Talk:Pachelbel's Canon/Archive 1

An extremely modest proposal
I had a thought. I have here an mp3 of Lee Galloway performing Pachelbel's canon. I got it from his mp3.com page (http://mp3.com/LeeGalloway) while mp3.com still existed. Now, I googled from him and noticed he has a website now with a contact page. I'm tempted to write in and ask if he'd give us permission to post his music. &rarr;Raul654 06:28, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Follow up:

Dear Mr. Galloway:

I'm an administator on Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). Wikipedia is a non-profit, volunteer project to create a free encyclopedia.

Some years ago, I downloaded your version of Pachelbel's canon from your now-defunct mp3.com page (http://mp3.com/LeeGalloway). I'd like your permission to post it to Wikipedia article on Pachelbel's canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel%27s_canon)

Typically, multimedia content posted to Wikipedia is released under the GNU free documentation license (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), which grants others the ability to freely copy, modify, and redistribute material. It is our preference that you release it to us under that license. However, if you do not wish others to redistribute the song, you could simply grant us exclusive permission to distribute it.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely, Mark *********

Comments
Metasquares: I just applied the google test and it appears that you are correct --Raul654 03:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article had the sentence "The canon can be broken up into 5 sections - parallel, anti-line, reserve, expansed, and reduced." These are terms which I've never come across before (I don't think "expansed" is even a word, is it?). I'm guessing they come in some way from, which is a Japanese page using English in an original way. I've therefore tried to convert them into more usual equivalents, but I am not vouching for the accuracy of the info (that is, I don't know if the canon does indeed use all of these techniques), because I don't have a score, and haven't been able to check. That's not to say I think the info is wrong, just that I'm a little wary of it. --Camembert


 * I was the one who originally added those comments, and yes - I got them from that website.
 * ...because I don't have a score, and haven't been able to check...
 * You can download the score in pdf form here ;) --Raul654 07:20, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Aha! Thanks! I shall grab it and have a look. --Camembert


 * Hm, it's an arrangement for piano, unfortunately, which makes it a bit difficult to work out what's going on (and some notes have probably been added and others left out). Anyway, I'm off to the library on Monday - I'll see if I can find a score of the original (or at least a version close to the original) then. --Camembert


 * Failed to find a score - I'll probably have another go after Christmas. --Camembert


 * No need. Remember, the internet is your friend:
 * pachelbel's canon for five parts
 * 13 different arrangements of pachelbel's canon
 * --Raul654 03:38, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but you have to pay for access to those 13 arrangements and the other link has parts but no score, which means I'd have to make one by hand before I'd have anything useful (it'll do as a last resort if all else fails). Sorry, I know I'm being picky :) Anyway, it's not a very pressing matter - nothing terrible will happen if the page stays as it is for a week or two :) --Camembert


 * I am very sure that the canon can not be played in retrograde or inversion.
 * Unless anyone knows that it can be played like that, I think the whole of "the music" section in the main article should be deleted. 20:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/pachelbel/kanon.pdf would be close to the original score. Pachelbel's canon is the simplest canon without anything like inversion, augmentation, diminution, reduction, etc. I deleted the music section. --Puzzlet Chung 02:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

External links moved from Johann Pachelbel
I moved two links here, the Easybyte one (not sure about this one, might be spam/advertisement) and the one called The musical roots of the songs "Seek ye First" and "Streets of London" in Johann Pachelbel's "Canon in D". I reckon since they're both about the Canon, rather than about Pachelbel, they should be here, not in Johann Pachelbel. I know I should've addressed the issue on the talk page but I was dumb enough to forget to do so :( Anyway, feel free to remove them from the article or move them back to Johann Pachelbel if you feel they're not appropriate here. Jashiin 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image change
I've changed the image from the four-measure version with half notes to the two-measure version with quarter notes. The reason is that every score I have has the latter version, and the booklet of the London Baroque CD specifies that the bass is two-measure. A couple of weeks ago I contacted the user who uploaded the old image (Bdesham), but he for some reason did not respond to my query. I thought I'd make the change so that the image would match the text (and the bigger image). Also, I used a different filename for my version, so it will be easy to revert to the earlier version if needed. Jashiin 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Implying a Pachelbel-Mozart-Haydn Comparison
The reason why I deleted the section...

