Talk:Pachelbel's Canon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pachelbel's Canon in popular culture[edit]

An edit removed the long list of places where the Canon can allegedly be found. This was the correct decision, since it had become messy and full of non-notable and unverified examples. I re-added the reference to Rob Paravonian's Pachelbel Rant because it is funny and popular, but it is beyond the scope of the article to argue about all of the songs that it contains. Likewise, it is beyond the scope of the article to list every record, film etc that uses the Canon or a similar chord sequence. However, the reference to the film Ordinary People was re-added because it seemed to meet the criterion of notability. This is a section that needs common-sense editing to prevent it from becoming bloated, and a few notable references should not do any harm.--Ianmacm 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that was the best decision; a more helpful one would have been to actually validate the listings and remove the ones that are invalid. Now there's no list at all, and a useful aspect of the article (one of few, probably) is completely missing. Deleting the entire section just because of a suspicion that a few (or even most) of the entries were illegitimate is pretty severe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.165.236 (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section deletion had nothing to do with the legitimacy of its entries. These pop culture sections have become a bit of a joke. Do you have any idea how long it would be if it were to be included? Dozens and dozens of movies. I just heard it in Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. The list would take over the whole article. There's been a push to remove these sections from all classical music articles. DavidRF (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it appeared in May 2007 can be found here. The consensus at the time was that the list had run out of control and that many of the entries were unverified and non-notable. The idea of "in popular culture" sections is not always a bad one, and for example there is nothing much wrong with pointing out that the Canon is used as the main theme of the Oscar-winning film Ordinary People. However, the past track record of this section shows that there is a tendency for any list about the Canon in popular culture to become bloated and unmanageable, which is why the article does not go down this road any more. Incidentally, thanks to DavidRF for the cartoon at [1]. It is very funny, so take a look if you have not already done so. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame it was removed, this article used to be a great source of information and references not just to the canon in popular culture but a list of songs based on it or with similar chords/structures. Some of which I didn't notice (and I consider myself a canon aficionado). It also served as a shining example of how classical music, especially one piece, has influenced so much of what has followed and I would often direct people to it to show how classical music gets everywhere. Why these sections couldn't have been made into seperate articles and listed in the 'See Also' section is beyond me, a wealth of information and labour of love for (many) people has been discarded because it may stray too far from the main subject of the article or go against Wikipedia ever changing rules of style, a trend that seems to be sweeping over Wikipedia. Mike (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the chord progression's ubiquity deserves at least a mention, even if no examples are given (perhaps it would be adequate to cite an outside reference which provides such examples). Incidentally, does anyone know if there are any examples of pieces using this progression which predate the Canon? 82.24.183.21 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the editors at Talk:Chord_progression if there is any way we can get their input on the harmonic progression. They have a lot of different progressions list in that article (as well as Template:Chord progressions). I have no idea how "important" the progression Pachelbel's Canon is relative to the ones listed there. DavidRF (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your incidental question. The use of a ground bass was quite common in the baroque era. I don't know of any that use the exact progression off the top of my head, but I do know that the "Fantazia: Three parts on a ground, Z731" by Henry Purcell uses one that's quite similar. It uses a shorter six note progression consisting of notes 1,2,3,4,7 and 8 of the progression in Pachelbel's Canon. DavidRF (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section for the canon in popular culture needs to return. And if it does take up most of the article, who cares? Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for, to give off as much information as possible? I would love to see the return of the section! ReinforcedReinforcements (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section was dropped by WP:CONSENSUS a long time ago, as it had become a huge magnet for unsourced and dubious trivia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to how the page looked with the pop culture references in case anyone was curious. -- Ϫ 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit ridiculous to put [citation needed] after "it was used in countless pop and rock songs" since the entire section on this has been deleted.Angry bee (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you recommending, then? Delete the remaining unsubstantiated claim, or restore the deleted section (supposing that the verifying sources were in it)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the Pavaronian rant because the article it links to looks poorly documented and of dubious notability, but if it's been around this long and others here think it's well known, maybe it's valid. 75.62.4.94 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That link was added a while back when that clip was more popular. People kept adding a paragraph about the clip to this article. A single link here seemed the most effective way to redirect the pop culture buffs away from here. Its been a while though, so the link may not be needed anymore.DavidRF (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best and most heart rending variations on the whole theme is a choral piece called Santus performed by the English Boys Choir 'Libera'. When I first heard the piece I was unsure about the melody and structure, but it picked at the same part of the brain that the original score and various instrumental and orchestral arrangements do. It took some time to identify difinitively the underlying harmony, but once found it filled in the last piece of the musical jigsaw. Initially the identity of the performers and the piece itself was unknown to this listener, so some research was required. Libera have sung many variations of the piece composed/arranged by Robert Prizeman, the Musical Director of the choir. This human voice variation on the theme does I believe does highlight the strength of the simple but at the same time, complex structure and harmony of the original as dictated by the composer himself. (Dmwpeet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmwpeet (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the "in pop culture" section make a return. It's needed, I think. Also, if and when it does, someone should add in Blues Traveler's "Hook", the entire backbone of which is Pachelbel's Canon. [Wiki Entry] --Mari Adkins 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariAdkins (talk • contribs)

Although I have to admit that I did not check the talk page before adding C U When U Get There by Coolio & 40 Thevz on the Pop Version section, I cannot help but resent the removal it my edit, while the statement of Pete Waterman and the reference to I Should Be So Lucky remains. The first part referred to the usage of it in popular music, the latter referred to a song based on the canon. I felt that the mentioning of C U When U Get There was as noteworthy as the version of JerryC, as both are not 'just based' on the canon, but the actual canon being used in a distinctive genre. I do agree that removal of the extensive list with references that are hardly recognizable or detectable was valid, but I do feel that certain musical pieces which are more re-imaginations than mere adaptions or samples are worth being mentionedVossn (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there not another page dedicated to this wonderful tune's links to culture? bcoste 2014 Dec 08 Mon 2053 CST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.56.101 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of analysis[edit]

Is the analysis of a piece truly encyclopedic content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Why wouldn't it be? Hyacinth (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think there is merit to this question. I question the placement of the "analysis" of the piece. Pachebel's "Canon" is really just a descending thirds sequence (which appears quite commonly in music before and after Pachelbel's Canon.) Since this sequence is quite common, I feel like it deserves its own article so it can be properly divorced from this article. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 02:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Could someone add a redirect to the content page from 'Canon for Three Violins and Basso Continuo'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't you? Hyacinth (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing non-canonical solo adaptation[edit]

I'm going to remove the prominent link to the Canon in D (Pachelbel's Canon) (arrangement for solo piano). Not only is it confusing to link to an arrangement that is so different than what is described in the article, but it is entirely redundant with the full, accurate rendition that is also provided. It may be appropriate to provide a link to this elsewhere in the article ("See also", perhaps), but I leave that to other editors to decide. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the piano arrangement loses some of the voices in a few place. Its a bit odd to call the three synthesizer voices a full and accurate rendition though. Is there a free recording out there with three violins and a cello? Or even a real string orchestra?DavidRF (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The piano version is pleasant but not really accurate enough for an encyclopedia article. The synthesizer version is better, particularly since it has the Gigue as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Redford[edit]

