Jump to content

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Bach statue(s) in Eisenach ?

File:914u Statue of Johann Sebastian Bach, Eisenach, GER, 22 S.jpg
Frauenplan
Marktplatz

Does anyone have any knowledge concerning the Bach statue that was once located at the Marktplatz in Eisenach. I loaded an image of that statue because my first impression was that it was an altogether different statue than what now stands in the Frauenplan.

Could it be otherwise? If so, we need to correct the photo captions. User:Sba2 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Unfree audio removal

It should be noted that the audio was still in the article when this thread was started, and through many of the posts. The audio was finally removed at 20:20, 24 December 2006 by User:Danny. Of course only the unfree audio was removed, not all as claimed below. --Gmaxwell 03:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this flagrantly breached the fair-use seven-day policy. Extraordinary. When you say "finally", is that what they call "spin"? Tony 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell has destroyed all of the Bach sound excerpts; major ramifications for composer articles on WP

Dear fellow Bach contributors

An apparently extremely arrogant fellow, User Gmaxwell, has been on a rampage destroying all of the ogg sound excerpts that were painstakingly prepared for this article using the accepted 30-second duration limit and justified according to WP Composers' Project advice on fair-use inclusion of commercial recordings. In two cases, I have documentary evidence of the owner's permission to use whole tracks on WP (mentioned on the ogg file info page); this Maxwell character has destroyed those as well.

He has summarily ordered me on my talk page to answer his questions about these fair-use files; I asked him to raise any concerns he may have on this talk page, since I feel that I don't "own" these files, and that their management should be matter of wider debate; but he has apparently refused to do this. I pointed out to him that it's unacceptable behaviour to act in a sudden and unilateral way such as this, making major changes to an article without so much as a mention on the article talk page. No effect. I asked him to comment on the advice on the Composers Project page; nothing.

This Gmaxwell person has posted his own "rationale" for disputing the fair use of these excerpts on the info pages of some of these files. Doesn't make sense to me: something about how Bach died 250 years ago, thus the scores are readily available, and we should get together performers to make our own recordings.

Pass on that.

I raise this matter here in a bid to take the matter further, hoping that the excerpts will be returned to this article. This person's actions have potentially wide ramifications for the use of music in composer articles, and I think that he should not be allowed to get away with this without properly debating the matter.

Tony 09:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony, submit a complaint to WP:ANI and request a temporary block against the user. Eusebeus 13:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that'd be a good idea Eusebeus. Gmaxwell hasn't actually done anything against guidelines or policies (you might want to look deeper into who he actually is, guys). Tony, I understand the wish to use sound samples to enhance this article, and I think they are used admirably, in that they are excellent illustrations and are generally well connected with the article text. One problem is that they are not, in fact, lower quality, which is one of the requirements for a fair use claim. Another is that the content not be replaceable. The point here is not that it is not easily replaceable, or not replaceable by you the uploader, but rather, that an equally encyclopedic picture/sound could not be created freely. Since Bach's works are out of copyright and it is possible to find freely licensed scores, it is quite possible for someone to create freely licensed recordings of his music. Is it easy? No. Would it be nice if we could just use the most beautiful recordings? Yes. Would that follow the goals, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia, the Free (not just as in beer) Encyclopedia? No, using the best recordings at high fidelity does not follow WP's goals.
Now, what shall be done about it? There are tons of free midi recordings already linked on this page. Midi files of the "fair use" examples now used could be replaced for now, until free real recordings could be found. You could also look in Commons (see the category) for perhaps equally illustrative examples. Mak (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Mak. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 20:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that the fair-use provisions for commercial sound recordings are not applicable to WP, after all? First I'd heard. There's a detailed set of reasons that can be used, and no one has ever said that they all have to be used for every recording. Who said that lesser quality is a mandatory requirement? In any case, these ogg files are of lower quality than from a CD; I don't see a problem with that. In my view, the other recordings are unsuitable. We can argue this case by case, if you wish.
I'd like to see this arrogant user present a proper argument as to why fair use cannot apply to those recordings, especially the ones that I specifically organised, with written permission from the owner/company. What the hell is going on? Tony 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"So you're saying that the fair-use provisions for commercial sound recordings are not applicable to WP, after all?" No, I'm not, and I'd appreciate you not attempting to reinterpret others' statements as such, first of all. I am saying that this use does not meet them. The use must meet the usual standards for fair use, regardless of permission. That you once got the permission revoked, in fact, shows exactly why permission for unfree works must be irrelevant, however much we may appreciate the rights holder not objecting to our use. We cannot have an encyclopedia that disappears at any moment if someone changes his mind. If a use is truly fair, permission or lack of it makes no difference.
For a work to be used on Wikipedia, it must be fair use, and within Wikipedia's guidelines for use of unfree materials, which limit sound recordings; they are available at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Music_samples. This is not the case for these works, which are both replaceable and in several cases the full work rather than an excerpt. It would be wonderful if they were free content, but since they are not we are restricted in their use. Your attempt to frame this as an arrogant attack is unhelpful. Others too are acting to improve the project, by ensuring it adheres to its goal of being free content and removing what may violate that, even though all of us may think the media would be nice to have. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
First, you say that, but the wording of the fair-use guidelines is just too vague for you to be banging on asserting that this is law/truth/policy. The use of words such as "replaceable" is highly subjective, and needs to be updated in far more specific and detailed terms. I just can't accept your take on it without a change in the wording of the policy. Second, you may have your own personal reasons for supporting the behaviour of Gmaxwell, but his contributions list does make him look as though he feels he's free to rampage through WP with impunity. I suggest that you take a NPOV attitude here. Tony 13:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all shrouded in smoke and mirrors, which is counter to WP's policy of openness and democracy. Apparently, this User:Danny character, who flagrantly breached the seven-day rule and responded rudely to my query on his talk page is allowed any power he likes to breach the written policy, and can decide whatever he sees fit in relation to individual decisions. This power seems to be ensconced nowhere in writing. Very odd. Gmaxwell appears to be one of his henchmen, and there are probably others lurking on the fair use talk page.

