Jump to content

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.

Once again, no consensus. Doesn't take an admin to figure that out. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A previous RfC had 3 supporting editors for changing the current arbitrary century marker dates to important benchmark dates in the Bach Legacy time-line, with 2 editors opposed which resulted in deadlock. The current chronology of the Bach Legacy section is arbitrarily organized by century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000, etc, rather than specific important dates directly relevant to the Bach Legacy section. Another RfC (see above on Talk page) has identified 1829 (the date of the Mendelssohn Bach revival) as being of heightened importance to understanding the Bach Legacy as a whole. Mendelssohn worked extensively to revive Bach's reputation between 1824-1829 with the revived performance of Bach's Matthew Passion in Germany in 1829. The dates in the Bach chronology should reflect this in a new and enhanced outline covering first, 1750-1829, followed by 1830-1899, etc, leaving the rest of the section unchanged at this time. This RfC is to determine SUPPORT or OPPOSE for the enhanced specification of the benchmark dates over and against the use of arbitrary century markers currently used in the Bach Legacy section. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bach Legacy: 1750-1829

Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach, including over 100 cantatas and his St Mark Passion, of which no copies are known to survive. At one point, the diary of one family member records the selling of the high quality parchment used for the hand-written transcriptions to be used for their stock value as packing paper at a local cheese shop due to harsh financial necessity. The legacy of Bach's Matthew Passion, although surviving, also followed a complex historical path following Bach's death following its nearly complete loss. In 1829, with the backing of Zelter and the assistance of actor Eduard Devrient, Mendelssohn arranged and conducted a performance in Berlin of Bach's St Matthew Passion. Four years previously his grandmother, Bella Salomon, had given him a copy of the manuscript of this (by then all-but-forgotten) masterpiece.[1] The orchestra and choir for the performance were provided by the Berlin Singakademie. The success of this performance was an important element in the revival of J. S. Bach's music in Germany and, eventually, throughout Europe.[2] It earned Mendelssohn widespread acclaim at the age of 20. It also led to one of the few references which Mendelssohn made to his origins: "To think that it took an actor and a Jew's son to revive the greatest Christian music for the world!"[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Grove Music Online, Mendelssohn, Felix, §2
  2. ^ Mercer-Taylor 2000, pp. 73–75.
  3. ^ Todd 2003, pp. 193–198.
  4. ^ Devrient 1869.
(Note: I changed Fountains-of-Paris's boldface formatting to quotebox and reflist formatting, for ease of reading and understanding. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Support/Oppose section and background summary