Robert Redford allegedly selected it for the background in a movie he directed in the early 1980's. That appears to be what triggered its wider adoption in the 80's and beyond. But, I don't have cite-able info on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.189.214 (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canon is used as a theme in Ordinary People, although the credited composer for the film is Marvin Hamlisch.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Canon was introduced to the US circa 1968 by the Musical Heritage Society on their welcome-to-the-club LP album, the one with a cannon on the cover. If you do the digging, you'll find there were no American recordings of it before that and they used a French recording. Even in professional musical circles it was a conversation-stopper at parties at that time and it spread like wildfire. Nobody knew it and everyone asked "What IS that?" (Unlike today, when it's more like "Ugh--THAT again!") I no longer have the sources (which were given here some years ago) but I'm confident you won't find an earlier reference than that album. 99.93.9.16 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noel Goemanne's arrangement is sung by the choir in the opening scene. It was even mentioned in his obituary in 2010. His arrangement is still available from the publisher, Shawnee Press, here. Marvin Hamlisch is credited as an adaptor - not a composer - as the credits read "Music Adapted By Marvin Hamlisch." Near the end of the film's final credits is a credit for Pachelbel's Canon. It reads:
"Canon in D" By JOHANN PACHELBEL
Arranged for Mixed Voices By NOEL GOEMANNE
Additional Arrangement By JEAN-FRANCOIS PAILLARD
A string recording plays as the credits roll. I'd have to watch the film again to see if it is played elsewhere. If need be, the film itself can be cited, can it not? The credit in question hits at 2:02:39. How should the citation read?
Redford, R. (Director). (1980). Ordinary People: Paramount Pictures. Slow Graffiti (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Pachelbel's Canon → Canon in D Major (Pachelbel) – The current title appears not to fulfil WP:NCMUSIC. This is just one possible suggestion. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • The very first criterion of WP:NCMUSIC essentially re-states WP:COMMONNAME. Has the nominator determined that "Pachelbel's Canon" is not the common name in English for this piece? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No evidence current title is not WP:COMMONNAME, much less that proposed title is more commonly used. --B2C 21:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see below, where many references give a name that resembles the proposed name and not 'Pachelbel's Canon'. Indeed, we have little evidence to suggest that 'Pachelbel's Canon' is the common name of the piece (see the below comments by Jerome Kohl and me). 86.170.99.80 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator. The 'common names' appears to concern the actual name of the piece, rather than the case we have here. So 'Pachelbel's Canon' means 'Canon, composed by Pachelbel'. The name of the piece is 'Canon' (and is in D Major, so could be called 'Canon in D Major'), and the composer is Johann Pachelbel. Whilst people often say 'Beethoven's Symphony No.5', or 'Mozart's Don Giovanni', we would not say that these are the names of the pieces: they are 'Symphony No.5' and 'Don Giovanni' by Beethoven and Mozart respectively. The 'common names' mentioned would refer to something like 'Bagatelle in A Minor, WoO 59', by Beethoven, which is more often known as 'Für Elise'. I feel that this distinction is very important, and I hope I have explained it properly. I cannot immediately think of another classical music article labelled like this: certainly any such article would be an usual exception. Calling this page 'Pachelbel's Canon' is akin to naming an article 'da Vinci's Vitruvian Man': we might call it that in conversation, but that does not mean it is the name of the art form. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The nominator puts it right. The original work is called "Canon and Gigue", and this article is about the first movement. Note articles such as Symphony No. 1 (Mozart), Symphony No. 1 (Brahms), Symphony No. 1 (Haydn), and many others. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Toccata quarta put it right: no key in all these symphony names, - I would support a move to Canon (Pachelbel), - even if he wrote more than one, - this is "The Canon", readers will search for "canon" first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment by nominator. I completely support omitting the key (so a move to Canon (Pachelbel) instead of to Canon in D Major (Pachelbel) (which is why I wrote that the latter is just one possible suggestion). I just think the article should be in the form 'Piece (Composer)' or 'Piece', rather than what we have here. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Its common name is definitely Pachelbel's Canon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same logic you would arrive at Verdi's Requiem, but it is Requiem (Verdi), because the name of the piece is Requiem, Verdi is the composer, - repeating: Canon is the name, Pachelbel is the composer,
    Yes, and we use common name! Tell me what you think the common name is? How is this piece usually described? Well, that's what we call the article. Quoting another article title to justify this one is unproductive, since that title too probably needs changing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Try Requiem in the search function and see that they are all created equal, Requiem (composer). If you don't see that "Pachelbel's" is NOT part of the name, I am helpless, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    <Sigh> Yes, I know that the composer's name is not part of the title of the piece. However, the common name of this particular piece always includes the composer's name. If it is announced on the radio, for instance, it will always be "that was Pachelbel's Canon". That is its common name. Why exactly do you think musical pieces should be an exception to our WP:COMMONNAME policies? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I could sigh also. I ask you to read what Jerome Kohl wrote below, and to reflect that a radio speaker has (of course) to mention the composer also, but that doesn't make the composer part of the piece's name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is not that the announcer would say who the composer is, which they naturally would. It is that they would not say "the Canon in D Major by Pachelbel", as would be common for most pieces, but simply "Pachelbel's Canon". This is a piece of music that is so well-known in this possessive form that it is rarely described in any other way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly, I would find it more natural for an announcer to say 'Verdi's Requiem' than 'Requiem by Verdi', which sounds a little unusual to me (probably because a requiem is a type of piece, like a canon is a type of piece, rather than a name like 'Don Giovanni'). I have just looked on the websites of Classic FM and BBC Radio 3, and neither of these uses 'Pachelbel's Canon' on their respective playlists (they separate 'Canon' from the name of the composer). I would look on American radio stations, too, but I cannot say I am familiar with them at all! 86.137.44.202 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is why Requiems fall into the same situation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see a problem with the current name. If you have to change it, I'd put the key in the name (with a lower-case 'm' for 'major').DavidRF (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. While I am inclined to support the move on grounds of consistent treatment of titles (per Gerda's comments), I am wondering where this notion that the current article title is the "common name" comes from. Relatively few people use the possessive case. By far the more common usage is "The Pachelbel Canon" (in fact, a Google search produces three times as many hits for "Pachelbel Canon" as for "Pachelbel's Canon"). This fact was doubtless behind the famous mishearing as "The Paco Bell Cannon".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The possessive version is actually almost certainly the commonest version of the title. I'm not sure what search the above commenter used, but see this ngram with several variations on the theme (pun semi-intended). "Canon in D" has slightly more results than "Pachelbel's Canon", but if you subtract canons by other composers, then "Pachelbel's Canon" would certainly be the most common name. The possessive is also much more common than the non-possessive versions. All in all, the current title is well supported, and most consistent with WP's titling conventions. Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see, the 'n-gram' does not differentiate between someone writing 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the name of the piece or 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the piece 'Canon' composed by Pachelbel. I thus doubt the validity of this argument. Please see the numerous references below to record labels and radio stations that do not call the piece 'Pachelbel's Canon', and the lack of references that use 'Pachelbel's Canon'. 86.170.99.80 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I have no idea how to read this "n-gram", and I do not see anything in it for the non-possessive form, but I can tell you that I did straight Google searches putting "Pachelbel's Canon" and "Pachelbel Canon" in the " exact word or phrase" field, and obtained 1,420,000 vs. 3,180,000 hits, respectively. I submit therefore that the non-possessive form is decidedly the more common form—quite apart from my personal experience, according to which the possessive form is much rarer than these numbers indicate. Of course, this could be a regional thing. My experience is heavily weighted toward American usage.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ngrams are really pretty straightforward, and much more useful than plain Google searches. Essentially, Google took over 5 million digitized books throughout history (through 2008), and lets people perform exact phrase searches found in those books. Capitalization counts, unlike in regular Google or Google Books searches. The results show the prevalence of each word or phrase by year. I don't see how you don't see any results for the non-possessive form, unless it's not displaying correctly. (For me, "Canon in D" is a purple line, "Pachelbel's Canon" is red, "Pachelbel Canon" is blue, etc.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it now. According to the ngram, it appears that I may just be out of date, since frequency of "Pachelbel" vs. "Pachelbel's" is neck-and-neck until 1984 (which is very nearly the last time I heard the Canon, except of course for that nagging earworm that won't give me any peace). Still, my memory of how it is referred to by (for example) radio announcers is almost exclusively without the possessive, except in the phrases "Pachelbel's Canon and Gigue" or "Johann Pachelbel's Canon in D major". Maybe it's just my fossilized brain.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my above note concerning 'n-grams': can we be sure that it differentiates between someone writing 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the name of the piece or 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the piece 'Canon' composed by Pachelbel? I very much doubt so. 86.170.99.80 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Listen, "opposers"; please have a look at my point regarding articles about symphonies. Even when there is no need for disambiguation, we have "Sorabji's Opus clavicembalisticum", "Stockhausen's Zyklus", and so on. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It would be absurd to claim that the piece is ‘Pachelbel’s Canon’: as said by others above, it is ‘Canon’ or ‘Canon in D major’ by someone called Pachelbel. Regarding what is commonly said, of course it is common to say ‘Pachelbel’s Canon’! It is customary to give the composer's name along with a piece, which can be done by saying ‘Pachelbel’s Canon’ or ‘Canon by Pachelbel’ or some other alternative. This does not make ‘Pachelbel’s Canon’ the name of the piece, of course. I have quickly found recordings of the piece from various reliable record labels, and links to these are provided below; no recording has ‘Pachelbel’s Canon’ as its title.
  • It is apparent that other Wikipedia articles are invariably named this way, too. As the nominator and Toccataquarta mentioned, the most common name for another piece is 'Beethoven's Fifth Symphony' or 'Beethoven's Symphony No. 5', yet the Wikipedia article is certainly not this. Note that what people say is not the name of the piece: they say the name of the piece alongside the composer's name. Do the above opposers suggest that all Wikipedia articles are changed to the format we sadly have here? 86.137.44.202 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the only famous piece called canon and its the only famous piece by Pachelbel. Because of this, we have the freedom not to be real strict with the disambiguating parentheses and give the layperson a more readable title.DavidRF (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument makes no sense. "Only famous piece" has nothing to do with the title of a page. (Also, see WP:N and WP:BIG.) Toccata quarta (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of making no sense. You point me to arguments made when people are trying to *delete* the page. Lets be clear here. Nobody wants to delete the page. What I mean is that is a singular composition, uniquely famous for its type. There's no pattern to worry about, nobody thinks this article is going to set any precedent of any kind. Its mainly non-classical readers that visit this page. I don't see why it has to fit to the strict rules of symphonies, sonatas, quartets, etc. Its not really even worth all of this discussion.DavidRF (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    People will still find it, after a move to a title that follows regular formatting, by several redirects which show in the search function, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was undecided, but I think the comparison with Verdi's Requiem and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony makes a convincing case for the move. (That being said, since a redirection will obviously be in place, I don't think it's worth getting upset one way or another.) --Gro-Tsen (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Others have made comparisons to Verdi's Requiem and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, but there are other precedents for keeping the title as is. See Brahms's Lullaby - not "Wiegenlied (Brahms)" or "Cradle Song (Brahms)" or anything like that. This is a similar case, where the composer's name is so often used in connection with the piece that it essentially becomes part of the name. There are very few cases where this happens, but when it does, WP policy recommends using that commonly used name for the title. Dohn joe (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:OSE. According to your logic, Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) should be moved to "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony". Toccata quarta (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop linking to irrelevant essays. This is not a notability issue. Using another article title as an example is not WP:OTHERSTUFF; it's how we achieve consistency throughout WP on titling decisions. And my argument has nothing to do with "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony". If that were the most prevalent way that reliable sources referred to that piece, then yes, we probably should use it. But it's not. This piece, on the other hand, is most often called "Pachelbel's Canon" by reliable sources (see the ngram I posted above). Thus, the analogy to Brahms's Lullaby is perfectly valid. Dohn joe (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very relevant, but whatever suits you. WP:N and WP:BIG establish that "fame" has nothing to do with editorial decisions made on Wikipedia. Yes, it has to do "Beethoven's Ninth" (this is more common than "Symphony No. 9", incidentally); a title is title. Maybe some titles are more special than others? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not relevant, because no one is disputing the fame or notability of the piece. What we're trying to do is decide the title of the article that best fits WP's titling policies. Please see WP:AT. Dohn joe (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    -
