Why The Canon

This post is a reply to this comment.

Your Sigur Ros comparison relating to The Canon, though not at all inaccurate, I think ignores or misses out on some more meaningful comparisons that would have come about by instead saying “Brian Eno Canon in D is like Pachelbel done by Johann Johannsson.” Eno’s version might very well be by Johannsson for all my ears can tell. The major take away is that Eno’s and any imagined Johannsson version would be rooted in contemporary classical music (minimalism mostly) and both make it clear that baroque elements are a part of their sensibilities. While both composers are still touched by and have a foot in the world of pop music*, Sigur Ros is essentially a popular band with a pop sound**. Specifically, I mean screeching guitars, emotive vocals, hooks, and an emphasis on beat by way of percussion. While I can hear minimalist and certain classical elements in their music, those themes I feel are a small part of the Sigur Ros oeuvre. Unlike Johann Johannsson. Unlike Brian Eno. Of course, this is all a generalization. I’m very open to hearing a few pieces that might break my notions. While listening to Eno’s The Canon, “This could be Sigur Ros,” is exactly what I thought too. But that was well after I thought, “This could be Johann Johannsson.”

Re: Guitar Vivaldi. Love that stuff. I’ve been down the Michael Angelo Batio Youtube rabbit hole a few times. This is fun but no guitar face for the camera? Somewhere not in Sweden Yngwie Malmsteen is thinking the kids have lost their way. Metal guitar lends itself so well to baroque and romantic era classical music. Maybe because the complicated and difficult to play harmonics are begging for virtuosity? That is what they do.

Why The Canon and not the Four Seasons? Well, the obvious answer is that The Four Seasons is a 40+ minute full concerto while The Canon Prelude is a 4 minute song. But that might be glib. I’ll assume by Four Seasons you mean the first couple of minutes of Spring (or anywhere else the famous motif repeats for a while). Even if so, think about all the movements and complexity in that first part of Spring. There’s that part the two little sounding violins take over and do their thing for a while. The part where the cellos do that attacking thing and almost drown out the violins for a while. There’s a lot going in Spring for the sake of a narrative. The Canon does no such thing. It’s basically just a round. The Row, Row, Row, You Boat of classical music. It’s all about the effects of repetition, variation, and imitation. In this way, scope is limited and therefore more bite size. That is probably the number one reason why, amongst those in the classical-know (professionals, scholars), The Canon is considered a very pedestrian piece. There’s just not much going on there. And perhaps the basic melody is just too saccharine for them. I think I get that, but those are some of the reasons why I like it too. As I’m sure does Coolio. And Vitamin C. And The Farm. And so on. Why The Canon and not the Four Seasons? Because it’s bite size, catchy, and accessible while at the same time leaves room for pondering the interplay between the elements if you choose to do so.

Nadia and I were listening to CBC Radio one time. Every few songs, I’d ask, completely in earnest, “Is this Mumford and Sons?” It was not. So if The Canon might as well be the Four Seasons, I hear you. There’s a reason they both appear on Classical Chill Out Vol. I.

Without clicking on the link, I’m hoping it’s The Hook. If so, yeah!

*I’m using the term pop music in a very general sense. I know it when I see it. I think you can too?
**With the last album I think they have comfortably plopped themselves down amidst the current sound. Although, I’ve only heard it once. And haven’t found a reason to play it again.

8 responses to “Why The Canon”

  1. Thom says:

    Leaving aside that I couldn’t make the comparison because I didn’t know who Johann Johannsson is, I don’t think it’s as illuminating, for descriptive purposes, as the Sigur Ros one.

    Saying X doing Y is like Z doing Y doesn’t really say as much as X is like Z doing Y…and then Z doing Y is an actual thing. Sigur Ros existed and Brian Eno doing Canon in D existed and somehow they both describe the other like Calculus existing in two places at once.

    • Jae-Ho says:

      That paragraph has left me trying to untangle its meaning. Not the second one, the first one. How about clarification?

      Perhaps you are saying a Johannsson comparison has nothing to do with a Sigur Ros comparison? The Sigur Ros comparison provides a useful description on it’s own that is not enhanced or diminished by the other comparison. If that is what you are saying then I agree.

      Or let’s just say I’m confused.

      • Jae-Ho says:

        Or…

        You were using Eno’s The Canon to describe Sigur Ros. You were not using Sigur Ros to describe Eno. If so, using Johannsson to describe Eno is unrelated.

        Or let’s just say I’m confused.

  2. Thom says:

    Hmmm syntax issues. I meant to say that I didn’t miss out on making the comparison for the simple reason that I didn’t know who Johann Johannsson is.

    But even if I had known, I don’t find your description of Brian Eno doing the Canon is like Johann Johannsson doing Pachebel to be more illustrative than my contention that the former sounds like Sigur Ros.

    To whit – I might describe Richard Ayoade’s “Submarine” to be Wes Anderson doing Catcher in the Rye. Now imagine if Wes Anderson did a version of Catcher in the Rye – both exist without reference to each other, yet each describes the other very well. It works both ways without either needing the other to exist.

    For me, that’s Brian Eno’s Canon – it describes what Sigur Ros sounds like.

  3. Thom says:

    I assume you are familiar with this gentleman.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNTTS28nQU8

    • Jae-Ho says:

      I missed this comment somehow. Stupid notifications.

      I am familiar.

      Even though his technical prowess is evident to the casual observer, I don’t have enough appreciation of guitar playing to speak to his level of artistry (although I feel it is high). But I can say this, watching him as a six(?) year old finger tapping The Canon Trace Bundy style, I can almost see the hours of practice put into each chord (you can make out which parts confounded him the most when he gets especially mechanical) and how that blurs distinctions between talent and dedication.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

« READ: Tim's Vermeer

READ: A Canon Variation »