Another previous RfC at Johann Sebastian Bach had 4-5 editors in support of changes with citations added to the proposed text, and two editors Opposed User:Martindale and User:Francis Schonken. This new RfC is open for review for your SUPPORT/OPPOSE opinions. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. As starting this RfC. The benchmark dates for the Bach Legacy are well-known and there is no reason to apply arbitrary century marker dates which are uninformative. The edit presented above is essentially the User:Buxtehude version of this Legacy material with citations added for the relevant Mendelsohn revival of Bach. The benchmark dates should be used. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Insufficient need or rationale. Century sections make much more sense and are easier to organize, especially with such a large amount of details for each century. For the reader, using 1750 and 1829 as cut-offs are overly confusing and unnecessary. There is no pressing need to over-pigeonhole date ranges. If we want to emphasize his death date, re-iterate his death date in that sentence. If we want to emphasize the importance of Mendelssohn's SMP performance, make that appropriately more emphatic in the text and give more details, or add a sub-subheading there. These are all issues that are better handled by good writing than by changing date ranges. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing copypaste !vote-stacking. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The editors from the previous related RfC where not in agreement with your position and they stated the following comments which I am quoting here directly below. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sectioning the reception by more meaningful dates. Also support keeping more detail and dropping less details whenever possible. Also support un-Disney-fying the article whenever possible. Please don't overly systematize the section according to periods, i.e. please don't make things fit if they don't or portray a simplistic story because it makes a simple narrative, but it's better than century-divisions. However, instead of a purely chronological organization, please consider thematic breakdown instead. So a section on the Mendelssohn Bach revival, in itself, rather than the year of the timeline division being set like that. Ultimately, all simplified versions are just that -- simplified. Thanks for you hard work, editors, and i hope you can get along. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support using more meaningful dates, and keeping more detailed text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC))
Reformatted as quotations for clarification. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris, I'm collapsing this inappropriate copypasting of !votes. If you continue to disrupt this talk page with copypasting !votes or creating repetitive RfCs, or disrupt the article by editwarring, your disruptive behaviors will be reported to an administrators noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agreeing with User:Softlavender on the signpost years. Although the paragraph on the Legacy is not part of the RfC for this vote, I want to vote against giving any support to the cheese shop anecdote. As I've pointed out before, the anecdote that Fountains-of-Paris named for User:Buxtehude is one that Buxtehude deleted on March 30. I'm also unhappy with Fountains-of-Paris for repeatedly starting RfCs, which obstruct editing the content. Marlindale (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the over-use of RfC bit. I think if he starts any more after this one, a case for administrative review or sanction is in order. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The actual comment from User:Buxtehude appeared to be in agreement with User:Jashiin on his preference that the edit be supported with further citations added. This is his statement from the first RfC reposted directly below this one. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris, please read what Marlindale is actually saying. He's talking about this edit made by Buxtehude on March 30, deleting the butchershop anecdote. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I closed a previous RFC almost to this effect. I was required to be uninvolved to make that close. I will however now !vote against making this change that has no community consensus. Neither other editors nor I see the point to this RFC. I will repeat that I would suggest formal mediation, which, in my view, is preferred over administrative review for tedious refilings. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This participation by that same previous editor who closed the previous RfCs appears to be in Conflict of interest. If that editor was previously predisposed to Oppose the content of the previous RfCs then there appears a need to re-open the previous RfC contents as still applicable here, otherwise this last Oppose should be deleted as being a Conflict of interest. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Good grief, he wasn't "previously predisposed to Oppose the content of the previous RfCs"; he has closed previous RfCs here properly and neutrally [1], [2], carefully assessing WP:CONSENSUS. Here he is !voting from his own perspective, which is not a conflict-of-interest, since he will not be closing this RfC. You've already made these unfounded accusations against Robert McClenon at least once [3]; if you do it again you will be reported to an administrator's noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me inappropriate to drag into the current RfC comments from the previous one. In fact the creator of the latest RfC, Fountains-of-Paris, is the only one to have voted in support of it. In the meantime, Fountains-of-Paris had accused me (formally) of edit warring, but this accusation was denied by Users Oshwah, Softlavender and Katie if I recall correctly. On another point, I don't favor formal mediation under the circumstances here. Marlindale (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't personally think formal mediation is necessary either, as consensus is clear and has been for some time, and RfC is a form of WP:DR that supersedes mediation or the need for it. I do think that Fountains-of-Paris's repetitive disruptive behaviors stand to be reviewed, however, if they continue. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment and possible close. This morning I have reconsidered all the comments made in the above discussion and it seems that by endorsing one of the previous edits made by another editor on the Bach page that this RfC close be brought to a possible close. Someone else took out my edit in morning in which I was endorsing one of the edits made by another editor. If someone else can restore the edit in which I was endorsing one of the edits made by another editor then I could offer to self-close this RfC as possibly acceptable to all involved. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris, you cannot close your own RfC. The fact that you would even propose that shows that you are out of touch. You may withdraw your own RfC if it is SNOW opposed, but you may not close your own RfC. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The closing of the RfC may have special problems in this case? I would like to see it closed, although the main thing I would like is for Fountains-of-Paris to stop editing this article and Talk page. Marlindale (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That was your edit being restored by me in the Mendelssohn material. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Not my edit, it was more complicated than that. Marlindale (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This is your signature and your time stamp. Your own edit identified with your signature on the Bach article appeared on this time stamp and was deleted by User:Francis: "01:53, 1 March 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (130,741 bytes) (+1,386)‎ . . (→‎19th century: preliminary efforts toward the 1829 revival)." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I would Support the general notion that broad date ranges don't need to correspond to century intervals (1700, 1800, 1900, etc) and should rather be informed by specific events and periods described by scholars as significant. Even middle school readers who read this page for class projects are smart enough to handle that. I don't have any commentary about which specific dates are best. -Darouet (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sectioning the reception by more meaningful dates. Also support keeping more detail and dropping less details whenever possible. Also support un-Disney-fying the article whenever possible. Please don't overly systematize the section according to periods, i.e. please don't make things fit if they don't or portray a simplistic story because it makes a simple narrative, but it's better than century-divisions. However, instead of a purely chronological organization, please consider thematic breakdown instead. So a section on the Mendelssohn Bach revival, in itself, rather than the year of the timeline division being set like that. Ultimately, all simplified versions are just that -- simplified. Thanks for you hard work, editors, and i hope you can get along. Yeah i did mean what i said before and i don't think it was "vote stacking" -- and can't we all get along and not be jerks to each other? Over Bach? Who is full of love? Wow... SageRad (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
NOTE to closing admin: This user (SageRad) was canvassed (pinged) by the initiator of this RfC (Fountains-of-Paris) in this edit: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The !vote above by SageRad was moved from the top of the survey to the correct chronological placement on 25 March 2016 by me. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The preceding note by User:SageRad was inserted almost a whole month out of date sequence.. It sounds familiar from the previous RfC. but with some new wording. It was "vote stacking" (so called by User:Softlavender) when Fountains-Of-Paris brought votes from the old RfC into this one. I don't know what will happen with this RfC. Marlindale (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a (fairly nonsensical in this context) verbatim copypaste from this canvassed copypaste [5], with an added coda. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Support -- Then let me rephrase this. I currently am here, because i am here, and not by any canvassing but because this is important to me, and i think the organization should be by meaningful periods if possible and not by arbitrary century boundaries. So there is my opinion on this current RfC on this day the 25th of March 2016, with good will and hoping you all can stop making mountains out of molehills and try to see each other's points of view and work with civility and integrity. Cheers, for the love of Bach. SageRad (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Struck duplicate !vote. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: This RfC is the second RfC on the exact same topic filed by Fountains-of-Paris within 40 days (and the third within 80 days): The previous one was filed 20 January and closed 22 February [6]; apparently not taking no for an answer, Fountains-of-Paris opened this current RfC four days later, and copypasted the "Support" !votes (thereby pinging/canvassing as well) he got in the previous RfC [7], but failing to copypaste the Oppose !votes. Additionally, Fountains-of-Paris had opened an even more confused and garbled RfC on 7 December 2015, closed 20 January 2016: [8]. In addition to various other forms of longwinded contentiousness and disruption on this talk page and article, on February 26 he opened an exceedingly incongruous filing against Marlindale (concerning these RfCs) on ANI: [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation footnote for name

"Sebastian" isn't pronounced with a "Z" sound in English, so there needs to be an English pronunciation guide for the entire name, not just for the surname as exists now. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I just tried to fix that. Marlindale (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that {{IPA|de|ˈjoːhan zeˈbasti̯an ˈbax|}} gives the German pronunciation, which is correctly transcribed with /z/. If an English pronunciation is desired, it should be added to the respective English pronunciation guide in that footnote; the German pronunciation should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In English we want the sibilant (voiceless) sound of s as first letter in Sebastian. A different but analogous case would be the name Strauss for which the first s is sibilant in English but in German, like English sh.. One might look at that for guidance on possibly giving both pronunciations? If someone is sure they understand it, go ahead and make the change, I am not at all knowledgeable about representing phonetics.. Marlindale (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a pronunciation guide for Strauss (Johann or Richard) so maybe that won't help. `Marlindale (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Now I tried to give both German and English pronunciations. Willl someone who understands IPA PLEASE CHECK. Marlindale (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment... the current footnote, as I see it in my browser is the immensely confusing:

[ˈjoːhan zeˈbasti̯an ˈbax]; pronounced /lang/ (* listen)