    WP:OSE is not relevant, unless you're prepared to argue that Brahms's Lullaby should be moved. Otherwise, it's a valid and relevant precedent we should follow here (and that's what the current title does). --B2C 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good analogy. There's only one popular piece named "Lullaby" as well. Nobody cares if that one follows a strict pattern either because nobody is going to look to it as a precedent for anything. The whole symphony analogy is completely false (doesn't matter how many times you repeat the false analogy, its still false) Hundreds if not thousands of composers wrote symphonies and most of those composers wrote multiple symphonies that are only referred to by their numbers. If the hardcore pedants want to argue vehemently for days about how the articles for singular pieces like Pachelbel's Canon or Brahms' Lullaby need to be renamed to fit these rigid patterns set by these other more ubiquitous forms... all I have to say is why this such a big deal? The votes for moving the page aren't there. Drop it and move on to something more interesting and constructive!DavidRF (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And while we're about it, no one seems to have noticed that the formal title (as found in library catalogs), Canon and Gigue in D major, doesn't even have a redirect to the article (unless you know you have to type an ampersand instead of the conjunction).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nobody cares" and "The votes for moving the page aren't there", DavidRF? It's great to know that [2], [3], User:Gerda Arendt, User:Gro-Tsen, User:Jerome Kohl and me are "nobody". Shame on you for resorting to such blatant falsehoods, as well as the personal attack "hardcore pedants". Toccata quarta (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response to DavidRF, Toccata quarta. It is unfortunate to see a Wikipedia editor that dismisses something as not 'a big deal' or something about which 'nobody cares'. Have you seen my comment further down the discussion about moving the page to 'Canon (Pachelbel)' instead? My Wikipedia knowledge would be far too insufficient to nominate this properly. The title conforms to the naming conventions, it is consistent with what the piece is called in recordings, it is consistent with other Wikipedia articles, and it is undeniably familiar as a common name to anyone who prefers ‘Pachelbel’s canon’. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DavidRF wrote earlier, 'we have the freedom to ... give the layperson a more readable title'. Does he think that 'Canon (Pachelbel)' can be confusing to the 'layperson'? 86.137.44.202 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's safe to say the piece is more naturally called "Pachelbel's Canon" than "Canon" or "Canon (Pachelbel)"; but it's certainly much more natural than the proposed title. --B2C 17:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    86.137.44.202, I should have been clear from the outset; I'm in favour of "Canon (Pachelbel)". Toccata quarta (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it ever called simply Canon? Never in my hearing, but I'd like more information. It should only be called Canon (Pachelbel) if it could be called simply Canon but for the need to disambiguate; That's our convention. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It could simply be called 'Canon' (indeed, that is the name of this part of the piece), but it is usual to name the composer along with a piece (as with any other piece of classical music). Because this can be done by saying 'Pachelbel's Canon', some people are led to consider 'Pachelbel's Canon' to be the actual name of the piece. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't make the point clear. What I getting at was: Could this Wikipedia article be called Canon, but for the need to disambiguate? I don't think it could be. Many people who would instantly know what you mean by Pachelbel's Canon would not recognise Canon as even being a specific piece of music, let alone know which one. So Canon unqualified fails the recognisability test of WP:AT. So far as the actual name of the piece goes, this seems to be an appeal to its official name, albeit an unusual one. As such, not all that relevant. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am considering this from WP:NCMUSIC: 'If the name of the piece is shared by another piece or pieces, include the composer's surname in parentheses following the name of the piece.' This is why it appears suitable to name the article 'Canon (Pachelbel)' or 'Canon in D major (Pachelbel)'. Adding Pachelbel in brackets additionally makes it undeniably familiar to anyone who uses 'Pachelbel's Canon' exclusively. 86.170.99.80 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move It's Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven), not Beethoven's Fifth. It's not a "common name" in the Wikipedia sense, it's a casual way of referring to a work and its creator. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, leave as is. Pachelbel's Canon is the overwhelmingly common name for this piece. It's a bit like we call Queen Victoria that despite there being a naming convention that says otherwise. If the rules don't allow this exception then the rules are wrong. Beethoven's Fifth is not a good parallel. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any references that agree that 'Pachelbel's Canon' is the 'overwhelmingly common name for this piece'. I have already provided links to many CDs and radio stations that suggest otherwise. Not much has been provided to the contrary. 86.170.99.80 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also my alternative proposal below. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have said that the name "Canon in D" is almost as well known as the name of its composer, but I could be very wrong. I do think that Beethoven's Fifth is a good parallel, since that is overwhelmingly how the symphony is going to be picked out. You can't just say "Symphony No. 5". You have to specify the composer, and "Beethoven's Fifth" is the easiest way. It is no more informal than "Pachelbel's Canon" is, and no more wrong. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I posted this comment in a discussion further down the page (concerning italics, which is ultimately related to the article name). Since it is in a different section, I am posting it here because I think it is very relevant:
Do you have any more reliable sources that give 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the name of the piece? Previously in the discussion, I quickly researched this and found that all major record companies that came to my mind along with both classical radio stations from the U.K. do not call the piece 'Pachelbel's Canon'. The four links given by Dohn joe above are clearly not of a similar reputation. If you scroll down the given page in the first link to the foreword, you will see this sentence: 'Pachelbel's Canon is adapted from Johann Pachelbel's immortal masterwork, Canon in D, and may...'. In other words, the publisher is calling their arrangement 'Pachelbel's Canon' after the original piece, 'Canon in D' by Pachelbel! There is a similar case in the second link: if you scroll up to page 29 of the book, you will see that they have called their arrangement 'Amazing Grace/Pachelbel's Canon', and to the bottom-right of this it says it is based on 'Canon in D by Johann Pachelbel (1653-1706)'. I can see no mention to Pachelbel on the third link. The only mention I can see to Pachelbel in the fourth link is to a name of a section that has absolutely nothing to do with Pachelbel. Many people here are insisting that ‘Pachelbel’s Canon is the popular name’, but I am still not convinced that many reputable sources call it this: the evidence above suggests the contrary, in fact.86.137.44.202 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move for consistency etc. I don't think it's justifiable to call 'Pachelbel's Canon' a common name. It's just a way of referring to the music. Kleinzach 15:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Strikeout in view of Smerus's new proposal. --Kleinzach 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is not a question of common name. "Pachelbel's Canon" is just a common way of referring, but nobody supposes it is a name any more than "Beethoven's Fifth" is. Srnec (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think the "m" in "major" should be lower case. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you play this piece to people who are familiar with it, and ask, what is this music called?, they will overwhelmingly reply, "Pachelbel's Canon". In other words, that is its name. --B2C 20:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as has already been pointed out several times, exactly the same applies to "Beethoven's Fifth" and "The Fauré Requiem". It is both normal and necessary whenever there are multiple works in the same form to add the composer's name for differentiation. In ordinary speech, we use the possessive form preceding the generic title, but in Wikipedia articles, the composer's name is placed after the genre title enclosed in round brackets. It has already been pointed out several times that, despite verbal practice, it is much rarer to use this form in writing. User:Andrewa has pointed to the helpful summary article Wikipedia:Official names, which I think may be more relevant than he believes to be the case. In the present instance, however, things are complicated by the fact that "The Canon" is only a part of the composition as Pachelbel wrote it. This may actually be the strongest justification for keeping the title as it is. However, parallels might also be drawn to similar excerpted passages such as Beethoven's "Ode to Joy", Bach's "Sheep May Safely Graze", or Bach's Chaconne.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" It has already been pointed out several times that, despite verbal practice, it is much rarer to use this form in writing." In reliable secondary sources? It may be true that in formal musical sources written by and for experts, they use a more formal name, but I don't think it has been shown that in general sources (non-music books, newspapers, and magazines) that anything other than "Pachebel's Canon" is used most often. And it's those kinds of sources that determine what is natural and recognizable, not what experts use. --B2C 04:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I see what you mean. 86.137.44.202 cited "the websites of Classic FM and BBC Radio 3", and record-label links for Apex, Chandos, Deutsche Grammophon, EMI, Hyperion, Naxos, Philips, RCA, and Sony. These are obviously all sources used by and created for "experts", aren't they?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are sources written by and for experts, specialists, aficionados, and the like, rather than for people in the public in general who are familiar with the topic, like the NY Times, Time Magazine[4], references in current books of fiction, noted blogs[5], etc. The latter is presumed to be our audience. --B2C 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about all of the "etc"s to which you refer, but the two items you actually link to confirm the opposite of what you are claiming. The first one refers to Pachelbel's Canon in D, the second is merely a headline, with a non-titular reference to Pachelbel's Canon (note the inverted commas surrounding 'Rockelbel's Canon', indicating this is a title, and the lack of same around the reference to Pachelbel's composition). This is exactly the same as referring to Franck's Symphony in D Minor, or Fauré's Requiem. Why do you think these are examples of titles instead?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Classic FM and BBC Radio 3 being described as radio stations exclusively for 'experts, specialists, aficionados and the like'. According to http://www.mediauk.com/radio/55/classic-fm/listening-figures and http://www.mediauk.com/radio/311/bbc-radio-3/listening-figures , for September 2012 to December 2012, the two radio stations were listened to by 5,370,000 and 2,061,000 each week. That is a considerable proportion of the population. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to clarify that I agree with you entirely on this point. My response above does not adequately convey the sarcasm that was intended.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification, but I understood your sarcasm. My comment was aimed at B2C, who subsequently appeared to suggest they are indeed for 'experts'. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad I was not misunderstood. All sarcasm set aside, I must wonder what criteria B2C intends should be used here. If commercial recordings and radio stations are excluded as being "too expert", I can only imagine that (in B2C's opinion) legitimate sources for determining best usage in this case must be restricted to people who never willingly listen to "classical" music at all. Somehow, I cannot bring myself to believe that this is what is meant to be implied by WP:COMMONNAME. If it is, then perhaps the article really should be renamed "Paco Bell's Cannon" (oops—sarcasm slipped in again by the back door, sorry).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ngrams, unquestionably the common name. SnowFire (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a comment above concerning ngrams: 'from what I can see, the 'n-gram' does not differentiate between someone writing 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the name of the piece or 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the piece 'Canon' composed by Pachelbel'. This raises innumerable concerns of the validity of this argument. So far, the sources given suggest that 'Pachelbel's Canon' is not the most common name: perhaps someone could provide references of a similar standard that suggest otherwise. 86.170.99.80 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds of my comments in the (presently) last section of this page ('Just a minute'), which proposes a 'least-worst' case solution.--Smerus (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case of any confusion, I was the editor with the (former) IP address 86.137.44.202 (I prefer to edit Wikipedia anonymously). 86.170.99.80 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME can override more specific conventions, and I think that's appropriate here. I'm familiar with very few pieces of classical music, but "Pachelbel's Canon" is one of them. I could read a title like "Canon in D Major (Pachelbel)" and assume it was the same piece, but it wouldn't be as recognizable. I suspect many readers unfamiliar with classical music would see things the same way, so I don't see a benefit to renaming here. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lots of sources call it "Pachelbel's canon". As far as I can tell, no source calls it "Canon in D Major (Pachelbel)", and it's an implausible search term. If part of WP:NCMUSIC requires us to make up new names which are not used in the real world, that part of the guideline needs to be fixed. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I wish you could luck getting hundreds, if not thousands of articles (not just about music) renamed. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