This analysis and comparison to similar paraphrasing of a harmonic progression (I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-ii-V-i) in the works of Mozart and Haydn has nothing to do with Pachelbel's canon, and I deleted it as such. It is a common harmonic progression, and it is precisely because it fits so well with the "rules" of music theory.

Just because almost every classical composer has used the sequence (heck, it's still taught in music theory courses today), doesn't mean that Pachelbel invented it, or that comparisons on this level matter to this article.

Likewise, atonal or "tone row" music is usually attributed Schoenberg and his contemporaries in the early 20th Century. However, when you look at one line in the score given to the Double Bass in Beethoven's 9th Symphony, there is a tone row in 1824! Does it mean that Schoenberg learned this from the Ludwig's 9th Symphony? No. Hence, such comparision is an illogical fallacy. A fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

If, as the contributor of this passage said, it was an "unlikely" connection, it shouldn't have been included in the first place. --ExplorerCDT 16:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello ExplorerCDT, As I think about what ought to be done here, I feel it would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific.


 * In particular, concerning your assertion, "almost every classical composer has used the [I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-ii-V] sequence," it would be nice to have examples. Can you please cite the particular passages you had in mind for a few representative composers?


 * And if I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-ii-V is "taught in music theory courses today", presumably it's mentioned in harmony textbooks like Piston. Can you give a couple of citations?


 * Thanks for your help, Opus33 16:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I never got a reply from ExplorerCDT, and (s)he deleted from (his/her) talk page my request that (s)he provide one.

My take on this is that, even if Pachelbel's sequence obeys all the laws of harmony in a straightforward way, it definitely stands out in people's ears; it's really the most distinctive part of the work. So it's not out of line to point out where other composers have made use of the same sequence; it's something that a musically curious listener might want to know. This is especially so if, as I now believe, examples are not as common as weeds. Indeed, even the Mozart and Haydn examples are not perfect cases, since they deviate in the last two bars (the article now points this out). Opus33 17:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right Opus ... it's quite a distinctive ground bass, and not widely used by others in the exact form used by Pachelbel. The most commonly used part by other composers is the first bit, i.e. the first five notes (you have the complete Grove, right?  Look up the article "ground", part 3, for a good example by Schmelzer from 1664).  This reminds me, we could use a good article on ground bass here ... :-)  Antandrus 17:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe any reference of very similar subjects are ok to be linked, but not exposed or opined. That means, "Mozart has this work which is very similar to this Canon", link it up, and that's it. To me it seems both have good arguments, since it's not even possible to prove wherer Mozart knew about Pachelbel or not, and even if he did, doesn't mean just because Pachelbel came first, he is "the creator" or even worst "the owner". Any of them would be, rather, just another one who noticed that kind of harmony and could translate it into a song melody. Each one in their times, with their variations. --Cacumer 16:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pachelbel in Michael Jackson's Sonic 3 ??
The Ice cap zone of Sonic 3 "C E B F C E B" (and Michael JacksonS "Who is it" (1991)) remind me to packelbels canon chord progression. I'm not that deep into music. Ayone else? And even if not the video is ontopic. --Ollj 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Musical adaptations to seperate article
I think the "Musical Adaptions"-section should have its own "chord progression"-article because ("I V vi iii IV I IV V") is spread so widely.

I may double the list simply by scanning some romantic, trance, house, pop music. I might even quadrupple the lists length it if i can change up to 25% of the chord into a variation of it.

Pachelbel's Canon must have ben my baby-lullaby because so many songs I have in mp3 form contain it and so little don't.


