Talk:List of variations on Pachelbel's Canon

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 02:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Pachelbel's Canon is notorious for being widespread in pop music, but it actually isn't? Source: Colli 2013 and Stone 2018
  • Reviewed: Charles Edwards (journalist)
  • Comment: Audio forthcoming, but for now, just wanted to put this up to save my spot!

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 03:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/List of variations on Pachelbel's Canon; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Ooh, this one looks really good. The article eligibility looks perfect with it being well-written, well-sourced, and a timely nomination. Words cannot describe how much I hate that Maroon 5 song, though, lol. Just needs a QPQ.--NØ 07:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: Thanks for a speedy review! QPQ already up top :) yeah, the Maroon 5 song is not my favorite. Hopefully will have an audio tomorrow! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Apologies for reading the "Audio forthcoming" bit as "QPQ forthcoming" the first time around. Good to go!--NØ 11:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

untitled

hey didn't canon in d predate copyright entirely? so it's not that it is no longer protected, but to the contrary it was never protected at all. 2600:1700:85D0:DC0:B51D:D9FE:E46C:1031 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe? It's possible copyright protections existed on certain known arrangements, that's a thing that can happen. I think you're right, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It would likely be correct to say the original piece predated, and therefore was never protected under, copyright, but derivative works may be copyrighted: specifically: modern songs, arrangements, sheet music, and recordings of it. (Copyrights for a 'song' versus a specific 'recording' are currently distinct, in the US.) Remsense聊 01:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

independent sourcing

@M.R.Forrester: thanks for the addition! would you have any independent sourcing connecting the track to the Canon? I don't like the precedent of letting these things self-source... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Progression vs "variations"

Looking at The hooktheory source, it lists a large number of songs that use Pachelbel's Progression (I → V → vi → iii). However, is this enough to consider it a full-on "variation" of the Canon, even if it does not use any of the melody? Would a split in the list's layout be appropriate? Moreover, I see "Under the Bridge" listed there; shouldn't we include it here too? (I assume the inclusion criteria for this one is whether the song itself meets WP:N?) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The song doesn't need to meet WP:N, but source linking to it does need to meet RS, which I don't believe the hooktheory source does. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Bye-bye, my beloved Scatman's World. Yeah this fix is appropriate. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Chord progression in Mozart's "Queen of the night" aria

Before 1960's the piece used to be a lot more popular than Pachelbel and it uses a near identical I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-V-I-IV progression. And I'm fairly sure that Mozart had never heard of Pachelbel. 212.3.196.222 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)