# How has the idea of musical 'canon' shaped the way we think about music of the past?



## george01827 (Apr 29, 2016)

I believe that in order for a piece to be considered 'canon', it must well represent the time period in which it was created. However, there a few pieces which are considered 'canon' and were created at a similar time, especially those created more recently, that sound nothing alike.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I think you mean "canonical" and I have no idea how to answer your question.

(Unless you mean in the Pachelbel sense -- which is like being shot in the stomach with a cannon.)


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

I think even Pachelbel hates his own Canon.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Why should pieces created at the same time sound alike?

But to your initial question: critical "canons" shape our perceptions of our musical past because they create and reinforce people's notions of what music is representative, excellent, and worth listening to. Which is why we need to look at what we're told is worthwhile, check out the most famous this and that, and evolve our own tastes and judgments. Everyone has biases, but we're entitled to develop our own. We may find that our view of what's important in music's past is not the standard one.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I think even Pachelbel hates his own Canon.


Funny enough he told me so last week


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

He likes it the way he wrote it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

george01827 said:


> I believe that in order for a piece to be considered 'canon', it must well represent the time period in which it was created. However, there a few pieces which are considered 'canon' and were created at a similar time, especially those created more recently, that sound nothing alike.


I don't know what you mean by "represent the time period." Maybe you could spell it out a bit.

You make it sound as though there's some committee of experts which is busy considering which pieces of music to admit into the canon. That doesn't sound right.

Ideas like canons have this useful function - they're limiting. If you don't have a canon, then classical music is very big and complex and a time consuming area to get to know, most people aren't going to bother. If someone wants to acquire a veneer of culture, canons tell them what to do quickly and easily: they can just listen to a Beethoven symphony and a Verdi opera.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

george01827 said:


> I believe that in order for a piece to be considered 'canon', it must well represent the time period in which it was created. However, there a few pieces which are considered 'canon' and were created at a similar time, especially those created more recently, that sound nothing alike.


If several pieces created at a similar time sound nothing alike, then clearly the time in which they were written is best represented by a bunch of pieces that sound nothing alike!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

A canon is basically something that you're supposed to respect to be considered respectable. It's an expression of authority. But it's not enough to know what is in the canon; the question is _why_. Before I'm allowed to have any opinions about music - before, that is, the larger community will treat my opinions as legitimate insights rather than mere expressions of personal taste - I have to demonstrate a personal understanding of why various works have achieved canonical status. It's the musical equivalent of a bar examination.

Therefore, most of us are not _free_ to explore the music of the past in terms of simple pleasure. The music of the past plays the part of a bouncer, not of a dancer.


----------