I note that NY Times often refers to this work as "Pachelbel's Canon"[6]. "Canon in D Major" is also used, but less commonly[7]. The current title clearly meets our WP:CRITERIA better in terms of recognizability and naturalness, which I consider the most important. Both titles are precise and concise... so no clear winner there. The argument can be made that the proposed title is more consistent with other uses, but I don't think that trumps the recognizability and naturalness considerations. --B2C 19:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some objection to addressing my arguments? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Did not notice them before. Disclaimer: I'm not a musicial expert by any stretch. Your initial !vote comment refers to four pieces - none of which have commonly used names comparable to this one, AFAIK. If this topic was not commonly referred to as "Pachelbel's Canon", there would be no opposition.

That said, I wouldn't oppose Canon (Pachelbel), as that is about as recognizable and natural as the current title. That title is akin to Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) (as opposed to Beethoven's 5th), but the proposed title is not. --B2C 20:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we could change the suggested title to 'Canon (Pachelbel)', rather than what is suggested here? It appears that this might create more of a compromise: it is very clear what is meant to the ordinary person, whilst it is still consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Other than the above example by Brahms, I doubt that many articles exist in this form. I would probably suggest changing the Brahms too, but that is another discussion altogether. I have quickly searched on the BBC website and Radio 3 (their classical radio station) does not use 'Pachelbel's canon'. Desert Island Discs does not, either. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested in assessing consensus support for an alternative title can start a subsection proposing that and ask everyone who has participated here so far (on each of their respective user talk pages) to weigh in. Whoever closes this discussion will take that under consideration. I slightly favor the current title so I'm not the one to do it. --B2C 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my alternate proposal below. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wider issue[edit]