In English, at least in the English spoken in England while I was living there, his middle name is always pronounced with an /s/, not a /z/, and if the article is intended to help people who know less about the subject than the editors, I think it should give this pronunciatin first. Is it really necessary to give the modern standard German pronunciation as well? How does this help, without a proper explanation of the various states, dialects, etc involved in the last 300 years. What is the function of the 'hat' thing under the 'i'? I guess this is some detailed phonetic claim about the voicing of the vowel, but such things do not belong in a general phonemic guide to pronunciation, which is all that is appropriate here. Some speakers will have different levels of voicing, and no native speaker would claim they were mispronouncing. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that using the German IPA alone is confusing for a non-Deutsch-speaking English speaker. The current revision of the article, presenting both the German and English pronunciations as a footnote thus: the German: ˈjoːhan zeˈbasti̯an ˈbax; English: jo:han seˈbastian ˈbɑːk, seems like a satisfactory compromise to me. Carlstak (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The first letter of the middle name seems agreed on now as being different between German and English, but it seems there is an issue about the last name. The last phoneme "ch" in a sense doesn't exist in English, and yet I would have thought the pronunciation in English might be the same as in German? Marlindale (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I tend to say Bach as /bɑːx/, but many people say /bɑːk/. Probably both variants should be given. — Eru·tuon 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I found a discussion relating to the pronunciation on Wordreference.com. The "ch" at the end of German "Bach" or Scottish "loch" was said to have IPA symbol /x/, which seems to be about what was just suggested. Marlindale (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous note on pronunciation

I have observed the to-and-fro on the pronunciation note at the beginning of the lead. First, I think it is probably a good idea to relegate the pronunciation to a footnote, and it is worthwhile recording the (variation of) pronunciations in English, and also useful to have the original pronunciation in German. However, some comments:

  • Please refrain from editing pronunciations if you have no clue what IPA is. Just because something is given as the pronunciation guide in a dictionary (particularly an American one) does not mean it is IPA.
  • It really is not helpful to have statemtents like "...appears in Phonetics for Dummies". Arguments about the issue should be on the talk page.

Imaginatorium (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving both options here:

Dictionary.com has /ˈyoʊ hɑn zeɪˈbɑs tiˌɑn bɑx/ for the German pronunciation and /ˈyoʊ hɑn sɪˈbæs tʃən bɑx/ for the English pronunciation.[1] The same pronunciation of the last name is found in Phonetics For Dummies.[2]

or:

Dictionary.com has /ˈjoʊhɑːn sɪˈbæstʃən ˈbɑːx/ for the English pronunciation.[3] The same pronunciation of the last name is found in Phonetics For Dummies.[4]

References

  1. ^ "johann sebastian bach" entry at Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House. Retrieved 3 May 2016.
  2. ^ William F. Katz. Phonetics For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, 2013. ISBN 9781118505083. p. 261
  3. ^ "johann sebastian bach" entry at Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House. Retrieved 3 May 2016.
  4. ^ William F. Katz. Phonetics For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, 2013. ISBN 9781118505083. p. 261

The second option above is of course impossible. Dictionary.com claims IPA, and that is not what they have. So I'm removing both sentences until issues are settled here. Please no WP:OR in mainspace, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not OR to change the symbols (even non-IPA -> IPA) to match the ones used on Help:IPA for English, as long as the meaning is the same - and it is. See also Help:IPA conventions for English, which also compares the dictionary.com system with our system (and many other systems).
Using dictionary.com as a source for the German pronunciation is out of question, as what they have is merely an approximation of the correct pronunciation, not the correct pronunciation itself. Besides, it's not even a German dictionary, and so, in case of German IPA, cannot be considered a reliable source. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any arguments against it, so I'm restoring the dictionary.com transcription converted to our system (Help:IPA for English). Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my original comment: this footnote is completely ridiculous. Footnotes should be brief, and give reference to supporting sources; they should not read like a talk page argument.

First, though, can anyone tell me what is the usual NAm pronunciation of Bach?! I looked in my Merriam-Webster, and it gives Bäk or Bä[x] (they represent both IPA /x/ and /ç/ by an underlined 'k'). But this 'ä' symbol is said to be the 'o' in "bother", or the 'a' in "father" for people who do not rhyme these two words. This is totally unreconcilable with England-English pronunciation: no-one English in England has this rhyme, and Bach is pronounced with the 'a' in "father". So the question is: do NAm speakers without the rhyme (there are such??) really pronounce Bach (in the 'k' version) to rhyme with "frock"?? Can we get a consensus as to the most usual NAM pronunciation, regardless of how dictionaries represent it? For British pronunciation, I honestly do not think I have ever heard anyone say "Back" (if anything "batch" is more likely); for a start, only England-English lacks the /x/ phoneme. Welsh has the diminutive term of affection "bach" (!), and Scots has "Loch Lomond", so any even semi-educated person would be aware of /x/. So if the vowel really is different, I think we should give the /x/ - /k/ alternation for NAm, and just the /x/ version for Brit.

If we can agree on what the usual pronunciations are, we can then find appropriate dictionaries to cite in support. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment on Kebab-san's last comment above. No, if Dictionary.com claims to be giving IPA, and gets it all wrong (which they do), we should regard them as unreliable, and not cite them. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Lutheran chorale

I wiki-linked to recitative and da capo aria. I think both "Lutheran" as "chorale" may not be known to readers of this basic article, in "The Lutheran chorale was the basis of much of his work. In elaborating these hymns into his chorale preludes, he wrote more cogent and tightly integrated works than most, even when they were massive and lengthy." This has a "citation required" tag, but is also far from clear, at least to me. Can we first say that he used hymn tunes in chorale preludes and as cantus firmus, that he used hymn stanzas for context in his cantatas, oratorios and passions, and that he wrote complete cantatas dedicated to one hymn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Both "Lutheran" and "chorale" have been linked in the article before arriving at the "Musical style" section.
Added to the problems mentioned by Gerda, I'm also not sure why this is in the "Musical style" section: "religious" is not a musical style; and inasmuch as Lutheran chorales indicate a style (e.g. their characteristic "Stollen") it is not explained (and probably too detaillistic for the general Bach biography page) how that influenced Bach's style (there are studies about that, but imho too specialist-technical for some general considerations on Bach's style). Similarly, neither "massive" nor "lengthy" are as such "musical style" characteristics. Pachelbel and Buxtehude had written "massive" and "lengthy" organ pieces, it doesn't explain anything about the specifics of Bach's style to qualify his compositions as massive an lengthy – besides, some of his chorale preludes are quite short and modest compared to those of some of his contemporaries and predecessors.
In short, I'd lift descriptions of "religious music" as a "musical style" from that section (the verifiability of such analogies appears tenuous), and instead elaborate in the biographical section what Lutheranism and the Lutheran chorale meant for Bach, where these topics are mentioned earlier on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tone of "Musical Style."

