Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of variations on Pachelbel's Canon/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of variations on Pachelbel's Canon edit

List of variations on Pachelbel's Canon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pachelbel's Canon, notorious for its ubiquity to the point of annoyance in pop music... actually isn't all that ubiquitous! But it is the muse and inspiration of many a pop song, and this list gets into the what and why of that phenomenon :) bit of an unconventional push, but hope it's up to code regardless! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Could add "(also known as the Canon in D)" to the first sentence. I think it's necessary to mention the piece's other name.
  • Is this the best title for the page? Would "List of songs based on Pachelbel's Canon" be a better title? Variations implies a stronger connection to the original composition than merely being inspired by the original composition.
  • "20th century revival". Can this be changed to "20th-century revival".
  • I notice that the lead talks about a 20th century revival, but many songs listed are from the 21st century.
  • Is Limelight referring to Limelight (magazine)? Can that page be linked? I have no idea since there is no publisher or publication place in the reference to Limelight.
  • "Acts like Maroon 5 were able to sample the piece because it is in the public domain, and is no longer covered by copyright protection". This can be simplified to "Acts like Maroon 5 were able to sample the piece because it is in the public domain and no longer covered by copyright protection".
  • "Each entry should include exactly one link to either the track, the album, or the artist." Is this something that is normally stated in mainspace for regular readers to read? Can't this be a comment?

That's all for now. Steelkamp (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Steelkamp! I've actioned everything but the second point in this edit; as to the second point, I think that it's reasonable to call these works reinterpretations of the Canon, as most if not all of them (having listened to nearly all of them) bring their own style to it, and very few of them copy the melody verbatim (which is something I experienced a lot as playing vars. on violin). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 20th century comment, I was more referring to the sentence "in the latter half of the 20th century", which I think could be changed to "in the latter half of the 20th century and the 21st century." Steelkamp (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp: changed to "since the 1960s" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I will leave you with one final suggestion for the page's title: "List of works based on Pachelbel's Canon". This isn't really in the featured list criteria so I will support nevertheless. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Maroon 5 were able to sample the piece" - "sampling" refers to incorporating a literal piece of another recording into your recording e.g. M.I.A. using an actual extract from the Clash's song "Straight to Hell" in her track "Paper Planes". If Maroon 5 simply incorporated musical elements of the piece into the composition of their song but performed it all themselves then that isn't sampling. I would suggest "interpolate" is probably the word to use -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interest in Pachelbel's work ticked up some" - is this an American expression? I'm not familiar with it...
  • "A few songs that reference Pachelbel's piece, such as Vitamin C's "Graduation (Friends Forever)" copy" => "A few songs that reference Pachelbel's piece, such as Vitamin C's "Graduation (Friends Forever)", copy"
  • Wikilink Pete Waterman, as he has his own article
  • ""Hook", from the Blues Traveler's 1994 album Four" - the band is just called Blues Traveler, not the Blues Traveler
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24 edit

Not sure how much time I'll have to review but here are some quick glance comments:

  • You need a date in the lead. I changed Baroque to "mid-Baroque" but we need a century or year range or something.
    • the Canon is famously difficult to pin to a timeline, so I'll just add Pachelbel's lifespan.
  • "Pachelbel's Canon, a musical composition by Johann Pachelbel" sounds incredibly awkward. Drop the "musical"—in fact, I would just say something like "Johann Pachelbel wrote his Canon in D in the mid-Baroque.... and it has since been...". See what you think works, but the current redudancy should be avoided
  • Its worth describing what a canon is somewhere.
  • there are many terms that should be linked, intervals, "note", and things like revival of Baroque-era compositions (Early music revival)
  • Who is on the Paillard recording? If its a ton of individuals, no need to list, but an ensemble should certainly be said
    • Maybe there's something about that in the sources relevant to this, but I didn't see it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your musicological analysis is rather confusing, although I can see you are working with a source by someone who doesn't seem to be a theorist (btw, music theory (analysis) is usually considered separate from musicology (history/sociology/etc.), there is some overlap, but theory will always be analysis whereas musicology will not). The canon's bassline is really not that extraordinary, theoretically speaking, its mastery is in the convincing melodic lines throughout. It is a Descending thirds sequence, which is the standard way of saying "with the first note in each pair dropping by a perfect fourth to the second note before the next pair starts elsewhere in the scale". In addition, iirc its relatively similar to the romanesca progression; these are both (the desc thirds sequence and romanesca) probably things that should be said.
  • A brief tidbit about how Pachelbel was only really known for keyboard music might make the overshadowing of this work make more sense
    • Yeah, but I don't think that's directly relevant? It's important that it was forgotten, but the resurgence should take up most of the ink. If you have a source that connects the two, i can take a look? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point, we don't want Synth here after all – Aza24 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming its increasing use in weddings and other public events also inspired its use in songs, maybe worth a mention?
    • Couldn't find a source that explicitly connects the two that way, which sucks because I'm sure you're right :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was probably a tough ask to begin with. I've been doing some research on Pachelbel (for a separate topic) and scholarship on him is scattered and super disorganized; the canon is also virtually ignored. Aza24 (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Canon's violin melody" makes it sound like they took the whole 4 minute melody. Perhaps it should be clarified to be a snippet
  • that's all I have time for I think, but thanks for tackling a cool list like this! Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: Apologies for the poke – have the issues been resolved? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think so! I linked Sequence (music) since it is probably the main defining characteristic of the canon's underlying harmonies. Support – Aza24 (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_variations_on_Pachelbel%27s_Canon/archive1&oldid=1190811069"