There seems to be a new move to "tighten up" on free use on WP, which is being enforced with arbitrary and, in my view, rude and unfair behaviour by these people. The strangest thing is that the fair use policy has not been changed (at least not sufficiently, IMV) to reflect this new push, which will make it almost impossible to include anything but Commons material as musical examples. And just what "replaceable" means is highly debatable. That is a real problem, and the reason that I regard the current fair-use policy as mush. I have no respect for it now, and am losing respect for WP. Tony 13:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


introduction & eponyms

  1. Might we remove "JS" from "JS Bach" in the second paragraph? I think it's clear which Bach is being discussed. If we need to establish that JS is short for Johann Sebastian, we can do that immediately following the statement of his name in the first sentence.
  2. the IPA is confusing for many; might we try the approach taken by Bordeaux to give a clear and accurate guide to pronunciation?
  3. I'm not sure it's necessary to state that Bach did not introduce any new forms. I can only recall very few articles where the introduction of new forms was mentioned in the first paragraph (Jacopo Peri and Monteverdi come to mind), and at any rate forms tend to evolve according to more general patterns, so it's no skin off Bach's back not to have made any startling innovations in that area.
  4. The list of major works seems to be somewhat unordered to me; for example I might put the Mass in B minor or the St Matthew Passion first. I suppose this is rather subjective, so it's not such an issue. However, the Well-tempered Clavier likely should be added, and also possibly the orchestral suites.
  5. We might want to note that he wrote for (and mastered, if you are willing to take that verbal path) every existing genre during his life except opera. I propose e.g. "He mastered every available genre of his era, except an absence from operas, and is regarded as one of the great ...." "He mastered nearly every available genre, and is .." (reword as you like)
  6. Eponyms: these two items need to be either deleted entirely or placed at the end of "Legacy". I prefer the former, as they serve only to reveal that someone in government at one time admired Bach.
  7. I place each of these matters under consideration on this talk page because of the request in the source to discuss introduction changes, else I'd Be Bolder. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, don't edit the introduction, because your proposals need careful thought. No. 3: why is mention of new forms, or lack of mention, in other composer articles relevant? I don't think it is. I'm happy with the current wording. Your proposal to add more works to the lead is highly debatable. If the WTC, why not other keyboard works? Better to generalise the keyboard output by not mentioning any specific titles, or there will be a waterfall. I don't like the "mastered every available genre" bit. I don't much like the IPA at the start either. The opening has become cluttered and loses impact. Tony 13:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so let's replace the IPA with a spoken .ogg pronunciation like Bordeaux--we'd just need someone with an accurate accent to make the three-second recording. As to forms, then place aside other composer articles in my reasoning; the current wording seems almost like we're scolding Bach for not being more innovative. Removing "Although he introduced no forms" would add impact to the overall lead as well. Regarding the works, you have a point, but on the other hand it is already somewhat arbitrary; the Goldberg Variations and the keyboard suites/partitas are chosen over the rest of the keyboard output, and the St Matthew Passion is mentioned but not the St John, etc. I suggest the WTC because, in my experience, that's the keyboard work most people know, along with Goldberg. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the negative statement; it would be nice not to replace it with another negativity ("except opera"). What did you have in mind? Alternatively, the statement could be dropped ....? Tony 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, dropped seems better to me. I have also updated the "mastered" statement, but I don't feel strongly about including it, so we can take it or leave it. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"Johann Sebastian Bach (pronounced [ˈjoːhan zəˈbastjan ˈbax]) (21 March 1685 O.S. – 28 July 1750 N.S.) was a prolific German composer and organist whose sacred and secular works for choir, orchestra and solo instruments drew together the strands of the Baroque period and brought it to its ultimate maturity. He enriched the prevailing German style with a robust contrapuntal technique, a control of harmonic and motivic organisation from the smallest to the largest scales, and the adaptation of rhythms and textures from abroad, particularly Italy and France. Revered for their intellectual depth, technical command and artistic beauty, his works include masses, concertos, suites, partitas, preludes, and a large number of cantatas, of which about 220 survive. He is regarded as one of the great composers of all time."