The overview in the musical style section seems to be written languidly, by someone thoroughly unimpressed by the composer. It contrasts markedly with similar sections concerning other composers.. Should be more focused on critical reception and more thoroughly cited. Thoughts? 216.49.181.251 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Re. "... similar sections concerning other composers..." - I looked at the pages of some of his prominent contemporaries (Telemann, Handel, Domenico Scarlatti), and couldn't find a separate section describing their musical style: can you clarify what you see as an exemplary treatment of the musical style of a composer? Please point us to some biographical articles where it is done the way you think it should be done here. Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Bach cantatas

Template:Bach cantatas has been nominated for merging with Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Closed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Split navinfobox in navinfobox + sidebar?

Unhide to see the proposal...

Proposal to split the navinfobox in navinfobox + sidebar

Current navinfobox

Johann Sebastian Bach
Portrait of Bach, aged 61, by E. G. Haussmann, 1748
Born

Eisenach
Died28 July 1750(1750-07-28) (aged 65)
Leipzig
WorksList of compositions
Signature

Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685 – 28 July 1750) was a German composer and musician of the Baroque period. He enriched established German styles through his skill in counterpoint, harmonic and motivic organisation, and the adaptation of rhythms, forms, and textures from abroad, particularly from Italy and France. Bach's compositions include the Brandenburg Concertos, the Goldberg Variations, the Mass in B minor, two Passions, and over three hundred cantatas of which around two hundred survive. His music is revered for its technical command, artistic beauty, and intellectual depth.

Bach's abilities as an organist were highly respected during his lifetime, although he was not widely recognised as a great composer until a revival of interest in and performances of his music in the first half of the 19th century. He is now generally regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time.

Proposed split

Johann Sebastian Bach
Haussmann's Portrait of Bach (1748)
Born21 March 1685 (O.S.)
31 March 1685 (N.S.)
Eisenach
Died28 July 1750(1750-07-28) (aged 65)
Leipzig
Signature
Lists of
Compositions by
Johann Sebastian Bach

Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685 – 28 July 1750) was a German composer and musician of the Baroque period. He enriched established German styles through his skill in counterpoint, harmonic and motivic organisation, and the adaptation of rhythms, forms, and textures from abroad, particularly from Italy and France. Bach's compositions include the Brandenburg Concertos, the Goldberg Variations, the Mass in B minor, two Passions, and over three hundred cantatas of which around two hundred survive. His music is revered for its technical command, artistic beauty, and intellectual depth.

Bach's abilities as an organist were highly respected during his lifetime, although he was not widely recognised as a great composer until a revival of interest in and performances of his music in the first half of the 19th century. He is now generally regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time.

Comments

  • Support proposed split (as proposer). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: the different formats of infobox and sidebar are not pleasing, and the large header of the navboxis distracting. IF we need to do something, which I doubt because all these links should be in the lead, we could add them to the infobox. But why. I expect navigation information at the bottom
    • Re. "...different formats of infobox and sidebar..." – Do they show in a different format on your screen? I tried to make them the same format in the proposal. If you can explain which features show differently to you, this can probably be fixed.
      • "Mine" are not relevant, such things depend on user preferences. I have my infoboxes with rounded corners, and it's a bit more narrow than the other. --GA
    • Re. "large header of the navbox" – I suppose you intended to say "large header of the sidebar" (which indeed could be made smaller)?
      • You are right, it was short for side-navebox. IF we had two boxes, the name Bach would not need to be repeated. --GA
    • Re. "all these links should be in the lead" – I copied the current lead with the examples above, which makes it easier to check: no not all of the lists are mentioned in the current lead (which is BTW rather shortish for such long article). Maybe a first step would be to make the lead somewhat more in proportion to the article length (+/- 4 paragraphs?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
      • That's why I said "should be". I said many times - often in opera discussions, infobox for the specific work vs. side-navebox with links to other works by the composer - that I don't understand why a reader who just arrived at an article should be sent away. IF a side-navebox, perhaps later in the article, where the work is covered? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

