Talk:Johann Pachelbel

Popularity of the Canon in D section

Not a content comment, but this section has some text in gray instead of black. For consistency's sake this should be fixed, though I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:E078:28F6:2963:BFA2 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The "text in gray" is enclosed in a citation request, so the inconsistency is intentional. The way to fix it legitimately is to supply a source that verifies the statement, or, failing that (eg. if it isn't actually true) to delete it. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Further to this: On checking, this text was initially added on different occasions by different editors, so finding a single source may be problematic. Some of it is backed by this, but as the information is also in the Canon article (here, and here), do we need any if this here at all? Or, if we are going to mention Pachelbel's influence on contemporary music, does it need it's own section? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I added the citation requests in that section in January 2018. The parts that need citation are rather narrow: "Its visibility was greatly increased by …" and "the Canon's chord progression has been used widely in pop music in the 20th and 21st centuries." The relevant sections in the Canon's article are more balanced for both claims. The recently added "See also" lines, without the need for a separate section heading, should be sufficient here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael: I've restored a bit, which was cut in November for no obvious reason (the edit summary doesn't cover it): This, and the comment about Ordinary People ("Its visibility..") can be supported by the Fink reference (p92). OTOH the "Rain and Tears" comment is a bit post hoc... and we could do without the hyperbole ('tremendous', 'greatly'). If you are OK with that, I'll go ahead and fix it (add the ref, take out the section heading and the OTOH stuff). As for the rest, I dunno if it's actually untrue, but we're probably better off referring people to the Canon article for a fuller treatment. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, done. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Decomposition

Johann Pachelbel (baptised 1 September 1653 – buried 9 March 1706) was a German composer, organist, and teacher who brought the south German organ schools to its peak.

I've never seen this before in a BDP (aka BnonLP) and it has an unintended, morbid effect of causing the reader familiar with the conventions of Wikipedia to immediately ponder just how long Pachelbel's body lay decomposing in his favourite chair, before anyone attended to his ripe remains. — MaxEnt 20:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've added a footnote, in case anyone is confused by this. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The de:wp article says that Pachelbel's baptismal date, 1 September, was a date in the Julian calendar: Is this true, does anyone know? Our Gregorian calendar article says that "Germany" changed to the Gregorian calendar in 1700, but the de:wp article says 1582 for the HRE (the Catholic states at least, which I assume included Bavaria). Does anyone know which it was? And if so, should we add a footnote, as in the article there? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Nuremberg had been Protestant since 1525, so the Julian date is consistent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh! Live and learn! Anyway, I've put in a footnote. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Christoph? Johann Christoph Pachelbel

I have seen his name listed as Johann Christoph Pachelbel. If "Christoph" is a correct addition, can someone add it and find a reputable source? Misty MH (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"composed a large body of sacred and secular music"?

I wonder where there is evidence of his secular music? This is claimed in the itroductory words (see quotation above). When I read about the life of the composer I read about a deeply religious man who worked for the church (on organ music and other sacred music). Just because he composed music about other gods (Apollo's Arias) does not make it secular music. Could we just remove the addendum "secular"? MelchiorG (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I found one possibility: The Chamber musique "Musicalische Ergötzung" (musical enjoyment) may be considered as one. But could somebody find a reference confirming that this is indeed considered secular music? (Otherwise the question above would remain.) MelchiorG (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The Hexachordum Apollinis is in no way "about" Apollo, let alone dedicated to him. It's simply a sophisticated title aimed at the classicaly educated audience of the time.--Schreckgespenst (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Second potential image

I've already seen there was no evidence of the 1748 portrait being of him, but what about this one? It has also been associated with Pachelbel (although also with Corelli sometimes). Is there info on the origin of this photo?

https://europe-calling.bandcamp.com/track/johann-pachelbel-canon-in-d-major-pachelbels-canon Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The portrait has always been considered Corelli Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Pachelbel's false image

@Gerda Arendt A portrait of Pachelbel is commonly misattributed to him, so I mentioned it in the article, as readers should be aware of this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

for context for others: the image, File:JohannChristophPachelbel.jpg, arrived in the article with this edit. I reverted a following edit per rollback without checking the history, therefore we had a discussion first on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is coverage in reliable sources about the misattribution of that image, a discussion in this article is inappropriate. The citation offered in the edit mentioned above is utterly insufficient. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, here it talks about it and uses a source, I'm not sure if that counts. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There (your link doesn't work) are comments in the description and on the talk page, but no sources that discuss the identity of the subject, real or alleged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the best way to prevent misinformation is to not include the image at all in this article. If there were published sources discussing it, we could include a sentence (again, without the image), but such sources are not available. Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

How come there are no professionals discussing this on record? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure, but I am aware of research which is being done this year on the topic, so there will be something soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)