Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach printed during his lifetime

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Suggestions for creation of articles on individual Bach compositions

Every Bach composition should have its own article, though it is sensible to begin with that collections go in one article - e.g. French suites, English suites, well-tempered clavier, clavier-ubung 3, and so on. Every cantata should have its own article.

The title format for each article should be its name followed by BWV number in most cases - e.g. Prelude and Fugue in C major, BWV 531 - this makes it clear it is by Bach and also exactly which composition it refers to, in the commonly denoted way. In multiple-title names, it should be e.g. Partitas, BWV 825-830 - properly with a long-dash in the middle. For very well-known titles, such as 'well-tempered clavier' (and when Bach is clearly the only one to have written a piece with the title), the BWV numbers can be omitted. I've used (J. S. Bach) as a modifier for 'harpsichord concertos' because they are not continuous in BWV numbers and are not a unified set - so these naming rules can be modified where it is sensible to do so.

In each case, the BWV number should also be made as a redirect to the article in question: e.g. BWV 531 would redirect to Prelude and Fugue in C major, BWV 531. This makes linking to Bach compositions extremely easy - just use the BWV number - when otherwise confusion might arise about what the exact title was. It also makes it easier to find the article direct through a search.

In the case of multiple articles, each BWV number should be linked in a similar way to the title - so for Brandenburg Concertos, I've linked BWV 1046 and BWV 1047 and so on up to BWV 1051, all to the article. Only when the multiple articles get too long should there be an article about each piece in a unified set - and we are nowhere near this stage yet on any of the collections.

In writing articles on individual compositions, the use of pictures of musical examples, especially of themes, etc., should ideally be included - see Sonata on the 94th Psalm for an example of how I've done this. As the music is public domain in most editions, this can be easy to capture with picture editing software or a camera. A good source of imformation for writing articles on the cantatas will be http://www.bach-cantatas.com/ Clavecin 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete

At least the following works need to be added to the list:

Six Schubler Chorals BWV 645-650
Einige Canonische Veraenderungen (Vom Himmel Hoch) BWV 769

--81.173.230.109 07:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's evidence that the Mühlhausen cantata Gott ist mein König, BWV 71, dated 1707, was printed and published, although there are no surviving copies.

Eb Prelude and Eb Fugue

These were never called Prelude and Fugue in Eb by Bach. This should read Prelude in Eb... Fugue in Eb. I will correct it. The tradition to play them as a unit seems to have been initiated by Mendelssohn: [1] Jubilee♫clipman 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata 71

The discussion section "Incomplete" seems to contradict the statement in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_ist_mein_K%C3%B6nig,_BWV_71 that this cantata "is the first of Bach's works to be printed (an unusual event paid for by the city council); it is the only cantata to have been printed before the composer's death." The "Incomplete" section may be quoting another part of that article concerning a second cantata commissioned after BWV 71. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.76.235 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Very few comprehensive articles haves been written on most of these works. That applies in particular to Clavier-Übung I. On the other hand, that is not true of Clavier-Übung III and the Canonic Variations, BWV 769. I was the main editor responsible for creating those WP articles. They were written using the best scholarly sources available, the main one being the book of Williams. This WP article is a list and should not invent its own bogus method of referencing, much of which is due to Francis Schonken. Simple statements of fact are available in the secondary sources and those are the only ones that should be used. The idea that WP can be edited by only looking at sources available online—many of them primary sources dating back to the 18th and early 19th century—is untenable, unscholarly and contrary to wikipedia guidelines. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between the types of references used in this list-article. There are the references to the original printed publications of Bach, which form an unambiguous whole. There are the historical references—all primary sources—to 18th or early 19th century commentators. And then there are the modern usable references, i.e. secondary sources. It is an easy matter to find modern accounts of Art of the Fugue and The Musical Offering in English to which reference could be made. This applies equally well to all the other works (the Partitas, the Goldberg Variations, etc). Numbering amongst Bach's most celebrated works, these are treated extensively in standard modern textbooks. Mathsci (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major edits?

