Chances are it's their only favorite piece of classical music, because it's one of the five or six movements (not even full symphonies, I've noticed. How many of you have listened to the third movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony?) they've ever heard.

There is no development. There is no real emotion behind it. It's just pretty.

It's a mobile... that is, it just sits around on the same material and hovers in place. There isn't any growth. It's the same chord progression (a romanesca sequence, for you music buffs) over and over again with layers on top.

It's nothing special. It just sounds nice and it's played at weddings so many people know it.

I'm just sad more people know Canon in D than know Tchaikovsky's First Symphony.

As a classical musician I will tell you there is nothing worse than being asked, "oh, do you know Canon in D?"

Yes. Yes I do. Now shut up and keep listening to your faux classical music.

-------
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?
Fagotto

Tchaikobsky's First is great.

Never got into much classical music.

---

As a classical musician I will tell you there is nothing worse than being asked, "oh, do you know Canon in D?"

Yes. Yes I do. Now shut up and keep listening to your faux classical music.

---

Oh, I absolutely agree with you.  I hate it when people ask for stuff like that, or for completely stupid/simple songs, when I'm really in the mood for something complex and hard, if that makes sense.

-------
lol Что?

---

So some people have limited exposure. So what? Why have a meltdown over it? I am a musician, but I happen to like Pachelbel's Canon. Just go hang around fellow elitists and posers and leave the rest of the world alone.

---

It's actually kind of insulting when people say "oh i love classical music" when they've heard like, beethoven's fifth and ninth, maybe a mozart symphony and pachelbels canon in D.

If you took the time to actually listen to REAL classical music you would realize how boring and simple Canon in D is by comparison.

-------
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?
Fagotto

canon in NO way deserves to be labeled as "faux classical music". if it was fake, it wouldn't have been written in the 1600s by flippin Pachelbel

u come off as one of those prudish classical people that believe their taste in music is superior to everyone else's

just because your more educated on classical music than the average person does in NO way give you the right to label pachelbel that way

---

Quote: from Duke at 12:56 am on July 8, 2008

---

So some people have limited exposure. So what? Why have a meltdown over it? I am a musician, but I happen to like Pachelbel's Canon. Just go hang around fellow elitists and posers and leave the rest of the world alone.

---

It's actually kind of insulting when people say "oh i love classical music" when they've heard like, beethoven's fifth and ninth, maybe a mozart symphony and pachelbels canon in D.

If you took the time to actually listen to REAL classical music you would realize how boring and simple Canon in D is by comparison.

---

Well Bethmozachsky, I'm not sure what you're insulted about. So you are a classical music buff and want to strut your knowledge, ok most of the other musicians here are not impressed. Do you really think that there's a genre of music that doesn't have someone like you sitting back being condescending about the infidels who might happen to like some minor piece of the genre, while not having an encyclopedic knowledge of the genre? Get over yourself. Now excuse me, I have to go play Ode to Joy!

---

i'm a classical musician, both instrumentally and vocally. and i know for a fact that canon does indeed have progression. as the song goes on, more layers areadded and tempos change. maybe that's not a progression to you, but it's a progression nonetheless.  
i know many many classical composers, songs, all the different styles, ect.....

canon in NO way deserves to be labeled as "faux classical music". if it was fake, it wouldn't have been written in the 1600s by flippin Pachelbel

u come off as one of those prudish classical people that believe their taste in music is superior to everyone else's

just because your more educated on classical music than the average person does in NO way give you the right to label pachelbel that way

---

Layers are added, yes. But the tempo shouldn't change, if performed correctly. Baroque music rarely utilizes tempo changes, and if they do it's usually quick, like at the end of a piece, or drastic.

I have one question for you. Do you know any other pieces by Pachelbel? He wasn't a very popular composer. He still isn't, really. Except for his fucking canon.

I call it faux classical music because this is one of the first pieces people go to when they want to get their classical "fix", to say that they did it. It's like those books, "Classical Music for Dummies".

I mean, if you genuinely like the piece, then fine. Like it. I just hate how some people are really quite ignorant to the whole western art music spectrum and all they CHOOSE to expose themselves too is the same boring shit we expose ourselves to when we turn on the tv every day.

I don't believe my taste in music is superior. I just feel that in terms of CLASSICAL music, it's really not a good idea to talk like you listen to classical music when you really honestly don't.

-------
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?
Fagotto