It was established at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 15#Pronunciation footnote for name in March/May this year that the German pronunciation is [ˈjoːhan zeˈbasti̯an ˈbax], 1st name stressed on 1st syllable. This edit on 5 May by User:Mr KEBAB changed it to "German pronunciation: [joˈhan zeˈbasti̯an ˈbax]. His first name can also be pronounced [ˈjoːhan], with stress on the first syllable." This was challenged by User:Erutuon on 4 September, and reverted by Mr KEBAB the next day. Erutuon remarked in his edit summary that "accent of Johann is on first syllable; accent on second syllable only in longer form Johannes". I think Erutuon is correct and the pronunciation ought to be changed back to [ˈjoːhan]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not about who you think is correct but what the sources say.
Krech et al. (2009:628): Johann ʝohˈan od. ʝˈoː... (NOTE: we use ⟨j⟩ for their ⟨ʝ⟩ and transcribe stress before consonants)
Mangold (2005:443): Johann joˈhan, auch: ˈjoːhan
As you can see, not only do they include both variants, they also list the finally-stressed pronunciation before the initially-stressed one. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender:, are you serious? Two pronunciation dictionaries for German list a pronunciation and you call it "non-standard"? Two non-native speakers revert a sourced pronunciation, yet I'm the one who somehow has to gain the consensus? The discussion Michael Bednarek linked to lists no sources (as far as the native German pronunciation is concerned), so it's not relevant. I'm afraid I have to remind both of you of WP:RS and WP:OR! Reverting back. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Standard German pronunciation of Johann is accented on the first syllable. Please gain WP:CONSENSUS on this talk-page before changing it again. If the sources we quote in the footnote actually contradict this, then it's probably a good idea for the article to use sources that use the correct German pronunciation of Johann. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Adding some OR: In Germany, it will be stressed on the first syllable, in Austria on the second, therefore dictionaries of the German language will have both. Bach was not Austrian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
For Mr KEBAB's consideration: a) I am a native German speaker; b) please read WP:BRD; c) read the talk page archives; d) sources can be wrong – there was a long-running dispute about a wrong solution in a reputable source to a chess problem years ago on Wikipedia; this is simpler than that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: OK let me now recommend you reading WP:EXPERTISE and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES.
@Gerda Arendt: This is the first valuable response in this thread, thank you. The problem I have is that the finally-stressed pronunciation is actually listed first in both of those dictionaries, and so it would be very good to see a source that confirms the German-Austrian distinction in stress.
@Michael Bednarek: re C: please link the relevant discussions. Re D: both sources list the same pronunciations, so that significantly reduces the risk that they're wrong. Plus, Gerda Arendt has already said that according to her knowledge, the finally-stressed variant appears in the Austrian variety. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
More OR: Austrian places such as St. Johann in Tirol are stressed on the second syllable. German radio announcers stress on the first syllable. One of the dearest people in my life is called Johann, first syllable. It's also a more musical flow ;) - Excuse me for the weekend, please, going to sing (Mendelssohn). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Counterevidence, though it may not be very strong: German Wiktionary only lists the initial-stress version. Maybe there aren't enough Austrians there? — Eru·tuon 08:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
(2×ec) @Mr KEBAB: so some OR is OK, if it coincides with your position? As Gerda wrote, JSB wasn't Austrian, and I'm not convinced that that variant is "received pronunciation" for Bach's first name in Austria. You might also consider Johann and de:wikt:Johann – and don't retort with WP:OTHERSTUFF or similar. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone fluent in German begin the discussion on German Wiktionary/Wikipedia (and post a link to it here)?
@Gerda Arendt and Erutuon: Thanks.
@Michael Bednarek: By "valuable" I meant not a post like "it's not like that because I say so". Also, remember that WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages, and we're still discussing the issue, and I asked Gerda for a source, not merely went with her words (so your criticism is invalid). I'm also not sure why you're linking to WP:OTHERSTUFF, maybe you meant a different policy/guideline? I'm still waiting for the links to the archived discussions by the way. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
More OR: I try so far in vain to find any two-syllable German name that is NOT stressed on the first syllable: Anna Thomas Werner Rudolf Anton Dietrich. For those who don't know: I am German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Michael Bednarek linked to the archive discussions in his OP. Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I may be missing something but there's not a single mention of the stress issue there, and one of the sources used there (Dictionary.com) is unreliable. I don't think it's relevant, unless the Phonetics For Dummies source provides German pronunciation (I don't know that). Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm active on English Wiktionary, and I will ask about the pronunciation of Johann there if no one says in the next day that they have posted on German Wiktionary. — Eru·tuon 20:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016


Doesn't really matter, but there's no link to CPE in the sub-section "Death (1750)". It's "His son Carl Philipp Emanuel and his pupil Johann Friedrich Agricola co-authored Bach's obituary, which was published in 1754" Should be "His son Carl Philipp Emanuel (Bach?) and his pupil Johann Friedrich Agricola co-authored Bach's obituary, which was published in 1754" Idk, I'm just learning, thanks!

Kca224 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done that would be OVERLINKING - as he is linked further up. We only normally link the first use, although there are exceptions for the lead section, the infobox etc. - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

Change this sentence: 'tuned in the modern tempered system that allowed a wide range of keys[clarification needed] to be used.' ...

To: 'tuned in a temperament which allows music written in a wider range of keys to be played.'

This change avoids the misleading use of the word 'modern'.

Further information, which you may wish to refer or link to, can be found in the article below.

Bach's keyboard tuning

Tuning a keyboard instrument to sound good in all 24 keys (12 major and 12 minor) is not easy, and has taxed the brains of musical theorists through the centuries. Putting the problem simply, three pure major thirds are too small to fit within an octave. For example if the major thirds C – E then E – G# are tuned as pure intervals, the remaining third G# (A♭) - C will be massively wide and unpleasant to listen to.

In the 17th and 18th centuries it was common practice to compromise the purity of certain intervals, a process known as 'tempering the scale'. This was done to allow the playing of music in a wider range of keys without causing offence to the ear of the listener. The word 'temperament' is used to describe any such system of tuning.

The organ-builder perhaps best-known to J.S. Bach was Gottfried Silbermann. It is thought that he tuned his organs to some some form of Mean Tone temperamnt which allowed the simpler keys (such as C, G, D, F, etc) to sound pleasing to the ear. However, as the player modulated to remoter keys, there would be increasing harshness and occasional 'wolf' intervals, so-called because they howled unbearably. Bach clearly had a firmer grasp of tuning theory than Silbermann as he is known to have exhorted the organ builder to “sharpen the thirds” (by which he meant 'widen the thirds') making it possible to play in remoter keys.

In writing his two sets of Preludes and Fugues, Das wohltemperierte Klavier, Bach's intention was to illustrate that music could be played in all the major and minor keys. It is unlikely that he would have known how to tune his harpsichord or clavichord to the mathematically derived modern system of tuning known as Equal Temperament. (Here all the major thirds are widened by an identical amount so that any group of three will fit exactly within any octave.)

It is more likely that Bach would have used a tuning system similar to the unequal but nevertheless very acceptable temperaments proposed by theorists such as Werckmeister (1645 – 1706), Neinhardt (1685 – 1739) or Vallotti (1697 – 1780)

In pusuit of authenticity it has become common for harpsichords and neo-Baroque organs to be tuned to such unequal temperaments.

