Talk:Pachelbel's canon
|
|
| Contents |
Metasquares: I just applied the google test (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22pachelbel%27s+canon+in+D%22+%28major+OR+minor%29&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) and it appears that you are correct --Raul654 03:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The article had the sentence "The canon can be broken up into 5 sections - parallel, anti-line, reserve, expansed, and reduced." These are terms which I've never come across before (I don't think "expansed" is even a word, is it?). I'm guessing they come in some way from [1] (http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~hideo-t/pachelbel/about-e.html), which is a Japanese page using English in an original way. I've therefore tried to convert them into more usual equivalents, but I am not vouching for the accuracy of the info (that is, I don't know if the canon does indeed use all of these techniques), because I don't have a score, and haven't been able to check. That's not to say I think the info is wrong, just that I'm a little wary of it. --Camembert
- I was the one who originally added those comments, and yes - I got them from that website.
- ...because I don't have a score, and haven't been able to check...
- You can download the score in pdf form here (http://www.geocities.com/seansbabe69/music/sheets/canon_in_d.pdf) ;) --Raul654 07:20, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Aha! Thanks! I shall grab it and have a look. --Camembert
- Hm, it's an arrangement for piano, unfortunately, which makes it a bit difficult to work out what's going on (and some notes have probably been added and others left out). Anyway, I'm off to the library on Monday - I'll see if I can find a score of the original (or at least a version close to the original) then. --Camembert
- Failed to find a score - I'll probably have another go after Christmas. --Camembert
- No need. Remember, the internet is your friend:
- pachelbel's canon for five parts (http://www.freesheetmusic.net/pachelbel.html)
- 13 different arrangements of pachelbel's canon (http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Pachelbel/DownloadPachelbel.html)
- --Raul654 03:38, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- No need. Remember, the internet is your friend:
- Thanks, but you have to pay for access to those 13 arrangements and the other link has parts but no score, which means I'd have to make one by hand before I'd have anything useful (it'll do as a last resort if all else fails). Sorry, I know I'm being picky :) Anyway, it's not a very pressing matter - nothing terrible will happen if the page stays as it is for a week or two :) --Camembert
- I am very sure that the canon can not be played in retrograde or inversion.
- Unless anyone knows that it can be played like that, I think the whole of "the music" section in the main article should be deleted. 20:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/pachelbel/kanon.pdf would be close to the original score. Pachelbel's canon is the simplest canon without anything like inversion, augmentation, diminution, reduction, etc. I deleted the music section. --Puzzlet Chung 02:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
An extremely modest proposal
I had a thought. I have here an mp3 of Lee Galloway performing Pachelbel's canon. I got it from his mp3.com page (http://mp3.com/LeeGalloway) while mp3.com still existed. Now, I googled from him and noticed he has a website now with a contact page (http://www.leegalloway.com/contact_us.html). I'm tempted to write in and ask if he'd give us permission to post his music. →Raul654 06:28, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Follow up:
Dear Mr. Galloway:
I'm an administator on Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). Wikipedia is a non-profit, volunteer project to create a free encyclopedia.
Some years ago, I downloaded your version of Pachelbel's canon from your now-defunct mp3.com page (http://mp3.com/LeeGalloway). I'd like your permission to post it to Wikipedia article on Pachelbel's canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel%27s_canon)
Typically, multimedia content posted to Wikipedia is released under the GNU free documentation license (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), which grants others the ability to freely copy, modify, and redistribute material. It is our preference that you release it to us under that license. However, if you do not wish others to redistribute the song, you could simply grant us exclusive permission to distribute it.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Mark *********
Implying a Pachelbel-Mozart-Haydn Comparison
The reason why I deleted the section...
This analysis and comparison to similar paraphrasing of a harmonic progression (I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-ii-V-i) in the works of Mozart and Haydn has nothing to do with Pachelbel's canon, and I deleted it as such. It is a common harmonic progression, and it is precisely because it fits so well with the "rules" of music theory.
Just because almost every classical composer has used the sequence (heck, it's still taught in music theory courses today), doesn't mean that Pachelbel invented it, or that comparisons on this level matter to this article.
Likewise, atonal or "tone row" music is usually attributed Schoenberg and his contemporaries in the early 20th Century. However, when you look at one line in the score given to the Double Bass in Beethoven's 9th Symphony, there is a tone row in 1824! Does it mean that Schoenberg learned this from the Ludwig's 9th Symphony? No. Hence, such comparision is an illogical fallacy. A fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
If, as the contributor of this passage said, it was an "unlikely" connection, it shouldn't have been included in the first place. --ExplorerCDT 16:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hello ExplorerCDT, As I think about what ought to be done here, I feel it would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific.
- In particular, concerning your assertion, "almost every classical composer has used the [I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-ii-V] sequence," it would be nice to have examples. Can you please cite the particular passages you had in mind for a few representative composers?
- And if I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-ii-V is "taught in music theory courses today", presumably it's mentioned in harmony textbooks like Piston. Can you give a couple of citations?
- Thanks for your help, Opus33 16:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... I never got a reply from ExplorerCDT, and (s)he deleted from (his/her) talk page my request that (s)he provide one.
My take on this is that, even if Pachelbel's sequence obeys all the laws of harmony in a straightforward way, it definitely stands out in people's ears; it's really the most distinctive part of the work. So it's not out of line to point out where other composers have made use of the same sequence; it's something that a musically curious listener might want to know. This is especially so if, as I now believe, examples are not as common as weeds. Indeed, even the Mozart and Haydn examples are not perfect cases, since they deviate in the last two bars (the article now points this out). Opus33 17:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You are right Opus ... it's quite a distinctive ground bass, and not widely used by others in the exact form used by Pachelbel. The most commonly used part by other composers is the first bit, i.e. the first five notes (you have the complete Grove, right? Look up the article "ground", part 3, for a good example by Schmelzer from 1664). This reminds me, we could use a good article on ground bass here ... :-) Antandrus 17:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pop culture
i think "aphrdodite´s child - rain and tears" and "die firma - die eine should be mentioned" in pop culture section, too... they´re fare better than the others (<- my opinion ;))
Canonical audio?
Does anyone think that there should be an audio version of the canon which is actually a canon. The Lee Galloway version isn't actually canonical, which does defeat the point. I have a midi file but a real audio format ould be much nicer. tommylommykins 15:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, (A) Midi isn't a real sound file -- it's a digitally sythesized format and it varies from platform to platform; (B) Real audio is a *HORRIBLE* format - both in terms of quality and the baggage of crappy software that is required to play it. Furthermore, Real audio (being a proprietary format) is not allowed on Wikipedia (for that matter, neither are a whole host of better sound formats like mp3). Our philosophy of openness obligated us to use ogg for sound (C) The *hard* part is finding music licensed in such a way as to encourage distribution. I got permission from galloway for the music here; you are welcome to find someone who is willing to license their music under a license ameniable to copying (and then upload the music and put it here). →Raul654 17:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Now, with that said, you're welcome to try to find a canon version
- Sorry. I didn't mean real audio the sound file format - I agree that .rm is absolutely useless. Blame real networks for naming their format realAudio. I just meant a non-synthesysed format.
- A midi file to demonstrate the canon is a canon doesn't have to sound nice, that's what the galloway version is for. it just has to sound like a canon.
- I could probably turn the midi file into ogg exactly as it sounds from my computer if there are any other problems with posting a pure midi file on the site
- Nobody owns the midi file that I am talking about - licensing is not a problem.
- A licensed non-midi file is still welcome in my view so long as it is canonical
- tommylommykins 20:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)