How's that for an interim improvement? What is missing, for a good lead, is just a little biographical information, don't you think? The lead is too short for such a major article, and somehow needs to be split again into two, or possibly three paras. (Need to link the genre terms, too, I guess.) Tony 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, although I think "fugues" should also be included. I'm not convinced that we should generalize instead of citing specific famous pieces, but on the other hand, adequately citing all of Bach's important works would be rather cumbersome and make the lead less concise and powerful. Biographical information--Possibly. Contrast the approaches by the Mozart and Beethoven articles--I rather like the directness of Mozart (though it needs some copyediting). I don't know what we would put in--a bit about the Bach family, and a bit about Bach's liturgical life? Overall, I would be happy with what you have written above. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Not so much the family, but a summary sentence or two on the broad thrust of his career, working for the aristocracy and then, in Leipzig, the church/state? And the Lutheran thing should be mentioned, as it was central to his art and life? Tony 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you are correct--I just had a look through WP:LEAD and it recommends that the lead be almost like the article in miniature... meaning that it's quite appropriate to mention all of the things you have listed. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In replying to a few different posts, I have a couple of minor suggestions. First, use "J.S." instead of "JS" Bach. His sons are not known as CPE, JC, WCF, etc. The periods make it look cleaner. While it is obvious which Bach you are referring to, his initials should still be there. Second, the list of works at the beginning is fairly unwieldy and seems taken somewhat at random. I'd suggest keeping the most important large works (Branden & Goldbergs, Mass in B, Art of Fugue, Musical Offerings, Cantatas, St. Matthew's Passion), adding WTC, and giving a blanket statement such as "numerous suites, partitas, toccatas, preludes, and fugues for solo and orchestral instruments." Third, why is Art of Fugue not Die Kunst Der Fuge? I would say Bach literature on the piece refers to it more heavily in its German, and musical works are supposed to be in their native language. This of course brings up the can of worms of whether we thus need Matthauspassion, Das Wolltempered Klavier, Musikalisches Opfer, etc.)Anderfreude 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The dots look ugly. Please don't insert them. CPE Bach is fine, frankly. Let's not go back to N.A.T.O and B.B.C. either. Tony 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Tony. Good to catch up with you round the traps. I couldn't agree more about the dots. I do wish American practice would drop the dots in "Mr.", "Dr.", and the rest, also. Ugly smudges on any text. Still, sometimes we have to conform to the usage established in an article. We're not going to win this one! –Noetica 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes we are. It's written in British English, as loudly proclaimed at the top for as long as I can remember. WP practice is not to change existing style unless there's consensus/a good reason, in any case. Tony 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
All right then, let's proceed optimistically. I am your ally in any efforts to preserve dotless usages. I have fixed one "C.P.E." in the article just now. Know this, also: I am against almost all uses of "/", including yours! I pounce on it in articles. Where do you stand with en dashes and em dashes? Myself, I prefer a spaced en dash in sentence-level punctuation. I rarely deploy an em dash, except if the article has clearly settled on its use – and then only with gritted teeth. So I can't change dashes in the present article. –Noetica 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the "dots," (which can be treated a little less dogmatically, I feel), the other aspect of the introduction I mentioned, the seeming randomness of the works introduced was not discussed. Any suggestions (or objections regarding my suggestion) about fixing that unwieldy "list of works" sentence in the introduction?Anderfreude 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Crater & ice shelf

