it should NEVER be emphasized. To publish the 'alternate' American pronunciation, which seeks to rhyme Pachelbel's name with that of a detestable quasi-Mexican fast-food chain restaurant, is illiterate and inexcusable.

I can't believe that Duden allows any other pronunciation than this--perhaps you have mis-read it? Since this a blog from somebody in the UK, I have my doubts to begin with.

In my years in Germany, I NEVER heard Pachelbel pronounced any other way--to do so would simply be idiotic in German. It would instantly identify anyone who does so as non-German.

By the way, the same principle applies to the pronunciation of Pisendel (Pi-zen-duhl). Though not as popular a composer as Pachelbel, Piseldel's name is likewise universally butchered in the U.S.Cbrodersen (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Buszin article (which lists German sources), you'll see that Hans Joachim Moser argued that the name stemmed from "Albrecht am Bache", which means "Pachelbel" is probably correct. Furthermore, if you study colonial documents that mention Charles Theodore, you'll see him referred to in various ways, but always with the stress on the first syllable: Perchival, Patchable, etc. (this was a common phenomenon at the time, as you may know; Buxtehude, for example, was once recorded as Buxdhue, which is another proof that the stress was Buxtehude). Unfortunately, none of the sources I have elaborate on the issue. Jashiin (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way, here (Russia) everyone - at least at the conservatories - pronounces the name "Pachelbel", too, and I seriously doubt that we borrowed the pronunciation from the Americans. Jashiin (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jashiin - What you have to add on the subject is interesting, but it does not take away from the fact that Pach-el-bel is so pronounced in Germany, Austria and Switzerland--where they ought to know. By stressing the first sylable, stress is also placed on the last, creating a pronunciation that no German would consider correct. But if you don't believe me, ask a native German speaker! How the son's name was pronounced in colonial America, or how it's pronounced in modern-day Russia is, I'm sure you'll agree, completely beside the point.Cbrodersen (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that giving the other two pronunciation options is perfectly valid. The pronunciation today may be very different from the original one, because languages change. And I do believe that how the son's name was pronounced is important: the original German Pachelbel would've yielded some other variant, like Pacheybel.. to mark the stress. Times were different back then, and names would be written in all kinds of ways, but the stress would, I think, remain. And there's the Moser theory, too.
 * Perhaps all of this&mdash;most definitely how native speakers pronounce the name&mdash;should be included in a footnote in the article; trouble is, I can't think of any sources that concentrate on this particular problem. I guess it'll be hard to find a source for a statement on how most native speakers pronounce the name, let alone on any theories connecting various contemporary variants of the name with the pronunciation. Jashiin (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way--take a look at the Pachelbel article on German Wikipedia. There they give only one pronunciation--the one I propose--with NO alternates.Cbrodersen (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because that is the German Wikipedia and records the German pronunciation. This is the English Wikipedia; I see no problem with recording the most common English pronunciations. 130.88.52.75 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Death
He simply died at age 52. Now I know that was considered old age back then, but does anyone know what he died of? Dikke poes 19:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

B-rating
I believe this article has been misrated by a non-expert on the subject, and am putting it up for peer review. As far as I can see it's one of the most useful music biographies on wikipedia. Matt.kaner 11:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK people results are back:

I've taken a glace at the article and the main issue to strike me is the lack of citations. For this article to move up to GA class it would have to be fully cited. Additionally, the article lacks a comprehensive critical analysis of Pachelbel's work. There is some information on his reputation by other composers in the section "Posthumous influence and the rise of popularity of the Canon in D", but how do musicologists regard him? Otherwise, the article is well written and nicely organized. Is there not an image of Pachelbel? That should be included as well. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Matt.kaner 12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

this too Matt.kaner 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit I thought this was an excellent article. I have played classical piano for over 20 years now, so I come to the article with some musical knowledge. Here are my suggestions:

