I have nothing to say

[conuly]

So take this video of a historically influenced Pachebel's Canon in D using the original tempo.

Witnessing Peru’s Enduring, if Altered, Snow Star Festival

Woman Who Got Catfished Found Love With The Real Man In The Pictures (Must be great living in a romantic comedy)

30 Unusual Maps People Shared That Might Change Your Perspective On Things

The Cute Critter Rewriting Our Understanding of Prehistory

Boston Children’s Hospital will no longer perform two types of intersex surgery on children

Did Lockdowns Lower Premature Births? A New Study Adds Evidence

To Reclaim Ancestral Land, All Native Hawaiians Need Is a $300,000 Mortgage and to Wait in Line for Decades

Turning point in Thailand: Queen's brush with protest

Under Trump, US no longer leads world on refugee protections

U.S. jails are outsourcing medical care — and the death toll is rising

Army Sergeants at Fort Hood Fear for the Safety of Their Soldiers

She Used to Clean City Hall. Now, She Runs It.

Uh-Oh. Russia's Laptev Sea Should Have Started to Freeze by Now

He posed as a doctor and a wilderness expert. Behind the facade was an accused child molester.

Comments

[wpadmirer]

UGH. Give me the modern version! It's SO much more beautiful!

[conuly]

Well, that's one opinion. Personally, I feel that the companion gigue doesn't work with the modern version, which is no doubt why we never hear it anymore.

[topaz_eyes]

Oh wow, the original version of Pachelbel's canon is amazing! It has so much more energy than the modern version, I think I prefer the original now.

[conuly]

I don't know of a good recording of the canon + gigue, but should you find one you should listen to it.

[siderea]

Try this one on for size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fui8DoAa5oU

[conuly]

Thanks, will do in the morning. After I vote! (This is a terrifying prospect. We usually don't have lines, but....)

[flamingsword]

Thank you for the link! I have a friend whose name is Gigue, and they feel very loved right now.

[gwydion]

That is so much better! Why do they lways play the sow, boring version when they could play this?

[conuly]

Well, many people do prefer it. I, personally, do like both.

[siderea]

No, see, most people couldn't play it like that. Because that was really freaking hard. That's some legitimately virtuousic playing there.

All issues of historical correctness and aesthetic choices aside, one of the reasons most people don't play it at that tempo is that they can't.

Also, to answer your larger question: Pachelbel's Canon is from the 1690s. Most music of this and earlier time periods languished unplayed for a couple centuries, until there was a historical music revival movement in the 20th century.

One of the issues with reviving music from old scores is that there's been a sort of arms race between composers and performers where tempo is concerned. Modern music students are taught that by default the quarter note gets the beat. In the late 16th century, the half note got the beat. In the late 15th century, the whole note got the beat. When modern musicians look at 15th century scores, what they see is a whole lot of big, chunky notes and think "gee, this is slow music without a lot going on in it". Nope, it's that it's supposed to be played four times as fast as you think. Musicians kept slowing down, so composers kept writing in smaller and smaller note values.

So. When modern musicians look at the original score they go, "ha ha ha, 32nd notes, this Pachelbel dude, surely he didn't mean that; it must be the tempo's pretty slow to allow that to be played...?"

That's not all that's going on. A lot of people like the slow version. Like, really, really like it.

Wikipedia says that the first recording of Pachelbel's Canon was by Arthur Fiedler in 1940 [YouTube], and it's at basically this tempo. Wikipedia goes on to say that the Canon didn't become famous until 1968:

In 1968, the Jean-François Paillard chamber orchestra made a recording of the piece that would change its fortunes significantly.[1] This rendition was done in a more Romantic style, at a significantly slower tempo than it had been played at before, and contained obbligato parts, written by Paillard, that are now closely associated with the piece.[1] The Paillard recording was released in June in France by Erato Records as part of an LP that also included the Trumpet Concerto by Johann Friedrich Fasch and other works by Pachelbel and Fasch, all played by the Jean-François Paillard chamber orchestra. The canon was also included on a widely distributed album by the mail-order label Musical Heritage Society in 1968.

