Title explains. I think personally that played at the correct fast speed, well, it is smashing (which is why you need good renditions to paly it yourself!).

I partly just wanted to see how many people would answey this thing.

????????????

Title explains. I think personally that played at the correct fast speed, well, it is smashing (which is why you need good renditions to paly it yourself!).

I partly just wanted to see how many people would answey this thing.I dunno what this is so I voted for the one you didn't.

He's asking a question about a piece of music. Should Pachelbel's Canon in D major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel's_Canon), a piece written by Johann Pachelbel in the mid 19th century, be played at the traditional slower tempo, or at a faster tempo?

Personally, I think the song is dull and uninteresting at either tempo, whether it be 35/40 or 235/240 - as is a good portion of Baroque music. I much prefer music from the Classical and Romantic periods, myself.

Glad I wasn't the only one who had no idea what he was talking about.

I dunno what this is so I voted for the one you didn't.

Same :D

_EW_

The only rendition of Pachelbel's canon I've ever really enjoyed was on the electric guitar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5faZF1A8)

He plays it some-what fast-ish so yeah.

Glad I wasn't the only one who had no idea what he was talking about.
QFE

He's asking a question about a piece of music. Should Pachelbel's Canon in D major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel's_Canon), a piece written by Johann Pachelbel in the mid 19th century end of the 17th century...



fixed ;)

whether it be 35/40 or 235/240 - as is a good portion of Baroque musicHuh? I have no idea where you got that :confused:

I picked fast cause..I like to rock? I don't know.

fixed ;)
XD Wow, major error on my part. My bad. XD I knew it was the mid 1800s 1600, but for some reason my silly mind told me that was 19th, not 17th century. XD

"My head's jammed full of stuff - I need a bigger head!"

Huh? I have no idea where you got that :confused:
The tempos I gave were meant to apply only to Palchelbel's Canon, not Baroque music in general. What I meant was, whether the song be played at a tempo of 35/40 or 235/240, I find it dull and boring, just as I view most Baroque music as dull and boring. A clarification error on my part. My bad again. XD

Seems more like a slower pace piece of music. To each his own, though.

It depends on the way the sound is used, and what kind of sound it is. For example:

John Williams' 'Love Pledge and the Arena' is better slow, as it keeps with a nice, slow, building up, march-into-battle sort of music, whilst his 'Battle of the Heroes' and 'Duel of the Fates' are better played faster, because a slower tempo will eliminate the speed and drama ascribed to them in the battles in the movies... I'm neutral, as I can't decide on this particular peice. It's fine to me either way, but it still seems dull...

XD Wow, major error on my part. My bad. XD I knew it was the mid 1800s, but for some reason my silly mind told me that was 19th, not 17th century. XDthe mid 1800s are indeed part of the 19th century...17th century= 1600s. Pachelbel was born around 1650 and the Baroque period in music extends from the early 1600s (with Monteverdi's Orfeo) to +- 1750 with Bach and Haendel amongst others.


"My head's jammed full of stuff - I need a bigger head!"Looks like it's not your day :D

As for me, I have heard that piece of music way too often for my liking and 99% of the time the interpretation is a total "massacre" (I dislike "sirupy" music ). Anyway, I don't care about Pachelbel's music. However, Bach is one of my favorites when I play piano (with 20th century music like Prokoviev's).

the mid 1800s are indeed part of the 19th century...17th century= 1600s. Pachelbel was born around 1650 and the Baroque period in music extends from the early 1600s (with Monteverdi's Orfeo) to +- 1750 with Bach and Haendel amongst others.
... and again, a careless error on my part. I meant to type mid 1600s, not 1800s. I'm just... I didn't... I need to... God I'm tired...

XD I'm just gonna stop talking now, as I can't seem to get anything right on this. XD


Looks like it's not your day :D
No, it really isn't. :xp:

I like it every way, but generally prefer traditional except for the lovely electric guitar rendition on Youtube <3

Go slow. It's not written for being played at 90 mph.

@Doctor: Try Handel.

Slow. Definitely slow.

If it was meant to be played fast it would have been written that way. :)

Oh, that Pachelbel's Canon in D! Right! Of course! :eyeraise:
Didn't Disturbed do a cover of that on their last CD...?

Seriously though, this must be a piano player question. Although the melody does sound vaguely familiar, I had never heard of Pachelbel before in my life. With "Need for Speed" in the OP, I figured that maybe it was a video game question...? Or something...? Anyway.

Now I've heard it. Sounds like an elementary schoolkid's piano recital material.

Seriously though, this must be a piano player question... Sounds like an elementary schoolkid's piano recital material.No, not a piano thing, although there's an arrangement in almost every beginner book ( :( ) the original was for strings.


That piece has been "incorporated" in countless of music pieces/songs of all kinds since it's creation.

See for yourself: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

Well, that got answered fast.

He's asking a question about a piece of music. Should Pachelbel's Canon in D major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachelbel's_Canon), a piece written by Johann Pachelbel in the mid 19th century, be played at the traditional slower tempo, or at a faster tempo?

Personally, I think the song is dull and uninteresting at either tempo, whether it be 35/40 or 235/240 - as is a good portion of Baroque music. I much prefer music from the Classical and Romantic periods, myself.

I'm glad that someone knows what I'm talking about, mad that you dare insult Johan, Pachelble, or the key of D. Well, okay, he only ever wrote one good song as far as I can tell, but it's inspired, and there is bloody well plenty of good Barouqe or even Baroqe music. You don't have to like that Chopanish thing to like classical! But I like it kind of because, as Schroeder once said, "You never know how Chopin is going to affect someone."

BTW: I'm most CERTAINLY not saying "play it at 90 MPH or as fast as you can". No, sir. I'm saying that it's good with a little more zip than most Carnergie'ers would put into it. Kind of like how you dislike "syrupy" music. I guess I've heard it so many times that going faster makes it more interesting.

No, not a piano thing, although there's an arrangement in almost every beginner book ( :( ) the original was for strings.


That piece has been "incorporated" in countless of music pieces/songs of all kinds since it's creation.

See for yourself: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

Yes, even Twisted Sister used a bit of Johan's music there. The first "real" copy of Canon in D I got was just the string voices smooshed togther. There are four of them, and I have, like most mostly-humans, two hands. Impossibel to play!

The only rendition of Pachelbel's canon I've ever really enjoyed was on the electric guitar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5faZF1A8)

He plays it some-what fast-ish so yeah.


Personally, I prefer this version by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD5R4IDFgCU&amp;feature=related) Slow tempo with electric guitars and full orchestration.

That piece has been "incorporated" in countless of music pieces/songs of all kinds since it's creation.

See for yourself: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

I haven't laughed that hard in years. Great find, Darth 333!

BTW: I'm most CERTAINLY not saying "play it at 90 MPH or as fast as you can". No, sir. I'm saying that it's good with a little more zip than most Carnergie'ers would put into it. Kind of like how you dislike "syrupy" music. I guess I've heard it so many times that going faster makes it more interesting.The speed is not so important to me as is the passion with which something is played.

My son played at orchestra festival a few months ago. The middle and high schoolers played O Fortuna. I actually enjoyed the middle schoolers' performance in that piece better--while they didn't have as technically advanced music as the high schoolers, they played it with a lot more passion, as if they could really 'feel' the music and enjoy performing it.

Which reminds me, has anyone heard "Classically Beetles". It's Beetles songs remixed and played by the New York Orchestra. Pure Genius. Pure music. Pure awsome.