Adrian Carpenter M.A., B.Mus. Member of the Institute of Musical Instrument Technology 86.169.81.137 (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I just did it (before seeing the comment). Buxtehude (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The above seems correct, If I remember correctly, Gardiner's Music in the Castle of Heaven probably says something about tuning, although I can't confirm since I don't have the book with me right now. Also, (https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Well-Tempered-Clavier-BWV-846-893) suggests that Bach could possibly (but didn't necessarily) have used a system other than equal temperament. The following article suggests Bach didn't use the modern definition of equal temperament, but it also states that whatever he used allowed to play in most (if not all) keys: (http://www.academia.edu/5210832/18th_Century_Quotations_Relating_to_J.S._Bach_s_Temperament). Also, I think that the text change proposed is better than the older version, since we cannot confirm that Bach actually used the "modern" system. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Alex Ross, Holy Dread, NYer 1-2-2017

[Conductor] John Eliot Gardiner Gardiner may go too far in characterizing Bach as a “reformed teenage thug,” but the young composer is known to have drawn a dagger in the midst of an altercation with a bassoonist. [!] [11] Ross's piece goes on about JS Bach's undoubted, fervent Lutheran orthodoxy, and reflects that Bach, sadly, likely shared Martin Luther's anti-Semitism. Interesting review-essay, worth a look for contribs to our article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

ObSF: Mozart in Mirrorshades

--Pete Tillman (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

Edit Request: Addition of Johann Sebastian Bach's mother's name.

Please change Johann Sebastian Bach's mother's (no name given) to Johann Sebastian Bach's mother's name is Maria Elisabeth Lämmerhirt.

Source-- Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Elisabeth_L%C3%A4mmerhirt

NOTE: Bach's birth year and the full name of his father, as well as some of his siblings, are given. But Bach's mother's name is absent when Wiki article discusses Bach's birth and family and her death (when Bach was aged 10.)

Thank you. Juliekrug (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Juliekrug: done. Kindly see your talkpage for the link to "differences". —usernamekiran (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I reverted that change because Bach's mother's name was already mentioned in the "Childhood" section. Further, the added material wandered off-topic and the use of {{plain image with caption}} is unnecessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Michael Bednarek: I apologise. I inserted the name without reading the article further. I can understand te revert regarding that. But i can not understand why my changes regarding images were reverted. Would you please explain that? I think, the images now look disorganised, and they are not in chronological order either. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there are too many images in this article. In any resolution, the right margin is a solid column of images, scores, sound files, many only tangentially relevant, some not at all. They need severe culling. As to the sequence of the graphic showing where JSB lived and the image of his father: I think an argument can be made both ways, have the father's picture first, where he's mentioned for the first time; or have the graphic first in the section "Life", next to the concise outline of his life. Consequently, restoring the long-standing order of these two images didn't seem exceptional. As for the template {{plain image with caption}}: I can't see any use for it here, or anywhere else; it's a solution is search of a problem, but that doesn't need to be discussed here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This image wins my prize for most tangentially related. I removed it once already, also in the cantata of that name, and won't do it again (voluntary 1RR). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

images

@Gerda Arendt and Michael Bednarek: if you guys feel some images should be moved or deleted, we can hold a voting on talkpage, and go with consensus. And thanks for the explanation Michael. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, Michael Bednarek, and Usernamekiran:Well, here's my opinion. I'm sure a lot of the images could be removed, as they don't add all too much to the article. By image caption, here is a short list (to begin with) of images I think can be removed without controversy. They add little meaningful illustration and are not all particularly relevant, some cover the same thing as another better suited image (ex. the ornaments or the monument):
-St. George's Church in Eisenach, where Bach was baptised. Portal inscription: "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott"
-Portrait of the young Bach (disputed).
-Bach's seal, used throughout his Leipzig years. It contains the letters J S B superimposed over their mirror image topped with a crown
-"Aria" of the Goldberg Variations, showing Bach's use of ornaments
-Image of the Bach memorial (de) Felix Mendelssohn had erected in Leipzig in 1843
-Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, along with the rest of the public, awaiting the start of a 2011 performance of the St. Matthew Passion. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. And as Gerda said in the discussion above this one, the image of St George's Church wins this competition. I agree with the stranger IPUser here. We should trim the images in the article. At the least, if we cant delete the images, we should move them in such a manner that it should not look the images are scattered all over the article, like it looks now. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with the selection of less informative. In a way - but knowing it's impossible - I'd like to get rid of the first image, showing Bach as an old severe man, while when he composed most of his beloved works, he was much younger. Any of his handwritten music seems to show so much more life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree. The first image is the commonly known portrait of Bach. The second image (younger) is not even sure to be his and it is disputed. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Some general suggestions:

Maybe a good idea to take a look at such reference works for deciding which images merit inclusion (at least for the biography section, audio examples are afaik not included in printed books)?
  • "images ... scattered all over the article" vs. "right margin ... a solid column of images, scores, sound files" – I'd prefer the "right margin column" of illustrations (for now), which, in my assessment, is *not* the same as "scattered all over the article". --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia caters for a lot of different audiences and devices:
    • Audiences: e.g. some readers might read scores, others not. Neither those reading scores, nor those with no experience in that field should be left out of a general assessment of what merits inclusion.
    • Devices: e.g. standard PDF export, and mobile phones (an ever more important group of readers use these) will redistribute and resize images (if not omitting, for instance images in navboxes). What happens with audio files depending on device is an even more complex matter. Be aware that the layout you see on your screen might be completely different from what someone else sees on their screen, e.g. MOS:SANDWICHING is completely resolved in mobile phone view, and may exist or not exist on other devices depending on screen resolution, window view size, etc. – which doesn't prevent us from applying the guidance to avoid it whether you see the undesirable effect on your screen or not.
  • Available choice of illustrations can be limited: e.g. Commons doesn't contain files that are under copyright of a non-free license. High quality images and recent audio recordings may be unavailable for that reason. So sometimes it is a choice between a somewhat less apt image (which can be a defensible choice) or no illustration at all (which may be as defensible). In other words I have no prejudice against people choosing either way for particular files: this is, in many aspects, more like a style choice (case-by-case consensus) than a policy decision (where consensus is rather found on a similar way to interpret the applicability of existing policies). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Illustrating Bach#Childhood (1685–1703)

