Talk:Canon (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For earlier history of this article, see canon.


The disambiguation page for "caccia" includes that term's definition as an Italian musical and poetic form. It doesn't make sense for that term to redirect here, first because we would have to define "caccia" exclusively in musical terms as a canon form—which it needn't be (it need only be abundantly imitative), second because this article would have to mention the caccia as a body of literature exemplifying canons but distinctive in other important ways (the term "caccia" doesn't even occur in this article), and third because this article contains no discussion of poetry.

Also, I think this article should include some mention of the fugue, and less obviously, some mention of the Anglicized false-cognate of the caccia, the "catch." The term catch is used, I think, interchangeably with the term round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed outline[edit]

My proposed outline for the tangled musical canon section:


I. History
II. Types of canons
 A. Number of voices
 B. Interval at which follower starts
 C. Direction in which follower moves
  1. Inversion or "mirror"
  2. Retrograde
 D. Mensuration and tempo canons
 E. Other types of canons
III. Contemporary use of canons



Canons at the fourth and fifth in African music are mentioned in Akpabot, "Functional Music of the Ibibio", p.89. (van der Merwe 1989, p.188) Hyacinth 07:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

identify canon?[edit]

We were singing a canon in my school choir with a song that went ... if all the children of the world lived in peace or something.... could somebody tell me how it goes?? cause I forgot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2005

meaning of the Old French word "canon"[edit]

The article says that Old French "canon" meant "leaned". I think this is a typo: didn't it mean "learned"? --dveej

You're absolutely correct; oops! I fixed it. Antandrus (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Canon[edit]

The entry for mirror canon was incorrect; I changed it. You do not use a mirror to read a mirror canon, unless, of course, you are smoking crack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2007

origin of 'canon' not just old french, but arabic/greek meaning 'law' - qaanoon[edit]

The origin of the word 'canon' not only old french, but arabic and greek meaning 'law' - qaanoon. such as baghdad 800-1000 AD in sources. same with origins of departments/faculties & universities.

For example see: For a history of ideas see George Makdisi's book,

The mention of the origin as Old French is therefore narrow and needs correction please. How old it is in greek (via pheonician sources?) or arabic sources (around mediterranean) is difficult to speculate. the word is common (meaning law, in its popular sense, or its instrument) in arabic, persian, urdu, etc.

Small help in clearing eurocentrism. best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn-arabi (talkcontribs) 13:52, 27 October 2008

English is a European language based partly on Old French. Thus it is hardly eurocentric to assume European origins for its vocabulary in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In any case whether the origin of canon was Greek or Arabic, it almost certainly entered Old French from that origin first and was brought from there to English. So as far as English is concerned the origin was Old French. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


References lack the "reflist" keyword to directly relate to any citations on the main text. Also any citations on the main text should be inserted using <ref> and </ref>, not using plain text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiphysicsgr (talkcontribs) 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true only for one of the two major divisions of the several referencing styles used in Wikipedia. This article uses a style called parenthetical referencing, whereas the one you describe uses endnotes (most often called "footnotes", but this is technically incorrect since Wikipedia does not break articles into separate pages). You should also consult WP:CITEVAR, and the articles Help:Overview of referencing styles and Help:Referencing for beginners.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)