A lot of the prepositions and prepositional phrases in the article are not quite right. There are also missing articles and a few awkwardly placed clauses. You might think about having the League of Copyeditors look at this or having a trusted wikipedia editor review it for you. These problems seemed isolated to the Biography section. The article cites a lot of people in the biography section as if the reader knows who they are; they should be identified with a phrase so that we understand why we care about Pachelbel's relationship to them. I noticed this problem in particular in the 1673-1690 section. The Works section, while an excellent analysis of Pachelbel's music, may be a little too technical at times for the general reader. The editors might consider defining some of the terms to make it more accessible. I assume the reason this article was given as "B" rating is because of its lack of citations. See WP:CITE. If you want to submit it for GA or FA, you will need to add quite a few citations. Most of the musical analysis has no citation at all. Some small writing issues that FA reviewers tend to latch onto and that you will want to fix before submitting it to FAC: 1) first-person (I saw some "we" constructions); 2) redundancies ("early youth"); and 3) red-links (create the page or de-link). Overall, a very good page. Awadewit 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Johann_Pachelbel"


 * Most of the musical analysis is from New Grove, and giving citations for it would mean adding a huge list where every position is "John Butt. Article "Johann Pachelbel" in New Grove,.. etc.". There's just one general book on Pachelbel in English, the one by Kathryn J. Welter, and I don't have access to it. But it anyone finds it the list is going to consist of two kinds of likes, the one referencing NG and the one referencing Welter. Oh, and I believe that Wikipedia of today will qualify some of the material in the section as original research - that the double fugues have the three-section structure is painfully obivious from the score, but I don't remember seeing anyone mentioning it anywhere in literature. The citations issue was one of the things that made me stop editing actively - too many obvious things turned out to be facts that needed citations, and I had neither the access to literature, nor the time to find references for things I knew to be true and hard to find references for because they're so obvious.


 * Sorry, I had to rant :) The rest of the critisims are OK with me, I just had to comment on the citations thing. Jashiin 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Canon in D
The paragraph in discussing the rise in popularity of this piece requires some editing. I do not understand the transition sentence "Pachelbel's Canon in D major is the only exception," which follows a paragraph indicated that academic interest in Pachelbel's work rose in the the mid-20th century and precedes information that interest in this piece grew rapidly in the 1970s.

In addition, an further information on what stoked popular interest in this work would significantly assist in explaining the piece's cultural place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted an edit to this section which was about a modern arrangement of the canon. This article should stay focussed on Pachelbel himself. Sure, the canon needs a mention here, but it already has its own article. I propose that we police that 'canon' section to ensure that it doesn't grow too much. Arrangements of the canon should, presumably, be at the canon's page, not Pachelbel's. Seem OK? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pachelbel's father
Both Welter's dissertation (surely the definitive English text on Pachelbel) and the German MGG state that Hans Pachelbel was a wine-handler. I have no idea where Walter E. Buszin got the information that Pachelbel's father was a tinsmith; I was unable to find any references for that. So I changed it to wine-handler and provided references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.97.177 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Walther as "second Pachelbel"
I previously wrote that Mattheson's description of Walther as "the second Pachelbel" is somewhat misleading. Someone requested a reference, which I have now provided, but I removed the "misleading" bit since I wasn't able to find solid references for that, unless German sources such as Otto Brodde's "Johann Gottfried Walther—Leben und Werk" of 1937 and Gotthold Frotscher's "Geschichte des Orgelspiels und der Orgelkomposition" of 1935 count. I'm sure newer studies of Walther are available now, and in English, its just that I have never studied his work. Jashiin 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Johann
Johann Pachelbel Johann Sebastian Bach Johann Jakob Froberger Johann Kaspar Kerll Johann Erasmus Kindermann Johann Staden Johann Mattheson Johann Georg I Johann Ambrosius Bach Johanna Juditha Johann Christoph Bach Johann Michael Johann Adam Reincken Johann Heinrich Buttstett Johann Gottfried Walther Johann Valentin Eckelt

I'm having some trouble believeing that everyone has the same name and I don't have enough time to look through every single person to see if this is real or not so i'm just stating it here so you guys know incase it is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TailsClock (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * John Lennon, John Locke, John Paul II, John the Apostle, John Jacob Astor, John the Baptist, Prince John, John McCain.... hoax?·Maunus· · ƛ · 07:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me?
I'm sorry that this really isn't the place to be asking this question, but I've noticed it said that Pachelbel's D major chaconne is one of his most well known pieces. I have only one recording of it from John Butt's Hexachordum Apollinis CD, and I have been searching for the sheet music to it. No website seems to have Pachelbel's Chaconne in D anywhere. Where would I have to look to find this chaconne and possibly his other C major Chaconne? 65.98.177.2 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)