Suggestions (Childhood section)

Please add your suggestions here:

  • I'd keep the current Ambrosius Bach image, but would make it the same width as most of the other images in the biography section. It is a fairly standard image for illustrating Bach's early years. For the "feste Burg" inscription image: I'm neutral about whether we should keep it – it is not a standard illustration in Bach biographies afaik, but surely, with the images available at Commons (or a new one if there's none there) we can find a second illustration for a four-paragraph section? In other words: I'd only remove the "feste Burg" inscription image if we can replace it by a more suitable one. (I'd take other suggestions above section by section in a similar vein). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd also keep the father, but see no reason to show at that point some inscription out of context, + in German. Do we know if it existed when Bach was baptised? For sure he could not read it then ;) - If we need an image (I don't think so) an interior view of a church he would have attended (was it that one?) seems more suitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Re. "Do we know if it existed when Bach was baptised?" – quoting the image caption for the third time in this section "St. George's Church in Eisenach, where Bach was baptised." (emphasis added). If you doubt the content of the current image caption ask for verification (or seek such verification yourself), but that is not the topic here.
    • Re. interior/exterior: I see no reason why an interior image would be preferable over an exterior image? Could you explain your preference in that sense?
    • At de:Georgenkirche (Eisenach) I read "Hier predigte Martin Luther in der Zeit der Reformation, wodurch sie zu einem der ältesten protestantischen Gotteshäuser überhaupt wurde ... Die Familie Bach beging hier mehrere familiäre Anlässe, unter anderem die Taufe von Johann Sebastian Bach 1685" (one of the earliest Lutheran places of worship ... importance for Bach family, including Bach's baptism).
    • Commons:Category:Interior of Georgenkirche Eisenach has several nice pictures of the church's organ, of which the German Wikipedia article (linked above) says: "Der Prospekt der Orgel stammt noch von der Orgel, die von 1697 bis 1707 von Georg Christoph Stertzing nach einem Dispositionsvorschlag von Johann Christoph Bach gebaut wurde. Mit vier Manualen und 58 Registern war sie seinerzeit die größte Orgel Thüringens." (exterior of the current organ similar to what was built, under the brother of Bach's father-in-law, shortly after Bach left Eisenach, then the largest organ of Thuringia). So that part of the interior is not what it looked like at Bach's baptism or early age, but probably not less influential for Bach as a musician.
    • The church also has a Bach statue (commons:Category:Bachstatue (Georgenkirche Eisenach)), but this of course says nothing about Bach's youth in Eisenach (don't even think this statue needs separate mention in the reception section). Anyways, I'd rather use an exterior inscription with a chorale text representative for his Lutheran upbringing (significant to Bach, e.g. BWV 80 and 302–303, and linked from the caption if you're looking for a translation), than an interior image that says little or nothing about Bach in the first 10 years of his life (or no image at all illustrating the atmosphere of the Eisenach of Bach's early youth). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't question that Bach was baptized in the church, only wonder if this inscription already existed when that happened, - and even if yes, how the inscription would have influenced the boy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the image at https://books.google.com/books?id=N1zSVDYTCXgC&pg=PA5 (identical to Commons File:Eisenacher Gesangbuch Tugendlieder.jpg, see below) may be more useful to illustrate Bach's religious education? Anyhow, would like an image showing the atmosphere of late 17th-century Eisenach: File:Eisenach-1647-Merian.jpg (although such "view from a distance" is maybe no ideal picture here either)? File:Eisenach kurz vor dem Ostern (2011) - panoramio (6).jpg (modern street makeup maybe too anachronistic and/or panoramic view may make it seem bigger than it is)? File:Eisenach Germany Georgenkirche-01.jpg (less focus on the inscription but still, 20th century street makeup and message board not from Bach's time, even the clock in the bell-tower may be anachronistic)? File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-23873-1699, Eisenach, St.-Georgen-Kirche, Kanzel, Altar.jpg (mid 20th-century interior, not sure how different from Bach's time, and alas no colour)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, very informative. If I had to pick just one image, I'd take the hymnal. 2nd: Lüneburg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Any preference for a Lüneburg image? I'd choose for example this one: File:Lg st michaelis environment.jpg... Another possibility: File:Lvnaeburgvm um 1682.jpg (town map some two decades before Bach's time there, with St Michael, No. 3, lower right)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Both good, capturing the period's atmosphere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tried an update ([12]). Any further comments/questions/suggestions/... regarding that update, or can we move on to the next topic (which would be the questionable "young Bach" painting I suppose)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional information about Bach's selection for a post in Leipzig (1723–50)

I just wanted to input an additional information about J.S Bach selection in Leipzig. The current version says: "After having been offered the position, Bach was invited to Leipzig only after Georg Philipp Telemann indicated that he would not be interested in relocating to Leipzig.[51] "

This implies that Bach was a second successful candidate, whilst in fact he was the third choice for that position. Accordingly, I suggest the following: After having been offered the position, Bach was invited to Leipzig only after Georg Philipp Telemann indicated that he would not be interested in relocating to Leipzig[51], and the second successful candidate – Christoph Graupner, was refused a leave from his employer.

This additional information has been sourced from: Spitta, Philipp (1899a). Johann Sebastian Bach: His Work and Influence on the Music of Germany, 1685–1750 (Volume 2, page 183). London: Novello & Co

I hope this information is of use.

Best Regards, Andrew Droszcz Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Droszcz (talk • contribs) 09:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This information (details about his application in Leipzig) is in Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22, one of the audition pieces. It is linked under the Leipzig header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I agree with the original poster that it should be included here as well - it's relevant information and not including it misinforms the reader. For additional reference, Wolff's (2000, 2nd ed. 2013) book has a passage on it as well, will look for the exact page later. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Johann Sebastian Bach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Phone contact during the Baroque?

"When his contemporaries, such as Handel, Telemann and Vivaldi wrote concertos he did so too. When they wrote suites, he did so too."