I cannot see that Francis Schonken is adding any new material to this list-article. He is adding bogus primary sources (see above), but that is a net negative. Until I added the reference to the book of Peter Williams, there was no proper sourcing in almost all the article. Could Francis Schonken please explain the new content he is adding or intends to add to this list and explain which sources he is adding? He can place {{in-use}} on a section of the article; no need to do it on the whole article, unless he has some extensive new information to add. That seems highly unlikely. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis Schonken does not appear to be making major changes. If he is, he chould explain himself here. what are the new sources, the new content? That's easy enough for him to explain. If he is working on a section in which he is an expert, he can place an {{in-use}} tag there. At the moment he appears to be gaming the system. The references that he has added are almost all primary. I have been the only one to add a decent secondary source. For the keyboard works, there are plenty of them. Likewise, The Musical Offering and The Art of the Fugue. One simple reference to a secondary source is adequate. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken is not justifying any of his very minor edits here. He is tinkering around with primary sources, but that is hardly what can be called a "major change" to the article. He seems to be confusing the reader by not distinguishing between three distinct types of reference:

The original printed publications by Bach, which are not sources for this article. (The external links might be of interest to a reader.)
18th and early 19th century commentaries (some in translation), all of which are primary sources, and as such unusable.
Modern secondary sources, two of which have been provided by me just today.

I have no idea why Francis Schonken has ignored modern secondary sources, such as Wolff, Willliams, etc. That seems unhelpful to any prospective reader. These authors are or were modern Bach scholars of the highest possible calibre. In this particular list it is easy to distinguish between secondary sources (20C-21C) and primary sources (18C and very early 19C). Francis Schonken, however, claims in an edit summary that this is some kind of POV-pushing. Could he please explain himself here in a rational way? If good secondary sources exists, why not use them? Is it because only references that can be found online should be used on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art and Work (1920)

Regarding Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art and Work – Translated from the German of Johann Nikolaus Forkel – With notes and appendices by Charles Sanford Terry: Terry is at least as much an author of this 1920 book as Forkel. Less than half of the content of this book is a translation of Forkel's original:

Forkel, Johann Nikolaus; Terry, Charles Sanford (1920). Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art and Work – translated from the German, with notes and appendices. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in the text refer to the translation of Forkel's text, with editorial footnotes. Terry is the translator and editor, not the author. Terry's attempted chronology (in the footnotes) has been completely superseded by modern scholarship and research. Why use a highly unreliable historical source like this when infinitely better modern sources are available?

It is of more concern that Francis Schonken seems to be adding sources without actually looking at them; is that just an attempt to hoodwink readers and/or editors? As an example, he added a reference to Wolff's 1991 book. At that stage I had included the chapter on reception of original editions (29) not the chapter devoted to works published in his lifetime (27). Nevertheless—apparently without reading it—Francis Schonken added it as a reference to the last sentence in the lede that he had created himself back in 2015.[2] It was created out of thin air. On the other hand Wolff's Chapter 27 discusses in detail the works published during Bach's lifetime over a long series of pages, with footnotes. Very little of what Wolff writes agrees with the lede. Why is Francis Schonken using reference in this misleading way? He adds primary sources willy-nilly; and then—in a way which indicates a low regard for modern Bach scholarship—does not even bother reading secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions of sources

I object to a Wikipedia editor's qualification of sources in mainspace: none of the reliable sources on which this article is based makes these distinctions, and thus only reflect a Wikipedia editor's POV.

Separating early music prints from other sources may be practical. Separate treatment of the early music prints may be found in several reliable (and so does not result in WP:OR like the current subdivisions do), e.g.:

===Early music prints===
===Other===

may work, and if not, it would be better to return to a single alphabetical list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absurd suggestion made by an editor who has shown no initiative in either finding or using secondary sources. When I have added them, Francis Schonken has attempted to use them, often without having access to them, simply by adding them to original research that he has dreamed up. In other words, the references he appropriates do not support his text.