 * I agree, the list can get pretty big (is pretty big already). We could simply list like 5 or 6 most famous songs here and move the rest. I can't think of a proper title for the article, though.. Musical adaptations of Pachelbel's Canon? Musical adaptations of Pachelbel's Canon in popular culture? :)


 * Agreed, might as well jsut move it. I just hope someone will do it before I feel "obligated" to. :P --Cacumer 04:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, I can't think of a proper title. Do you have an idea for that? Jashiin 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The title for the Phantom Regiment song is incorrect. The song's name is Sanctus, not Drum and Bugle Corps. 207.99.124.254 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ogg file
I have created of the original score for three violins and basso continuo (I have used a cello as BC for lack of samples) and added it to the page. (Thanks to Jashiin for helping me place it in the correct Category) --EvilMulder 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture
i think "aphrdodite´s child - rain and tears" and "die firma - die eine should be mentioned" in pop culture section, too... they´re fare better than the others (<- my opinion ;))

Canonical audio?
Does anyone think that there should be an audio version of the canon which is actually a canon. The Lee Galloway version isn't actually canonical, which does defeat the point. I have a midi file but a real audio format ould be much nicer. tommylommykins 15:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, (A) Midi isn't a real sound file -- it's a digitally sythesized format and it varies from platform to platform; (B) Real audio is a *HORRIBLE* format - both in terms of quality and the baggage of crappy software that is required to play it. Furthermore, Real audio (being a proprietary format) is not allowed on Wikipedia (for that matter, neither are a whole host of better sound formats like mp3). Our philosophy of openness obligated us to use ogg for sound (C) The *hard* part is finding music licensed in such a way as to encourage distribution. I got permission from galloway for the music here; you are welcome to find someone who is willing to license their music under a license ameniable to copying (and then upload the music and put it here). &rarr;Raul654 17:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Now, with that said, you're welcome to try to find a canon version


 * Sorry. I didn't mean real audio the sound file format - I agree that .rm is absolutely useless. Blame real networks for naming their format realAudio. I just meant a non-synthesysed format.


 * A midi file to demonstrate the canon is a canon doesn't have to sound nice, that's what the galloway version is for. it just has to sound like a canon.
 * I could probably turn the midi file into ogg exactly as it sounds from my computer if there are any other problems with posting a pure midi file on the site
 * Nobody owns the midi file that I am talking about - licensing is not a problem.
 * A licensed non-midi file is still welcome in my view so long as it is canonical


 * tommylommykins 20:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Raul was quite precipitated... But Tommy, if you have a MIDI file, which might not be a real sound / audio file, you seem to know that it is still a little "book" on how a computer can play that file. If you do have a good sound card such as the old Turtle Bit, you could just play that MIDI using a Flute or something and record it in a legitimated really good "real sound" file, such as MP3, OGG, FLAC or whichever you like better. Of course you can do this from any computer, but it wouldn't sound as good as in a professional sound card. This is rather a "let anyone know" kind of message than one specific for you, Tommy.

--Cacumer 17:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes yes please yes. Only one of the current examples is true to the original and it is very novice-sounding.

79.220.166.55 (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As ever, the issue is copyright. Any audio example would either have to be copyright free, or limited to a 30 second clip from a copyrighted recording.  There are plenty of MIDI files of the Canon, and they are often copyright free.  Some fresh audio clips would be welcome. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 12:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello IanMacM, regarding "fresh audio," some months ago I uploaded a synth realization of the Canon (and the Gigue) at my web site. If you think it's worth linking in the external links, you're welcome to. If not, I understand that WP is not a billboard for private sites. Look at the bottom of the "Featured music" column at flagmusic.com for the link to my page about the work, and the MP3. JCHall (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Guitar rock version
A section of the article states: "In 2006, a video of a young man calling himself "funtwo" playing an energetic version of Pachelbel's Canon on electric guitar became one of the most frequently-viewed and discussed videos on the popular video sharing site YouTube." This video is actually covering a version that was originally composed and performed by a Taiwanese guitarist know as JerryC. Video's of him playing this are on Google Video and Youtube. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8590308394895590930 I don't have any sort of viewing figures, but I'm sure his version is much more popular as well. I think this should be credited in the article, instead of "funtwo" who merely covered JerryC's composition.--88.104.226.42 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that Jerry C´s version is what the "remake by Yngwie Malmsteen" in the article is referring to. Malmsteen never did a remake of the song, and I am sure it´s the usual untitled MP3-confusion-thing ( people claiming a song is by a certain musician when they actually have no idea ) is responsible for that rumor.84.135.98.28 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