I can just imagine them all coordinating in their own timezones. Tony (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Structure of content on Bach's Leipzig period

I'm thinking about subdividing the content of Bach's Leipzig years, currently "Leipzig (1723–50)" section (nine paragraphs of uneven length) and Bach#Death (1750) (three paragraphs) somewhat differently, for instance like this:

  • "Appointment in Leipzig", topics:
    • Procedure leading up to his position as Thomaskantor and director musices; competitors and preferences of the city council;
    • Why Bach wanted the position;
    • Audition pieces;
    • Job description & contractual obligations (e.g. possibility to delegate some tasks; writing music not part of the contractual obligations; teaching Latin; ...);
    • Halfhearted appointment regarding Pauliner Kirche
  • "Cantata cycle years (1723–1729)", topics:
    • Cantata cycles I/II/III/IV (and according to 21st-century research: possibly V)
    • Magnificat (BWV 243a version)
    • Motets, e.g. BWV 226
    • St John and St Matthew Passions
    • Start of collaboration with Picander
    • Secular cantatas incl. Trauer-Ode
    • Second Notebook A. M. Bach
    • Publication of first four Clavier-Übung Partitas
    • Orchestral suites (No. 1; No. 4)
    • Collegium Musicum
  • "Middle years of the Leipzig period (1730–1738)", topics:
    • Revisions and reworkings of earlier compositions (e.g. harpsichord concertos);
    • Other orchestral works (concertos, suites)
    • Organ works, e.g. final form of organ sonatas
    • Clavier-Übung I (last two instalments, and publication as a whole); II; III; and contributions to Schemellis Gesangbuch
    • Launching careers of sons of first marriage; family expansion
    • Early version of Mass in B minor (Kyrie–Gloria Mass for Dresden)
    • Royal and Prince-Electoral court composer
    • More motets, secular cantatas, and filling gaps in earlier church cantata cycles
    • Oratorios; Masses BWV 233-236
  • "Last period (1739–1750)", topics:
    • Well-Tempered Clavier II
    • Goldberg Variations
    • Visit to Potsdam & Musical Offering
    • More published organ works (Schübler Chorales – Canonic Variations)
    • Haussman portrait
    • Mizler and the Society of Musical Sciences
    • More revisions (e.g. Great 18 chorale preludes) and arrangements (e.g. Pergolesi's Stabat Mater)
    • Final revisions to large-scale vocal works, incl. St. John & St Matthew Passions, and assembling of Mass in B minor
    • Art of Fugue
    • Eye condition and death
    • Legacy up to Nekrolog (1754)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

General approval. Magnificat and St. John Passion are relatively early, - how will that show? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
First year in Leipzig: first cantata cycle / Magnificat (BWV 243a, Visitation and Christmas versions) / first version of St John. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. The contents above looked like five cantata cycles would be described before getting to the Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up

Second header removed, thank you. - I wrote the sections as background for the composition of that cantata, and felt that it was too detailed for the biography. If others feel differently, it can certainly be moved, leaving what's needed in the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the main narrative of the succession procedure is more in its place in the composer's biography, with a summary in the cantata article, rather than the other way around. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right about the proposed detailed article. In 2014, it would have been undue weight for the bio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical and anachronistic inaccuracies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:FORUMSHOP; The OP has recently been warned on their talk page about not pushing this type of idiosyncrasies in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Stauffer reports the discovery in 2005 of the organ tablatures that Bach wrote out when still in his teens of works by Reincken and Dieterich Buxtehude, showing "a disciplined, methodical, well-trained teenager deeply committed to learning his craft".[20]"

Both of these allude to anachronistic terms that are not only inaccurate for this time period but also suggest Bach was part of a cohort that did not exist at the time, which makes the sentence a bit misleading. I understand that this is a quote and it cannot be edited, but before I try paraphrasing it and starting an edit war can we at least to a better agreed to paraphrasing of this sentence to cut out historical inaccuracies, part of which involves paraphrasing the direct quotation used? --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure—who wants misleading quotes. What do you propose, and is it unwise to include this point at all? Tony (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to paraphrase the quote to remove the term "teenager" to something more like showing a discliplined, methodical, well-trained youth "deeply committed to learning his craft" so as not to completely efface the quote. However, I have a feeling that other contributors would disagree with the idea of completely removing it, so I wanted to discuss whether or not I should make the first revision I suggested (paraphrase the quote) or remove the sentence altogether. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
What you propose seems better. And ... we need to apply critical scrutiny to propositions in so-called peer-reviewed sources on Bach—especially those from the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. I've seen much loose conjecture put about as authoritative scholarship. Tony (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
My edits on trying to fix these anachronisms on similar pages might be starting to stoke the possibility of an edit war so I would like to hear from a couple of other users before I make this edit. From a point of view perspective, it does not make sense to take one side of an argument without considering the other (see Adolescence#Criticism), but there is considerable research on the subject and ignoring it and suggesting that "teenage" and "adolescent" can just be used as adjectives without considering historical context only adds more historical inaccuracies to articles.

Tony seems to agree with my proposal but I keep seeing resistance when I try to do the same thing to other articles that I want to do to this page. This is probably not the ideal place to have a discussion about words and their historical contexts, but as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should not be using descriptions outside of their historical context. May I please have the input of a couple of other users before I go ahead with this? --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

So, basically, what you're saying now is that you're just WP:FORUMSHOPping. Meh. On the ground of the matter: no, what you're trying to do seems rather like an excess of political correctness (political correctness is not a goal in itself for Wikipedia) than addressing a WP:Presentism issue (even on that one there's no general agreement we should root it out completely, and as said I don't see how the Presentism guidance would apply to the material derived from Stauffer).
If the phrases referenced to Stauffer are an incorrect summary of that source it might be best to improve the wording, but I suppose you didn't check the source? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This got dragged onto other pages because I had edit conflicts on other pages, not necessarily raising them on other pages for greater attention. I apologize if you interpreted it that way. It might be wiser to let things calm down a bit and then discuss if this is a legitimate Presentism issue. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Places-he-went map

Francis rightly reinstated the premature removal of this image. But I think we all agree that something better should be our medium-term aim. Any ideas? Tony (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive_15&oldid=1241394298"