I think this is part of a larger pattern of change in Wikipedia. We're becoming more academic, less common-touch. Whether or not that's a good thing I can argue both ways, I just think it's something we should keep an eye on. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia should be precise. Fortunately we have redirects, unlike a print work, so we can cover popular names as well as more formal ones. --Kleinzach 15:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of expanding the article to Canon and Gigue (Pachelbel), making the present title a redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with this suggestion, but I am not sure others would be happy with the inclusion of 'Gigue' (because many people would not know about such a gigue). What I have been thinking about (but am waiting until the name of the article is decided) is a rewrite of the beginning of the introduction to the article. What we have currently suggests that the 'Canon' and 'Canon and Gigue' are merely alternative names. I think it would be nice to emphasise that we have a pair of pieces, with the first being very famous. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very relevant comment... the whole point I'm making is that it's now common to have statements such as An encyclopedia should be precise supporting use of some sort of official name rather than a common name, and I think it's becoming gradually more common. What the authorities regard as correct would once have been considered irrelevant, completely overshadowed by what the average reader recognises. Now that we've added the seemingly harmless phrase in reliable sources to WP:AT, this has changed somewhat, and I think it's part of a larger trend. And not necessarily a bad one, it has both pros and cons. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal - Canon in D major[edit]

If we must move this article, it should be to something recognisable, per WP:AT. Canon in D major (which has always redirected to this article) seems a good choice to me. It's what the first CD that came to hand

http://www.discogs.com/Pachelbel-Handel-Telemann-Bach-Vivaldi-Pachelbel-Canon-Baroque-Favorites/release/2378393

calls it, and it or something similar has been suggested by others above. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Canon in D major is fine with me. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canon in D major is far less recognizable and natural than Pachelbel's Canon. --B2C 19:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too am in favor of "Pachelbel's Canon," but the current move request suggests "Canon in D Major (Pachelbel)" when Canon in D Major already redirects to this article. No need for the pointless disambiguation if the article is in fact moved. SnowFire (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove[edit]

A good way to settle this dispute is to look into The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. I did that a few days ago, and found out that the catalogue of compositions by Pachelbel in it makes no mention of a work called "Pachelbel's Canon" or "Canon", but it does list an item called "Canon and Gigue". As The Grove is the world's pre-eminent music encyclopedia, I think this is pretty conclusive. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to Grove at the moment. In what context does Grove refer to this music? As part of a biography? In text, or as part of a list? --Kleinzach 10:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As part of a list of compositions, although it also contains (in the main body of the article on him) a bit about both the canon and the gigue. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing that it is also like this in The Grove, I proposed above Canon and Gigue (Pachelbel). However, we don't go by The Grove (Der fliegende Holländer), we go by "consensus" (The Flying Dutchman (opera)), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a translation, so the analogy doesn't really apply. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For information, this is what Grove says in the article on the composer:

. The three-part canon over a bass is one of Pachelbel’s most admired works. In it he combined two of the strictest contrapuntal techniques in a fine display of technical mastery: the bass, a two-bar ostinato, is the foundation of 28 variations, while above this the three violins proceed in two-bar sections in a relentless canon. From a technical point of view, his music for strings makes no virtuoso demands and never exceeds the third position.

. But for a solution, instead of uselessly shilly-shallying around, please see my comments below. (Just a minute).--Smerus (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Italics[edit]

Toccata quarta made this edit, removing the italics from "Pachelbel's" while keeping them for "Canon" in the lead. I reverted, with the edit summary "italics were fine as they were; many sources use "Pachelbel's Canon" as the name of the piece". TQ then undid my edit, with the summary "Very funny, but see for instance http://books.google.com/books/about/Sanctus.html?id=gdxLYgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y.". Per WP:BRD, I reverted to the status quo; now, let's discuss. The question is whether we should use "Pachelbel's Canon" or "Pachelbel's Canon". I don't know why TQ thought I was making a joke - I can show dozens of cases where reliable sources - recordings, articles, books - use "Pachelbel's Canon" as the title, not just as a description. For example, see here, here, here, and here. Of course there are plenty of examples showing the other usage as well, but my research tells me that there are more that support the current (fully italicized) version. And since this is a BRD situation, it's up to the person wanting to make the change to make their case and persuade people. Dohn joe (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your third "here" link has nothing to do with this piece (at least on my browser). Second, the piece that Pachelbel wrote is called "Canon and Gigue". Your other links do not prove your case. Do you believe that the sentence "Yesterday I read Flaubert's Madame Bovary." uses italics correctly? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing should be clarified from the outset: "canon" and "gigue", as separate terms, are "generic titles". According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Classical music titles (and indeed also according to the Chicago Manual of Style and D. Kern Holoman's Writing about Music: A Style Sheet), generic titles are not italicized. An argument could be made that, when combined as they are in the (if you will pardon the expression) canonic title of Pachelbel's work, this no longer constitutes a generic but rather a "true title". However, this is beside the point since this article is not about Pachelbel's complete composition, but only about one of its movements. Now, to quote from the above-referenced WP:MoS, "Generic movement titles (such as tempo markings or terms like minuet and trio) are capitalized with a single initial capital—that is, only the first word is capitalized—and are not italicized". Under this principle, Toccata Quarta should not have left the italics on the word "Canon" when removing the italics from the composer's name. However, if there is a musical work titled "Pachelbel's Canon" (as the consensus seems to be that there is), then it is not a generic title, but a true title, and so should be italicized. The choice therefore should be between italicizing the whole shebang, or not italicizing anything.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Canon" is so common in music it is very ambiguous, that's why this particular one is often titled Pachelbel's Canon.

Flaubert's Madame Bovary is not analogous because "Madame Bovary" is unique, and the work itself is not commonly referred to as "Flaubert's Madame Bovary".

The issue here is whether "Pachelbel's Canon" is a common name of this piece. I think usage in reliable sources confirms that it is, so the whole thing should be Italicized. --B2C 20:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any more reliable sources that give 'Pachelbel's Canon' as the name of the piece? Previously in the discussion, I quickly researched this and found that all major record companies that came to my mind along with both classical radio stations from the U.K. do not call the piece 'Pachelbel's Canon'. The four links given by Dohn joe above are clearly not of a similar reputation. If you scroll down the given page in the first link to the foreword, you will see this sentence: 'Pachelbel's Canon is adapted from Johann Pachelbel's immortal masterwork, Canon in D, and may...'. In other words, the publisher is calling their arrangement 'Pachelbel's Canon' after the original piece, 'Canon in D' by Pachelbel! There is a similar case in the second link: if you scroll up to page 29 of the book, you will see that they have called their arrangement 'Amazing Grace/Pachelbel's Canon', and to the bottom-right of this it says it is based on 'Canon in D by Johann Pachelbel (1653-1706)'. I can see no mention to Pachelbel on the third link. The only mention I can see to Pachelbel in the fourth link is to a name of a section that has absolutely nothing to do with Pachelbel. Many people here are insisting that ‘Pachelbel’s Canon is the popular name’, but I am still not convinced that many reputable sources call it this: the evidence above suggests the contrary, in fact. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed that you are actually willing to use such an argument with regard to Flaubert's famous novel. Maybe you will find the following list more convincing:
Toccata quarta (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the other "Canon" articles which the "(Pachelbel)" tag will be disambiguating? There's only one famous work called "Canon", there's only one famous work by Pachelbel, there's no pattern to match or precedent to worry about! I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Has someone nominated this for WP:LAME yet?DavidRF (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LAME states that talk page discussions are not edit wars; you could have kept that snide remark out of this discussion. As for disambiguation, see Canon (music), Canon (manga) and Canon (priest). Toccata quarta (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(For what it's worth, the folks at IMSLP got it right. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