From one article to another he has failed to understand that wikipedia is written by locating the best available secondary sources and then summarising them. In the case of this articl:::e, the main texts are by Christoph Wolff, David Yearsley and Peter Williams. Wolff in particular gives the best overview of the "original editions" by Bach. (A lot of what he has written remains unused.) External links to the actual printed works might have some interest, but obviously are not valid as sources. Francis Schonken has refused to recognize that established Bach scholars have written extensive content on these matters: so far he has not summarised even one sentence from any of the secondary sources. In the case of BWV 1074, for example, it takes very little initiative to find the chapter Yearsley has devoted to the topic. Currently the only usable references for the article, i.e. secondary sources, are in the "Modern" section. I have explained the three types of reference already. Francis Schonken has refused to come to terms with the three distinct types of source. But that is the task of any wikipedia editor: to use their reading skills to distinguish between original documents, historical primary sources and modern secondary sources. That is not called "original research", but just the normal method of editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused about the WP:PRIMARY vs. WP:SECONDARY topic apparently. I can only offer what I have already offered a few times before: my help to make you better understand the distinction in Wikipedia context, if you would appreciate it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frnacis Schonken has been told multiple times by others at noticeboards about not using primary sources. If he has not understaod, that is because he is engaging in disruptive editing. As far as his editing here is concerned, he added original research to this list-article in 2015[3] with a spurious reference that did not support his statement (a primary text by Forkel, dating from 1802, with footnotes by Terry). He then has gradually added other refrences that equally well did not support his own statement. Most recently he added Kinsky and Wolff, after I had added them as references in the article. But there he was attempting WP:SYNTH to back up his self-concocted sentence. But wikipedia is not written that way. There is a chapter written by Christoph Wolff on the reception and influence of the "original editions". Instead of summarising the content there—which cannot be guessed in advance—Francis Schonken created his own Frankenstein phrase "Historians did however study which works the composer selected for print, and when and how they were published" and then attempted to add whatever he could scrape together to give his monster life. But the errors in the way Franmcis Schonken writes are obvious. It cannot be verified, even in the chapter on reception by Wolff. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The matter mentioned in the OP of this section is still unresolved, so I placed a {{Original research}} box, to attract participation of other editors in this discussion. For clarity, the current distinctions between sources (as applied in mainspace) are not derived from scholarly literature, so should be removed anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current indiscriminate jumble of pre-1750's Bach engravings with post-1990 contemporary scholarship such as Wolff and Yearsley is very hard for readers to decipher. The normal rule is to separate primary and secondary sources, which usually correspond to different eras or centuries. I think the same applies to history or history of art. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

has been split:

The Music prints subsection contains only engravings (all items in that sublist are engravings)
The Other subsection contains no engravings, i.e. all literature that are not engravings.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to separate the eras/centuries, since "other" or "others" gives no information at all. In this case Terry is just used as an English translation. My memory is that I created the principal article on Charles Sanford Terry (historian). Similarly a lot of content (the summaty) was actually created by me—several paragraphs as far as I remember. Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Forkel, Johann Nikolaus; Terry, Charles Sanford (1920). Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art and Work – translated from the German, with notes and appendices. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)" can not be allocated to the 18th–19th century. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only the English translation was used, not the footnotes, appendices, etc. "Other" gives no information to the readership. A lot of content was created by me on the introduction, which involves exclusively the 20th and the 21st century. Isn't this a rather trivial matter in this case? Mathsci (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "Only the English translation was used, not the footnotes, appendices, etc." – incorrect, Terry's 1920 footnotes are used as references (e.g. footnote 11 of the current article which is about a printed edition of Bach's music not mentioned by Forkel). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. ""Other" gives no information to the readership" – exactly, information superimposed on what the sources say should not be communicated via subsection titles in a references/sources area: "Other" is neutral and avoids to communicate interpretations (which should be in the body of the article, with references to support such interpretations). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to add:

