Talk:Pachelbel's Canon

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I've added a link to how the page looked with the pop culture references in case anyone was curious. -- œ™ 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I find it a bit ridiculous to put  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pachelbel's Canon in popular culture

message: 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)
replies: text: What do you mean? Why wouldn't it be? Hyacinth (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ethics of analysis 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why couldn't you? Hyacinth (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing non-canonical solo adaptation 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: " 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, references in current books of fiction, noted blogs, etc.  The latter is presumed to be our audience.  --B2C 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
I note that NY Times often refers to this work as "Pachelbel's Canon".  "Canon in D Major" is also used, but less commonly.  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)
replies: text: Do you have some objection to addressing my arguments? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See my alternate proposal below. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Wider issue

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, Canon in D major is fine with me. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Canon in D major is far less recognizable and natural than Pachelbel's Canon.  --B2C 19:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alternative proposal - ''Canon in D major''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Baroque pop versions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  "Roman numeral"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Accuracy of analysis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Frog galliard

message: 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)
replies: text: The Blue Moon chord sequence is similar but not identical.  I - vi - ii - V is not what the Canon has.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Myth of Pachalbel's Canon in Popular Music 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Los Pop Tops " Oh Lord why Lord" 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Works based on Pachelbel's Canon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. But numerous sources say that it is inspired by the Canon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I should be so lucky based on the Cannon??

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hook by Blues Traveler 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Influence on popular music 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Memories 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: Agreed & done. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dreaded "in popular culture" section returns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Stop edit warring your version back in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I have urgent anti-stroke emergency medication has to be renewed now. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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,  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, based on the opening movement of BWV 39. Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title: Audio files

message: This reinterpretation is immensely important. 199.102.241.68 (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No mention of Brian Eno's Discreet Music (Side B)?