It seems some people prefer (or Pmanderson prefers, at least) to keep links to the Bach crater and the Bach Ice Shelf. However, I disagree with this as outlined above; furthermore, the crater doesn't even have an article. If we were to keep these sorts of things, I feel it would only be appropriate to include things like Bach Street in Anyville, USA (I recall that such streets exist) and other tributes to Bach. This type of collection of eponyms is useful in its own respect, but I don't think such a list belongs in this article; it should be kept to articles like List of eponyms. See a prior discussion on this topic regarding Handel. This information doesn't lend any understanding to Bach or his music, just his indirect impact on society, which again is useful in its own respect but (as I understand it) isn't what Wikipedia is about. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Tony 05:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisting GA status

Pursuant to the matter that was raised on this page some weeks ago (now archived), the status has been removed. The reasons are:

  • Criterion 2a: insufficient referencing
  • Criterion 3a: inadequate treatment of the facts in some places, e.g., Cöthen and Style.

Tony 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Size of Keyboard Concerto

Is there any particular reason why this concerto is of such inordinate size? Both of the fast movements surpass 11 megabytes, and the slow movement is more than nine. The file size may be of no great concern to broadband users, but don't forget about dial-up users. I was under the impression that ogg files are smaller than others such as mp3, wma, and aac , but my recording is smaller by quite a bit. The other files are rather large, also. Am I missing something?? Vlmastra 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But what we're missing is the identity of the concerto. Can you oblige? JackofOz 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much the identity of the concerto that bothers me, but the fact that it's played on 19th/20th-century instruments, including the use of piano solo rather than harpsichord. While I don't feel strongly enough to remove it, if a better equivalent came along that was free of copyright issues, I'd vote to replace the current recording.Tony 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The current recording of which concerto? What is the "this concerto" that Vlmastra is asking about? JackofOz 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Movies about Bach's life?

Even Bach's biographers suggest that his life was somewhat boring. I don't think so. Before "Amadeus," who would have thought that someone would make such a movie about Mozart? I would begin with a quiet city, then show Bach starting, say, the "famous" D minor Tocatta (so that viewers would have something familiar to begin with), then babies wake and cry, dogs howl, etc. Then the church members would complain about the "strange variations."

I have seen programs that show little slices of his life, but never a full movie (not with just his music, but having Bach as a character). Has anyone seen such a movie?

iter praemium est 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)sumthinelse

yes i think a movie on Bach would be a good idea 64.105.103.232 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach many years ago. From what I remember now, it was good as far as music performances were concerned, but a bit boring as a piece of film-making - it mostly seemed to be filmed with a single static camera. I remember reading of at least one incident where Bach drew his sword when he got involved in a dispute, and yes, there was the organ loft incident, his long trudge to Lubeck, those musical gladiatorial challenges. I would think there's more than enough there. --Stephen Burnett 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but have heard that it's amateurish and clunky. Modern scholarship has probably filled in a lot of the biographical details they got wrong in the film. Gustav Leonhardt as Bach? Can't see the resemblance. Tony 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I bet the non-level of Historically informed performance practice in a 1968 film might promote serious cringing today. Probably an interesting semi-historical document on our view of Bach forty years ago though (ever tried reading Grove articles from 100 years ago? Quite a trip). MarkBuckles (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Calov

Any objections if I were to enfold the last paragraph of the Choral/Vocal section into Wiki's entry on the Calov Bible? --Fugueman 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

clutter

Rmky - Thanks for reducing it. I can't see the point of it all. Discussion pages are for discussion, after all. Tony 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I went back and copied what was removed. Otherwise, it looks like some vandal changed "FFAC" to "DGA".--Rmky87 23:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Young Bach? Image

Why is there a question mark? Is the authenticity uncertain? The image information doesn't say anything about it and it probably should if there's uncertainty. Best, MarkBuckles (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Teri Noel Towe seems to demonstrate here that the portrait is probably not of Bach (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get the actual content — the layout of the site could not be more poorly designed). Strad 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive_4&oldid=1038763422"