kristen anne
this guy looks like brian eno

Viola Pizzicato
I've always thought that this was original. I have a copy of the score for three violins, viola, and bass. The score for the viola says that it was composed by Johann Pachelbel, also, the viola part is very fitting and done as though it really was part of the original score. Can someone verify that it really is non-original? Shimdidly 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

re Dr. Demento basement tapes, comedian Rob Paravonian
I think this addition, perhaps for including the standup excerpt, is a bit much. Dilbird 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon in D in Episode 4 of Kino no Tabi
In the episode 4 of the anime Kino no Tabi, the canon is featured as a vocal sung in Japanese by the character Kino. It's not an insert song as the character just sings it within the story line. --Beowulf Lee Aug/16/06 20:27 GMT -5:00

Pachelbel's portrait
It's of questionable authenticity, according to Talk:Johann Pachelbel. Shouldn't it be removed? Femto 14:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Canon in D, JerryC, and funtwo
The New York Times recently ran an article which identifies "funtwo", the guitar player in the Youtube.com video, as Jeong-Hyun Lim, a 23 year old Korean. JerryC, or Jerry Chung, is a 25 year old Taiwanese guitarist, wrote the guitar arrangement for Canon in D, videotaped himself, wrote out the tabs for the arrangement, and posted all of it to his band's website. Lim then watched the video and set about mastering the piece. The article describes his technique of strum-picking, an extremely difficult-to-master approach to the arpeggios and other demanding fingerwork of the arrangement.

The article can be read at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/arts/television/27heff.html?ex=1156996800&en=af28264bcf29912e&ei=5087%0A

Work like you don&#39;t need the money, love like you&#39;ve never been hurt, and dance like no one&#39;s watching. 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Usefull Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5faZF1A8 Take a look, is a link to this in the article? should it be? Alan2here 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Funtwo is already linked internally from the list of adaptations. Femto 12:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Broken link
The following link is not working: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Pachelbel's_Canon_Strings.ogg 219.77.80.247 15:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Wilson Yeung, 11 Nov 2006
 * WP:Purged its cache, should work again. Femto 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Musical adaptions
Do different arrangements/performances of the canon count as 'musical adaptions' worthy of inclusion? To include a list of different performances of the canon, as the canon, seems a bit too much to me tommylommykins 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that they belong on the list. While many are still titles "Canon" and are more obviously based off of the piece, almost every one has some notable differences from Pachelbel's original piece; the subject on which the page is written.

--S87magee 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But isn't the whole idea of someone arranging a piece for it to be different? And if we were to try to include every single arrangement, the list would become more ridiculous than it already is.

Here it is:

It's called "Christmas Canon" by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. It's on their album called The Christmas Attic. Here is the link:

http://www.trans-siberian.com/discography/xmasattic.shtml

Regardless, if any song using the Canon belongs on the list then all do. If the list is not all-inclusive, that's ok, but any song using Canon should be able to be put on the list. I hope I'm getting my point across the way I mean to. --S87magee 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tempo
Is there any information available about what tempo Pachelbel intended it to be played at? Most modern performances seem to me to be deathly slow (including the three recordings available on this page). The best recording I ever heard of it was on original instruments, played at a tempo of about 75 beats per minute (with one quarter note being one beat, of course!). —Angr 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard that the original tempo for the song was intended to be much quicker than the speed it is usually played at now. Can anyone confirm this? Quill Est Patent 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Title name
Does anyone object against this article being moved to Canon in D? I believe it's the most commonly known name of the piece and doesn't as far as I know conflict with anything even remotely as well-known. -- Dissident (Talk) 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just come to this page for the first time. "Canon in D" is the name of a great many canons, by dozens (or hundreds) of different composers.  Maybe this is the only one of them with a WP article currently, but it's still an ambiguous title.  I'd prefer to move this to "Canon in D (Pachelbel)", avoiding any future clashes before they can occur.  This isn't like, say, the 1812 Overture, where there is virtually no possibility of anyone ever writing another work with that name.  Any objections?  JackofOz 09:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bass line
The two-measure bass line is repeated only 30 times? I used to play this piece a lot when I was in high school (as a cellist, I was stuck with the bass line) and it sure felt more like 60 or 80. After several playings it began to feel more like 300 -- not so much a basso continuo as a basso interminabile or basso ad nauseam. Angr 12:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I counted. It repeats exactly 28 times. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Popularization of Canon in D
The article notes that the piece became popular in the early 1970's. However, Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (6th edition, ed. Nicholas Slonimsky, 1978) states, "His Kanon in D...became extremely popular in America around 1960." Perhaps this needs to be changed? I am not aware of any recordings or other cultural factors that would explain the piece's surging popularity in the 1960s, but it does seem to have become popular a decade or more before the time period given in the article. Chubbles1212 22:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Chubbles1212