To be fair, IMSLP doesn't use common name, they use as official as possible. And every page has the composer name next to the title, no matter how unique it is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this discussion is about the name of the piece. Moreover, Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute/new proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rsther than get diverted by italics (at this stage) may I make a modest proposal as regards the renaming. It is true that this piece was not named by the composer (or by anybody before the late 20th century apparently), 'Pachelbel's Canon'. However it also seems true that that is the title by which it is overwhelmingly known today. So that Wikipedia can retain encyclopaedic status in this matter, I therefore suggest:

1) The opening sentence of the article is rewritten as follows:

Popularly known as Pachelbel’s canon, the canon by the German Baroque composer, Johann Pachelbel, taken from his Canon and Gigue for 3 violins and basso continuo (German: Kanon und Gigue für 3 Violinen mit Generalbaß) (PWC 37, T. 337, PC 358), is his most famous composition.

2) The title stays as it is (with or without italics, I suggest in this case without, as reflecting common usage).

3) All the other proposed titles are either established as, or remain, redirects.

I optimistically believe that this proposal may give satisfaction to both sides.--Smerus (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Given the difficulty of naming a work taken from another one, which was not named by its composer, this looks like a good solution to me. Kleinzach 10:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I wrote above that the opening sentence of the article needs to be changed (it currently suggests that 'Canon' is an alternative name for 'Canon and Gigue', instead of emphasising that it is part of the Canon and Gigue), so I am happy to see this addressed here. Personally, I would rather give its formal name first, but I would be willing to accept what we have here as a compromise. Also, I would prefer 'Often known as...' instead of 'Popularly known as...' (just to emphasise that many popular sources do not call it 'Pachelbel's Canon'), but I am again happy to use what we have here as a compromise. My problem is that the title will remain 'Pachelbel's Canon': I am not convinced that this 'is the title by which it is overwhelmingly known today'. Above, I have provided links to many major record labels and U.K. record stations, and none of these uses 'Pachelbel's Canon': they use a more formal title. B2C has posted some links to sources that use 'Pachelbel's Canon', but, as discussed by Jerome Kohl and me, these are hardly meaningful, especially compared to the sources we have that suggest not calling the piece 'Pachelbel's Canon' (Jerome Kohl wrote, '...the two items you actually link to confirm the opposite of what you are claiming ... the first one refers to Pachelbel's Canon in D, the second is merely a headline, with a non-titular reference to Pachelbel's Canon (note the inverted commas surrounding 'Rockelbel's Canon', indicating this is a title, and the lack of same around the reference to Pachelbel's composition)...'; I posted a similar rebuttal to other links). In short, because the current evidence appears not to suggest that 'Pachelbel's Canon' is the title by which the piece is overwhelmingly known today, I would suggest that the title of the article is called 'Canon (Pachelbel)' or 'Canon in D major (Pachelbel)' (or something similar), and, as a compromise, we begin the article with the text given in 1); that is, using 'Pachelbel's canon' before we give the formal name. 86.137.44.202 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And I suggest that it be implemented immediately because it is accurate given the current title. IP's suggestion to use "often" instead of "popular" is fine. --B2C 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • B2C, may you respond to the comments made by Jerome Kohl and me above? You asserted that 'Pachelbel's Canon' is the most common name using questionable sources that indeed appear to suggest the opposite, and that record companies and radio stations are 'written by and for experts, specialists, aficionados, and the like', even though listener figures clearly suggest otherwise. I am reluctant to accept the assertion that 'Pachelbel's Canon' is the name of this piece when this conflicts with the material considered thus far. 86.137.41.84 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether it's actually the name is less important than the fact that no alternative has been proposed that would be more widely recognized by people familiar with this piece as referring to it, than the current title. More to the point, you're again talking about moving the article - this section is about the wording of the lead. --B2C 20:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you have no evidence for this: record labels, radio stations and the articles given above do not refer to the piece as 'Pachelbel's Canon', and I very much doubt that all of these sources create confusion for the reader. Indeed, I would be rather surprised if someone who, for some reason, only knew the name as 'Pachelbel's Canon', would suddenly become confused by seeing something like 'Canon (Pachebel)'. This section consists of three parts, and only the first concerns the lead. This is why I oppose this overall proposal, even though I agree that the current lead needs to be changed. 86.137.41.84 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as there seems to be consensus on changing the lead on the lines I suggested, I have now effected this. As far as I am concerned the article title can now stay as it is. I cannot see that the argument about it generates a fraction of light compared to its heat. Editors may of course want to add redirects based on the various alternative titles proposed.--Smerus (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Baroque pop versions[edit]

Is there special significance to these that gives them more importance than the screenfuls of pop culture references that were all removed a few years ago? I'm inclined to remove it as trivia, otherwise the countless movie, tv and song references will creep back.DavidRF (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only excuse I can think of is the particular nature of this sub-sub-genre. If, for example, "baroque pop" could be shown either to have been spawned by the popularity of Paillard's recording (and the wild success of this recording, by the way, is not even asserted in the article as it stands) or, on the contrary, if it was the pop-baroque fad that resulted in the rise of Pachelbel's composition from obscurity, I think you would agree that it is an important part of the reception history of the Canon. Otherwise, I would support your reasoning and encourage deletion of this section.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman numeral"?[edit]

I can see that the column labeled "Roman numeral" contains... um... Roman numerals. Can we make a more descriptive column header, perhaps even wikilinked, please, so that a naive reader might be able to interpret the significance of said numeral? Thanks! -- ke4roh (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've already wikilinked it, which is useful. But I'm not sure what else to call that column, given that "chord" and "scale degree" are already used as terms in other columns. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Chord roots" might be better (this is, after all, what the Roman numerals indicate), and the present link to the "Roman numeral analysis" article could be retained, since the article "Root (chord)" doesn't explain the use of Roman numerals. It is difficult for the experienced musician to see what is wrong with the present label but, once the question is asked, it becomes obvious how ludicrous it is—the equivalent of heading the middle column with "words". Thanks, Ke4roh, for pointing out what should have been obvious but wasn't.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of analysis[edit]

The 28 instances of the two-bar bass theme do not split into an unaccompanied statement followed by 12 variations of 4 bars. That only explains 50 of the 56 bars.

When one compares the actual score to the classification, it can be seen that the 6 missing bars are 35—38 (which come between the given Variations 8 and 9) and 51—52 (which come between the given Variations 11 and 12).

I have not seen Kathryn Welter's thesis, from which the analysis is said to have been taken, and can therefore not check whether the error is the fault of the original author (which is a priori unlikely for a presumably well-examined Harvard thesis) or of the writer of the page.

I have edited the main page to reflect the true state of affairs, involving a guess at how bars 35—38 would be described in the same style as the others. Doing so is not good Wikipedia practice, but I hope that someone that does have access to Welter's work can re-correct what I wrote.