Talle, Andrew (2008). "A Print of Clavierübung I from J.S. Bach's Personal Library". In Stauffer, George; Butler, Gregory (eds.). About Bach. University of Illinois Press. pp. 157–168. ISBN 0-252-03344-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

which would make possible to say something about Bach's personal copies of the music he published in Leipzig, and about why scholars write about these personal copies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly different topic

Wolff's essays (republished as separate chapters in his 1991 book) are on a slightly different topic than the scope of this list. The list regards compositions by Bach printed during his lifetime, whether or not they were published by the composer. Thus it includes BWV 1074, which was printed by several editors during Bach's life. This is the approach in Emans's 2015 article. Wolff's essays are about *Bach's* original editions, and thus say nothing substantial about the editions where Bach seems to have been less involved such as the Mühlhausen cantatas and the Schemelli songs, and leave BWV 1074, with no known edition by Bach, completely out of the picture.

Thus, Wolff is not the main source for this list, Emans is: the topic of the first section of his 2015 article ("Drucke zu Lebzeiten Johann Sebastian Bachs"="prints during Bach's lifetime") is spot on. Wolff's approach is interesting, but only partially overlaps with the scope of this list. Besides, that valuable approach is rather something for articles written in prose than for a list. Also, Emans's article is around quarter of a century more recent than Wolff's essays. Giving so much bandwidth to Wolff in the intro, as opposed to zero to Emans, unbalances the entire page. I'd use Wolff as a complement to Emans in the intro of this list: Wolff can provide an English-language backup where both say the same (which happens quite often), but content that can only be referenced to an older source should probably not be in the intro. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of a source from 1991 cannot be dismissed in this way. The later blow-by-blow account of Emans & Hiemcke—it is an article, not a list—does not supersede Wolff's scholarship: wishful thinkng will not make that so. 1991 is recent as far as Bach scholarship is concerned and Christoph Wolff is one of the leading authorities on Bach. That is why Christoph Wolff is a blue link and Sven Hiemcke and Reinmar Emans are redlinks (both are also editors of Bach editions). The title of this list-article was invented by wikipedians; but that does not give them the right to manipulate what is in the literature, dismissing top-rate secondary sources.

Four sources were used so far for the lede, where there were none before. All of them—Kinsky, Williams, Wolff and Yearsley—are tip-top. Emans & Hiemcke devote less space (6 pages) to these works than Wolff does; but that does not prevent anything that is relevant to the lede being added from there. I note that the second sentence in the lede (mentioning Kinsky) matches the opening sentence in their section I. I am unsurprised by that. Very little from Emans & Hiemcke has made it into the article. In fact very little from any secondary source. The points raised her by Francis Schonken seem spurious and frivolous, designed to exhaust other editors' patience. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read in Emanw & Hiemcke that the 1710 Mulhausen cantata is lost, except for the receipt, made out to "H[errn] Baach"; and that it is not clear whether this refers to J. S. Bach or his cousin Johann FriedrichBbach (1682–1730), organist at St Blasius. Francis Schonken can "play silly buggers" and not read Emans & Hiemcke. He has militated to have material from their article included and now is so lazy that he cannot bothered to check the source. He is just behaving in a disruptive way. Can he not try to be courteous, assume good faith and stop behaving in such a wild frenetic manner? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 1710 is not the "following year" after 1708. The 1709 cantata was by J. S. Bach, was printed, and is lost (BWV Anh. I 192). The 1710 Ratswahl cantata has no BWV number, Anh. or otherwise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The following year" resulted from an earlier typo (1709 for 1708).