I believe the proximate cause of the piece's explosion onto both the pop and longhair scenes at that time was its inclusion on the Musical Heritage Society bonus LP sent to people who signed up in the late 60's and early 70s. Certainly that was the particular recording of the piece that was discussed by all the classical-music aficionados in my circle -- students, teachers, and performers (both professional and amateur) alike -- who first became aware of it around that time. People specifically talked about the conversation-stopping effect of the piece when that LP was played at a gathering of well-listened people. (I refer to people who would have expected to know what it was and were surprised that they didn't.) As many of these people were professional musicians, I'm pretty certain the MHS recording must have been the first widely-distributed recording of the piece, though I don't know the exact years MHS was distributing this LP. If this can be corroborated, I think it should be mentioned in the article. First causes always deserve recognition when they can be identified. AldenGray 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Further poking around suggests the MHS re-release of the Erato recording made by Rudolf Baumgartner and the Lucerne Festival Strings in the mid-1960's was the only recording of the Canon released in the United States as of the 1960's. answers.com  I believe this strongly supports the notion that MHS planted the seed of the Canon phenomenon in America. However, I don't know whether the "enrollment bonus" LP was the only MHS LP containing the piece at that time. Although it sounds improbable compared to modern practice, I do vaguely recall scouring the catalog at the time without finding a source recording. Then again, my detective skills at the time weren't fully developed. I have seen photos of another MHS album jacket with the piece. Since it has a military cannon on the cover, it may well be a later release capitalizing on the popularity of the earlier inclusion on the enrollment LP. Then again it could be the other way around. Earlier I did have two MHS catalog numbers but at the moment I seem to have misplaced them. AldenGray 11:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

does Bowie's "Changes" belong on the list?
I was adding Bowie's "All the Young Dudes" (which quotes directly from the Canon in the introductory guitar melody, as well as having the Canon's chord progression) to the list, and noticed Bowie's "Changes" right above it. I went and listened to Changes again. While certainly a great song, I hear NOTHING resembling the Pachellbel Canon in it. I would suggest "Changes" be removed from the list.

Can a few people with good ears give it a listen and check it out, please? --Liza

"Turn (C) and face (G) the strain (Am) (Em) (F) Don't wanna be (C) a richer man..."

I questioned that myself, but it looks legit. --S87magee 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely is the same progression. I never noticed that before; then again, this progression shows up in what seems like hundreds of pop songs :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.165.236 (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

help finding a christmas rendition of the cannon
On the radio, I heard a redition of the Cannon in D with a Christmas theme. It sounded as though it was performed by a childrens choir. Can anyone help me find out who performed this? I absolutely loved it and would love to find the music for it.