41.13.196.254 (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC) DPL[reply]

You are quite correct about Wikipedia practice: we are not permitted to publish our original research here. Analysis is a funny business. Different people can come to radically different conclusions, and be completely unable to understand how anyone could possibly disagree with them. I have access to Welter's dissertation, and have corrected your edit in order to conform with what Welter actually says. You will see that she considers two of your variations to be actually a single one, and treats the closing bars as a final variation rather than a free coda. I would not say that I find her views superior to your own, but to attribute an analysis to her that differs in significant details from what she actually wrote is not permissible on Wikipedia. I might add that your faith in the Harvard graduate faculty is touching, but I think misplaced. I suggest maintaining a healthy skepticism whenever dealing with dissertations—or even articles published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Blindly relying on such "reliable sources" as founts of truth and wisdom may be a reckless policy for Wikipedia, but it is certainly better than opening up articles to every personal opinion and malicious vandalism.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was hoping for. Would it stretch matters too far though to replace "each four bars long" by "mostly four bars long"? — 41.13.196.254 (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC) DPL[reply]
Excellent point, and certainly it would not be going too far to make this adjustment to the text. Technically, Welter does not give those bar numbers, though they can easily be determined from her descriptions of the textures of the variations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frog galliard[edit]

The tune, bass and chord progression of Pachelbel's Canon are very similar to those of the 'Frog' Galliard (late 16th century) by John Dowland, also used for his lute song 'Now, O now I needs must part' - indeed the first few notes & chords of both are identical. Perhaps Pachelbel derived his canon from it. Does anyone have a source that discusses this? Ben Finn (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the harmonic arrangement (bass and chord progression), at least, is also similar to a number of so-called "Italian tenors" of the 16th-century, which in turn may underlie Dowland's composition. I would imagine that, if a reliable source linking Dowland to Pachelbel could be found, it would not fail to mention these harmonic grounds, as well. As for the "tune" of Pachelbel's Canon, what exactly do you mean? It has got a lot of "tunes" in it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of Pachalbel's Canon in Popular Music[edit]

This 'story' is complete rubbish. [| Blue Moon] is an example of a song based on this chord progression and it was published in 1934, long before the canon was 'rediscovered'. It was later recorded by Elvis Presley and many others. Examples of songs using the progression are legion before the 1980s, including Elton John's Crocodile Rock published in 1972. Another is Stand by Me and Wikipedia even has another article about the 50s progression. Even in the seventies it was widely claimed that more popular songs had been written with this progression than any other. I'm, afraid the 'Pachalbel' connection is a retcon and little more than an urban myth, perpetuated by the Pachelbel Rant. 92.25.135.46 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Moon chord sequence is similar but not identical.[8] I - vi - ii - V is not what the Canon has.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "50s progression" is fairly different from the Pachelbel's Canon progression... I've never heard of anyone comparing the two until now. You'd be on firmer ground with "When a Man Loves a Woman", which is quite a bit more similar, though still not identical. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 50s progression does not have iii (mediant minor) in it at all, and this is an obvious difference with the ground bass of the Canon. Also, the Canon has eight notes in the bass line compared to only four in the Blue Moon/50s progression. Blue Moon/50s is considerably simpler than the Canon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Canon[edit]

As far as I know, there has been only one vocal version of Pachelbel's Canon, and that is the Christmas Canon by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra from 1998 - notable in its right due to its massive popularity in digital downloads. Surely it merits mentioning this song in the article? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in 2007, along with several dozen other examples. The overburdened version of the article can be found by following the link at the top of this Talk page, or here. You will see that the TSO's version is not the only vocal one listed there. What has changed in the meantime, and why is this one among many "massively popular" versions so much more notable that it should be mentioned, to the exclusion of all the others?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - it's not the only vocal version. Anyway, I'm not going to comment on all the others, because I think any example listed should stand on its own merits. In the case of Christmas Canon, it's an alternate version of the piece, which achieved renown on its own. I think the relevance is obvious. It would be strange not to mention it - like if the article on Beethoven's Fifth didn't mention A Fifth of Beethoven. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, then, you think that all of the similar items that were removed in 2007 should be restored now, since they are all relevant, and may all stand on their own merits. Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?—Jerome Kohl (talk)
I'm reluctant to do anything with could start a "me too" list. This is what led to the old list reaching unmanageable proportions. Although Christmas Canon is popular at this time of year, it isn't worth mentioning here as it is not a key part of the Canon's history. There are many similar arrangements and adaptations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome - no, I'm saying each item should be judged on its own merits. Ian - there may be many similar adaptations, but none of the others have achieved this level of notability, as far as I know. I appreciate your efforts to fight cruft, but this is not cruft. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Pop Tops " Oh Lord why Lord"[edit]

Re this edit: the song is on YouTube here and it is undoubtedly based on the Canon. Pop-Tops have their own article. It is hard to say if this was the first pop song based on the Canon, but in 1968 it is some years before other pop groups had the same idea.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works based on Pachelbel's Canon[edit]

Category:Works based on Pachelbel's Canon has been deleted per the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30#Category:Works_based_on_Pachelbel's_Canon.

To assist anyone who wants to create a list of these works, I made a list of the pages which were in the category immediately before its deletion, at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30#Popular_songs_based_on_classical_works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be reliably sourced. While some works undoubtedly have the same chord sequence as the Canon, vague similarities and unsourced examples would run into problems with WP:POPCULTURE. See also the mammoth list that was removed in 2007. A lot of it had these problems, and they should not be repeated in a new list.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianmacm: you're right about the need for reliable sources. That's why I didn't just dump the category listing straight into a mainspace list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should be so lucky based on the Cannon??[edit]

Really?? There's not a single resemblance between them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The chords in the chorus of "I Should Be So Lucky" are F-G-E minor-A minor (subdominant-dominant-mediant-submediant in C major) which are Canon-ish rather than an exact copy.[9] But numerous sources say that it is inspired by the Canon.[10]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hook by Blues Traveler[edit]

I disagree with the deliberate removal of the song "Hook" by Blues Traveler from this article. The song resembles Canon in D far more than some of the others mentioned, like Green Day, because it actually has the same tune not just the same approximate chord sequence. More opinion on this as per this article: https://sixstringtings.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/why-hook-by-blues-traveler-is-actually-genius/ --Mezaco (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I watched this on YouTube and sure enough it does quote the chord sequence and sound similar. Unfortunately we would be here all night if we quoted all of the pop songs that do this. The article is currently missing any mention of Rob Paravonian's Pachelbel Rant which is a parody of the adaptations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on popular music[edit]

These popular songs both use the same melody and could also be included in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualized "Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating in Space (I Can't Help Falling in Love)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can%27t_Help_Falling_in_Love --Chickencafe (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memories[edit]

Since "Memories" by Maroon 5 keeps getting added, I had a look at the official video on YouTube. It is in B major and uses the exact eight chord sequence from the Canon. The problem is that is being added with out reliable secondary sources (there is sourcing here) and the article is not an exhaustive list of Canon-like songs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: there is no problem with saying that "Memories" is based on all eight chords of the Canon, because this is sourced here and can be verified by watching the video. The real problem is whether it is notable enough for a mention. The song currently has 124,881,486 views on YouTube, which is probably why people keep adding it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's notable enough. The F-sharp, D-sharp, E, F-sharp, D-sharp, E, F-sharp motif is also a direct copy from the canon. However I would not consider the video itself as a source. It's only a primary source. Those without absolute pitch will have a hard time identifying it as B major. Still, the song is being played at many places these days, including some public spaces. I actually was expecting it to have mention in this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: "Stap Wantaim Yu" by Kid Nesian is on YouTube here. It is in D major and has all eight chords of the Canon. In some ways it is similar to "Memories" by Maroon 5, but the main difference is notability and secondary sourcing. "Stap Wantaim Yu" has only 16,338 views on YouTube, and the source given is chmsupersound which does not say anything about the song and may be WP:PRIMARY. As previously discussed, the article is not an exhaustive list of songs with Canon or Canon-like chord sequences. "Stap Wantaim Yu" is not famous enough and would need secondary sources that mention and discuss it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: The source doesn't mention "Beautiful in White". This has 248,808,055 views on YouTube, which is a lot of views. It starts off in C Major, then modulates up into D Major and E Major. It is what I would call a Canon-ish song rather than being based on all eight chords. Like many songs, I'm not sure if this is notable enough for a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: I had a look at Blues Traveler - Hook (Official Video) on YouTube, and it is another song that I would describe as Canon-ish rather than being based on all eight chords in the progression, which it isn't. There are too many of these songs to mention them all, like "Streets of London" and all of the songs in the Pachelbel Rant. I don't think it is notable enough if it doesn't use all eight chords. These songs could be described as loosely inspired by the Canon, rather than based on it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: The "Christmas Canon" by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra is in D major and is pretty much directly based on the Canon, using all eight chords throughout. The official video is here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are referring to an edit made by me, may I ask what source you are citing? All I did was to correct the claim to conform to what the cited source actually said. If you have got a better one, then by all means let us have it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's my own WP:OR based on watching the official video. I wanted to see what the "Christmas Canon" does and it is based on all eight chords. It's basically a choral arrangement of the Canon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dreaded "in popular culture" section returns[edit]