Here's the the Paillard recording, which is, yes, much, much slower.

Wikipedia:

In July 1968, Greek band Aphrodite's Child released the single "Rain and Tears", which was a baroque-rock adaptation of Pachelbel's Canon.[11] The band was based in France at the time, although it is unknown whether they had heard the Paillard recording, or were inspired by it. "Rain and Tears" was a success, reaching number 1 on the pop charts of various European countries. Several months later, in October 1968, Spanish band Pop-Tops released the single "Oh Lord, Why Lord", which again was based on Pachelbel's Canon.[12] Again, it is unknown whether they were aware of or had been inspired by the releases from earlier that year. "Oh Lord, Why Lord" was covered by American band Parliament on their 1970 album Osmium.

In 1970, a classical radio station in San Francisco played the Paillard recording and became inundated by listener requests. The piece gained growing fame, particularly in California.[13] In 1974, London Records, aware of the interest in the piece, reissued a 1961 album of the Corelli Christmas Concerto performed by the Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra, which happened to contain the piece, now re-titled to Pachelbel Kanon: the Record That Made it Famous and other Baroque Favorites.[13] The album was the highest-selling classical album of 1976.[14] Its success led to many other record labels issuing their own recordings of the work, many of which also sold well.[13]

In 1977, the RCA Red Seal label reissued the original Erato album in the United States and elsewhere. In the U.S. it was the 6th-highest-selling classical album of 1977. (Two other albums containing Pachelbel's Canon charted for the year: the Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra album at number 17, and another album featuring the Paillard recording, Go For Baroque!, at number 13.)[15] The Paillard recording was then featured prominently in the soundtrack of the 1980 film Ordinary People.[1] The Erato/RCA album kept climbing the Billboard Classical Albums chart, and in January 1982 it reached the number 1 position,[1] where it remained until May 1982, when it was knocked out of first place by an album featuring Pachelbel's Canon played by the Academy of Ancient Music directed by Christopher Hogwood.[16]

I quote this in its entirety because I find it hilarious.

ETA: Oh, and I wanted to add: one of the differences between the version conuly links above and the Fiedler version of about the same tempo is that this version is played in two and the Fiedler version is played in four, a subtle difference which has enormous consequences for the energeticness of a piece. (For an amazing discussion and demonstration of that effect, see this video starting here.)

That 2 vs 4 choice ties back into the issue of interpreting older works and what assumptions we project on them.

[conuly]

I see we're on the same schedule again.

[antisoppist]

That does render the John Finnemore Pachebel's Canon sketch historically inaccurate but it is still funny.

[brokenallbroken]

I knew we were playing it too slow in school. (I'm convinced we play most baroque too slowly these days)

[conuly]

That's because it's Serious Music.

[siderea]

Other way around. Because classical and post-classical music must be the highest, most sophisticated, most virtuousically demanding music, because white, Enlightenment men are the highest, most sophisticated, most virtuosic people. And Pachelbel's Canon is pre-Classical, so it must not possibly be that demanding.

[dogstar]

bothisgood.gif :)

this one would be very speedy if it were used for wedding processionals. You'd end up with bridesmaids tripping over their dresses and everyone in tears :D

[conuly]

I'd pay to attend that wedding.

[greghousesgf]

I don't think they could fit all the cheeses they make in France in that map.

[cellio]

Oh wow. It sounds completely different at that tempo. And that's some mighty fine playing there! That's hard!

[hudebnik]

The obvious question is "how do they know the original tempo?" As I recall, metronome markings weren't a thing until the 19th century. Musicians in earlier centuries seem to have used the human heartbeat as a benchmark, but you would still need to know which note value corresponds to a heartbeat; is there any written evidence for that for this piece, or at least in Pachelbel's time?

That said, the number of 32nd notes (according to the original score, ht siderea) suggests that it shouldn't be quite as slow as it's usually played today.