Deb63.241.182.3 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deb: Go to this address:  http://www.trans-siberian.com/multimedia/video.shtml It is the "christmas canon" link there. Enjoy! It is one of my favorite *ever* Christmas songs. -Scott

To bad the "Christmas Cannon Rock" on The Lost Christmas Eve owns it1 --E tac 08:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison joke
When someone asks someone incredibly gifted or skilled to do something really simple, "that's like asking Einstein to do your first-grader's math homework" could be replaced with "That's like asking Yo-Yo Ma to play the cello line from Pachelbel's Canon." ....  Okay, so it would only be funny in a context. But there's a great punchline waiting for the right setup. --205.201.141.146 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ii6 or IV?
The Canon in D chord progression was listed with the penultimate chord as ii6 under "Musical adaptations" while earlier in the article, under "Structure," it was listed as the IV chord. I have NEVER heard a recording or seen a score that used the ii6, so I'm assumed that it was an error and corrected it.72.152.30.131 00:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Robert at 7:21pm on 12/29/2006

The introduction
The introduction here spends too long talking about Bach's and Albinoni's pieces. It's not relevant; I am going to edit them out of the introduction. JamesMcGuiggan 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was me who added the information. First, its not too long at all, just an ending of a sentence: "along with other famous Baroque pieces such as Air on the G String by J. S. Bach, (BWV 1068), and Albinoni's Adagio in G minor." Second, mentioning these pieces is neccessary, I think, to provide context: Pachelbel's canon is not the only Baroque piece to achieve this degree of popularity and its only fair to include a line about other works that did. Jashiin 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

==I'm going to boldly start another section that lists a number of actual songs that copy the chord progression of Canon in D, since songs are not listed in either pop culture or Other Uses. Please comment if you have any other ideas. - Kevin (TALK) 20:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Where are the chords?
OK, I don't know much about music. With all the talk about the chord progression, I went to the musical score expecting to find, well, those chords. I expected, for example, to see D major chords, i.e., D-F#-A played simultaneously. Nope. 141.156.214.241 05:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, look at the last measure of the brief music excerpt in the article. The 2nd that 3rd violins are playing a D (the root) and the first violin plays an F# (the major third). This is enough to be hinted at that the chord implied is D, especially since the bass note plays a D. - Kevin (TALK) 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The roman numerals provided give you the chords no matter what key you are in. But since it is in D, here they are: D A Bm F#m G D G A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.94.103 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Notes about musical adaptations
First, I now officially love Wikipedia. I started a search for songs based on Canon in D years ago, but had difficulty finding many aside from those I'd personally picked out. Second, I haven't listened to that many yet, but U2's "With or Without You", while a great song, is not based on the same chord progression. Only the first three chords match, the fourth chord is a half step higher, and it breaks down thereafter. Third, kudos to the person who added Christmas Canon by Trans-Siberian. :) Fourth, Monty Python's "Decomposing Composers" is also based on Canon in D.
 * I agree: A not insignificant amount of what is in the list is completely wrong, and pretty much all appears to be unresearched. What Paravonian mentions in his video is also almost entirely demonstrably wrong too. Something really needs to be done though. tommylommykins 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please could you be more specific here, or edit the article to remove any mistakes.--Ianmacm 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * U2's With Or Without You follows the chord progression D-A-Bm-G (i, V, Vi, iV). The first three chords are the same as Canon, but the forth is not (Canon is F# [iii], With Or Without You is G [iV]), and With Or Without You's chord progression is only 4 bars long, whereas Canon's is 8 bars. I have removed With Or Without You from the list for this reason. B Gallagher 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay with replying; I can be quite lazy sometimes. Anyway, I think the best thing to do would be cull theentire section again. It's the sort of material that can never be properly sourced, and a significant part is simply wrong. I'd rather have no information than crap information.

2Pac - Life Goes On
I noticed the Canon is in the piano of this song. Can someone confirm this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W69SSLfRJho

1) Sign your comments. 2) It sounds more like that song they play at graduations, but, since I think the canon has had an influence on that graduation song, consider it confirmed. Slartibartfast1992 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Samba!
Hi, there is a song called Pachelbel's Samba! (yes, the exclamation point is present in the title) by Brad Schoener (it's based on the canon). I think it should go under popular references or something like that. Slartibartfast1992 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon in popular culture