Re this edit:"In popular culture" sections are among the worst trivia magnets on Wikipedia. WP:IPC and WP:SONGTRIVIA discourage listing appearances unless there is secondary sourcing showing why they are notable. In the case of the Canon example, the source given is BBC Sounds [11]. All this does is to show that Carl Sagan chose the piece, and does not provide any secondary sourcing showing why it is notable. It's OK to mention that the piece was used in Cosmos, but Wikipedia does not normally list choices on Desert Island Discs. Also, this isn't worth an entire section of its own due to the obvious problem with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & done. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audio files[edit]

The audio file that User:RandomCanadian has chosen appears to be synthesized, with three solo violins doubling the three harps; that seems unlikely. Presumably the tinkling but slightly percussive sound was added so that the melody could be distinguished.

The scoring here has been adapted from mutopia choosing the tempi and articulation of historical informed performance (but not baroque pitch). Standard performances now take a tempo and articulation which is dance-like and rhythmic: these include the performances by Daniel Hope, Andrew Parrott, the London Philharmonic Orchestra (with David Parry), Jordi Saval, Reinhard Goebel, Trevor Pinnock, etc.

Because of the unmusicality and unauthentic scoring of the slushy harp version, both versions should appear. The three harp synthesized version seems to have no educational value at all. I think it is on a par with the versions of Jean-François Paillard; so not baroque in any way. Film music? Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One version is enough. HIP or not HIP shouldn't be a deciding factor (as an encyclopedia we don't take sides: I'm very much a baroque guy IRL, but a non-HIP version is not automatically meritless, it's just a different taste, and some Roman guy said, de gustibus non est disputandum), and, one is very much more obviously synthesised than the other (due to the very obvious synthiness of the default MIDI violins which play the very apparent melody throughout, while the other version seems to use a better soundfont and be overall crafted more skillfully [better use of reverb and such]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: Stop edit warring your version back in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have urgent anti-stroke emergency medication has to be renewed now. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your own health comes first, of course (WP:NORUSH), and I'll patiently wait for your answers here when you can do so, but it is not a valid reason to disrupt Wikipedia by edit-warring. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be the historical wp:consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music. In many cases, e.g. BWV 529, there have been two versions of audio files, depending on if and when they later became available under creative commons licenses. In the case of audio files that originate from lilypond files, many improvements can be made; it requires work. That relies on using timidity, audacity and other software (in linux). The articulation can be changed manually by inserting micropauses. New baroque soundfonts can be used (e.g. from MuseScore). Similarly dynamics can be introduced, albeit painstakingly, together with ritardandos. On a linux PC or laptop, the configuration files on /etc/timidity permit changes of soundfonts, dynamic, reverberation, etc. I have used these many times, e.g. on BWV 1014. But what I've written was clear, both versions should appear. The harp version is no use for the accompanying musical analysis, whereas a version which makes clear the sections is helpful and is educational. The raw lilypond coding in BWV 4 is not useful because it has no fermatas in the chorale. For Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, I made this edit[12], based on the opening movement of BWV 39. Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that "consensus" you speak of is clearly documented somewhere and not just you picking a few carefully chosen examples, it isn't worth much. What I can find is WP:SAMPLE (which seems to deal with primarily copyrighted samples, so not much use here for specifics) and little else. However, if I pick the generic advice from MOS:IMAGES; and plain common sense, too many audio examples can be distracting in the same way that too many images can be distracting. We should strive to pick the best version available to us; and if that isn't perfect well so be it. The midi-via-lilypond/MuseScore/whatever option, however, is not the best version amongst those available to us, for the reasons I have already described in my first comment. Whether that requires a lot of "painstaking" work (and whether your judgement into this is clouded because you were the one who spent that time) doesn't change the fact the final result is bad and ultimately doesn't appear to have been worth whatever the effort spent into it it was. The "harp version", as you want to call it, is more discreet (almost sounds like a piano, to be fair), and is made with a clearly superior quality sound font for the (very omnipresent) violins. If you don't like it, that's your opinion, but it's not a reason to replace it with an even worse version. Putting the worse version elsewhere in the article doesn't magically make this issue go away. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not constructive comments on this article, but subjective comments are not appropriate here. RandomCanadian is not discussing the audio file with respect to its placement in Pachelbel's Canon#Analysis. My understanding is that RandomCanadian has actually not read the article at all before deciding, on a whim, to alter the audio file. Apart from that, there seems to be no substance in the merits or demerits of this audio file, since no audio file with a vaguely baroque style exists on Commons. No complaints have been made about BWV 1014, where the similar soundfonts were used; the usual baroque playing avoids wide vibrato, so different soundfonts were used. In the score semiquavers are detached; that has been done for repeated notes, but could be extended. Because the theme is a canon, the coding has been simplified on mutopia (with one share coding). However, for a much closer simulation of a performance like those of Hope, Goebels, Saval, et al, the three parts would have to be written out completely with more careful indication. The lilypond coding in BWV 227 had no fermatas marked, so the midi file is rhythmically inaccurate. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about this article and not about others (you've surely heard of WP:OSE in all of your years on Wikipedia, unless you've literally been living under a manhole cover): simply because similarly bad examples exist elsewhere and I haven't noticed them doesn't mean that we should let one more slide in (and I am not going to take the bait to allow you to edit-war some more on other articles). You deliberately trying to put the discussion off-topic that way is, along with your baseless bad-faith accusation that I haven't read the article (despite me substantially rewriting a portion of it - the same one where you've now edit-warred your preferred version back in), are the only "not constructive" things here. You doing so in an attempt to ignore and refuse to respond to my comment that we don't need an HIP audio file (since as an encyclopedia we do not take a stance - per WP:NPOV - on what is ultimately an artistic and aesthetic question) is similarly disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • literally been living under a manhole cover: I think Antony Gormley used the word "grates"; but of course he was an artist and aethete, not a random wikipedian. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci -- I apologize for summarily erasing your message on my talk page; you caught me in the midst of real life tsuris having nothing to do with Wikipedia. That said, we do need to decide what to do about this music file. I certainly agree that more than one version is not necessary and would serve as little more than a distraction. I also tend to agree with such an oft-performed and oft-interpreted work, HIP is not necessarily a crucial factor. Mathsci, you have said that I have not looked far enough back into the history of the article to find stability, and you may be right--I have but so much time. Still, for the moment, I would give the nod to RandomCanadian's file, and tend to agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that really this should just be the subject of an RFC. Reasonable minds can certainly differ, especially on a matter like this. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all, that's fine. I thought that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music was a better place to discuss things, including RfCs. My last audio was for Herbert Collum, "translated" by LouisAlain — I got the idea from Ianmacm's user page. Mathsci (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a bad idea for venue, and assuming some sort of consensus is formed there, I certainly will have no problem endorsing it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Mathsci has not left anything remotely resembling a "neutral notice" there... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Brian Eno's Discreet Music (Side B)?[edit]

This reinterpretation is immensely important. 199.102.241.68 (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discreet Music has its own article. Per WP:SONGCOVER, this isn't directly relevant here. I listened to Side B on YouTube and the piece is inspired by, rather than a performance of the Canon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pachelbel%27s_Canon&oldid=1194077752"