 * Oh sure, add the YouTube thing back in and get it watched 20 million more times. Who cares?  I could add a video of the Canon to YouTube, just like anyone could have a website.  And it is not well sourced, links only go to the video.  Besides, I don't know where it is this minute, but I'm under the impression that YouTube links are a no-no on Wikipedia due to copyright infringement.  And why remove some references to uses of the Canon and not all?  IMO, just take it all out for fairness.  Cricket02 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I stand corrected - plenty of references for this.
 * My apologies for that. I intended to remove all references, but forgot. It's my fault. tommylommykins 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * my problem with the Pachelbel rant is exactly that a lot of the information is wrong AND that the 'rant' bases so much of itself on the information. Twisting information is of course acceptable in satire, but Parovonian has appeared to make statements serious enough for some other user to take them as fact. I think that is bad enough to warrant not mentioning it. Also, my apologies for deleting it again,. I had not seen your comments on the talk page first. My opinion is that it should stay deleted though. tommylommykins 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected, and did not see the NYTimes article. And found this link:  External links/YouTube, unsure if it is copyright infringement or not.  But I did remove all in "Other Uses" as they seem to be even less notable examples than what was removed yesterday out of the "Popular Culture" section.  Cricket02 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to keep the mentions of the Canon in popular culture to a minimum, since there is a need to keep the examples within Notability. The Canon Rock video meets this requirement due to its popularity and media coverage.  The link given is not intended to plug the video in any way, and it can soon be found with a Google search.  The link is for information purposes and is not intended to violate any copyrights that may exist on the material.--Ianmacm 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not merely make a separate page entitled, "List of references to Pachelbel's 'Canon in D' in popular culture?" I think the song's use in numerous films and the like is noteworthy enough to be mentioned, but the list is long enough that it does take up too much space on the page already delegated to the song. So, that would seem like the logical compromise to me. Gatotsu911 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that a you've linked something for educational or information purposes doesn't make a copyright violation any less serious IMO. Schools still have to pay for books, etc. etc. The fact that the news organisations also linked tot he video though makes me think there is no copyright violation to worry about. tommylommykins 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that there were excessive refences to unnotable parodies and homages before, however, I felt it was extremely important to note that a lot of pop music uses the chord progression and/or samples of the actual Canon. So I added it in, with sources. If this list of songs get long, delete most of them, but leave a few (with sources) to illustrate the point. It's one of the reasons why the Canon is so famous today, after all.--86.136.240.230 23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ianmacm, Those youtube videos would not have existed if not for Yngwie Malmsteen, he is both a heavy influence on JerryC and the original guitarist to play this song. That is of great relevancy in my adamant opinion, the fanfare for "funtwo" and JerryC cannot be allowed without some insight as to how it became in the first place. 71.87.7.14 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UT

Performances of the Canon in external links
I removed two external links with audio performances of the Canon, one because it was not working (and possibly a copyvio) and the other because it was not very good. As with the references in popular culture, any links to performances of the piece need to be notable, since it is not Wikipedia's job to promote other people's music.--Ianmacm 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cricket02 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Move
I suggest that we move this article to "Canon in D (Pachelbel)". I think this is more easier to see. H  irohisat Talk Page 09:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Canon in D in Movies
Was just wondering why there was no mention of the use of the Canon in D for the movie "Ordinary People" with Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore? Considering the critical acclaim of the movie, the music added a surprisingly poignant note (excuse the pun!). I don't think I had heard the Canon in D more than once before I heard it in the movie, and was so moved by it, I did the research to find out where I could get it. To me, that is just as meaningful as a young rock star performing a version...Alkudsi 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)alkudsi

Where to find the Sheet Music for the arr. for the Piano solo of Canon in D
If you go under media, the first sentence gives you a link to canon in d performed by lee galloway.

The version he plays is different then all of the others.

Where can I find the sheet music to his version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stocklera1 (talk • contribs) 15:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The "Modern Adaptations" section
The modern adaptations section of this page is completely unacceptable. I visited this page back in April, and there was a very informative list of modern works (such as movies, video games, other pieces of music, rock bands, etc) that borrowed or used Pachelbel's Canon in D.

Right now it is some joke of section about a YouTube video! Can someone change this back to how it initially was? It is a joke in its present form. If someone else doesn't do it, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpru (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The section about modern adaptations of the Canon was removed some time ago because it had enormous problems with WP:Trivia and WP:Verify. Also, lists for their own sake are strongly discouraged. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But the galling impression it gives is that a couple of YouTube videos from the past two years (that will be forgotten in a few more years) are more important than decades of mainstream music. Verifiability must not be an insurmountable problem or the songs wouldn't be mentioned at list of popular songs based on classical music either.  I certainly agree that at the time of removal, the list nearly overwhelmed the article, but a serious effort at addressing WP:V issues would pare that down, and if the list were still too long, then a representative sample could still be listed here (and the full list at the other article).


 * Indeed, I see the WP:V issues the other way... the statement in the lead paragraph that "It is well known for its chord progression which has become one of the most used in popular music" rings rather hollow if it can't be backed up with either an external reference or an internal list.


 * Yet another alternative would be if List of popular songs based on classical music were sorted (or sortable) by song rather than date. There are so many alternatives that YouTube >> mainstream music shouldn't be one of them. --Dawdler 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Content Balancing
It seems like the current content about Pachelbel's Canon as featured in Youtube videos represents about 25% of this article's text by length. Is this really how we want this article to be? What is notable about these videos other than that they are popular on youtube? This article is not a chronicle of what the latest rage on youtube is so I have to question why we are featuring it. We might as well make a note on the sodium page that there are currently a lot of youtube videos about alkali metal and water explosions. It all seems like a promotion of "funtwo's" own video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.96.6.11 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25% is fairly low compared to some of the other "classical pops" articles. I'm actually pleased that there is a sizeable amount of real content here and not just an extremely long list of movies where this can be heard in the background.  Pop culture references are unavoidable for a piece this popular, they just need to be periodically purged every so often.  If the section is completely removed, it will just get added back within a couple of months.  The funtwo video was a big deal in the high-brow media as well (references cite NY Times and NPR) but perhaps I can keep the text deleted if I replace it with links. DavidRF (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. And many editors have discussed the appropriateness of the "modern adaptations" section above. DavidRF (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The tempo passage
DavidRF has just placed a "citation needed" tag on the passage, but I think that perhaps it [the passage, not the tag] should be removed altogether. It is next to impossible to source this kind of information; I did some preliminary research on the net and found nothing, i.e. no book or article tracing the recordings of the piece. And as far as I know, the original score provides no tempo indications (like many contemporary scores). --Jashiin (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the piece was originally played as a chamber work and at a fairly quick tempo. The "big band dirge" is indeed common these days, but I thought it was a product of the 20th century.  I have no references to cite for this impression of mine, so I added the tag.  See the year-old "tempo" section above.  I wouldn't mind removing the tempo passage altogether.  DavidRF (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that HIPP enthusiasts would agree with you; all recordings on period instruments that I've heard play it at a quick tempo. Although this seems to be some sort of tendency within the HIPP movement, perhaps they are correct and the piece was originally played that way. The only "slow" version I know that deserves consideration is the Paillard chamber orchestra version; I think I've heard somewhere that Paillard was behind the popularisation of the canon, or at least helped it a great deal. I can't source that, though.
 * Anyway, I suggest we wait a few days for other opinions; if there are none, we'll remove the passage. Hmm? --Jashiin (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern Adaptations section removed
I placed two links in the see also section for the two extremely popular youtube videos. Readers can get all the details they need by following links to Jeong-Hyun Lim and Rob Paravonian there. There was no need for that content to be duplicated here. DavidRF (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As of March 2008, the Jeong-Hyun Lim article only mentions Pachelbel in an image caption, and the Paravonian article merely states that he has made a "Pachelbel Rant", without explaining it. If the only information is buried in YouTube videos, it is entirely appropriate for it to be duplicated in this article, if it's notable. --McGeddon (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Canon Rock (music) contains all the information about the Jeong-Hyun Lim youtube phenomenon. The external link on this article's page also points there.  Also, I added a sentence on Paravonian's page spelling out what the "Pachelbel Rant" routine is.  There wasn't any more than that here.  Any more information about those two videos should be placed in the pages for those articles and performers, not here.  DavidRF (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive discussion
Could someone archive this discussion page? I'm not 100% sure how to do that. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)