The summary from Emans & Hiemcke above is accurate. As their article later states Reinmar Emans is part of the NBA editorial group. I would assume that these authors know what they are talking about. Indeed Francis Schonken went out of his to recommend their text. But he now appears as some kind of authority on Bach to assert "the truth". No sources. Could Francis Schonken please read this source (page 228) and discuss what is written there? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mühlhausen Ratswahl cantatas:

1708: BWV 71 – cantata mentioned by Wolff and by Emans & Hiemke (please spell that last name correctly in mainspace)
1709 ("next year", or in German: "das Folgejahr", after 1708): BWV Anh. I 192 – lost cantata, by Bach (without doubt of the attribution), mentioned by Wolff and by Emans & Hiemke
1710: cantata possibly/likely by Bach's cousin. Not mentioned by Wolff; not in BWV; mentioned by Emans & Hiemke – no lead section material (too extraneous).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Three times Francis Schonken has removed content, while refusing to check what is written in the source. The relevant sentence in German is:

Die Kantate zum Rathswechsel 1710 wurde ebenfalls von einem "H[errn] Baach" komponiert - ob es sich hierbei um Johann Sebastian oder um seinen Cousin Johann Friedrich Bach (um 1682–1730) handelt, der das Organistenamt an St Blasii von jenem übernommen hatte, ist nicht zu ermitteln.

Could please that source now. He knows that this talk page is for discussing edits/sources. Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:Cherrypicking: the 1709 cantata is in the body of this list article; the 1710 cantata is not. The 1709 cantata is mentioned by Wolff and by Emans & Hiemke; the 1710 cantata is only mentioned by Emans & Hiemke. This is not an adequate intro, but an editor's POV, while not summarizing but cherrypicking.
This is not cherrypicking, it is one of two sentences on the lost cantata. It contradicts what Francis Schonken has asserted, that is all. He was too lazy to look at the source; and now that he has it pointed out to him he makes the frivolous accusation of cherrypicking. How would he explain which sentences can be used from this source and which should be ignored? I have read the entire source, since it was recommended by Francis Schonken. Is he the sole arbiter of which content is relevant and which is not? Is it the content which contradicts his prejudices that he doesn't like, or can he be more specific? Does he perhaps think that the article of Emans & Heimke is incendiary, controversial, something that must be treated with kid gloves?

The 1708 and 1710 cantata are both mentioned by Wolff in note 1.

Contrary to Francis Schonken's satements, which do not seem to be written in WP:AGF, I have carefully summarised reliable secondary sources in the lede, given careful page references. His sentence—"Historians did however study which works the composer selected for print, and when and how they were published"—was original research with fake sources.

But he should answer the questions on which sentences from Emans & Hiemke are usable and how he proposes to decide that. I cam to Emans & Hiemmke without preconceptions, beyond the praise lavished on the article by Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "The 1708 and 1710 cantata are both mentioned by Wolff in note 1" – incorrect: note 1, p. 430, reads, after the phrase about the 1708 cantata: "another cantata for town council election (now lost), 1709" (emphasis added), and says nothing about the 1710 cantata in the entire endnote.

Emans & Hiemke mention the 1709 cantata thus: "(... 1708) ...; eine zweite Ratswechselkantate BWV Anh. 192 für das Folgejahr ist verschollen..." (see above for the translation of the expression I emphasised in this quote) – and they only start talking about the 1710 cantata in the next sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph of the current intro is effectively WP:SYNTH (on several points), and thus not conforming to Wikipedia policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a good moment to retract some of your earlier abrasive comments "...refusing to check what is written in the source..." and the like? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A simple minor error, easily corrected. But why remove the reference to Emans & Hiemke?

(ec) Francis Schonken should not remove the in-use tag again when he is aware that content creation is still ongoing. He even knows which source is being used, since he suggested it. The fourth paragraph summarises what is in Wolff and Emans & Hiemke; it gives a rather anodyne statement about the remaining "original editions," apart from the one discussed in the fifth paragraph. It also fulfills the purposes of the WP:LEDE, intended to give a readble overview of the article in prose. When he writes WP:SYNTH, I have no idea what Francis Schonken is writing about. His objections read like irrational ranting. It is hard to match the hyperbole he has written with the actual prose and sources in the fourth paragraph. He should make his commnets about content more carefully. At the moment I have no idea what objections he has within wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current fourth paragraph, when referenced to both Wolff and Emans/Hiemke, implies that Emans & Hiemke forgot to mention BWV 1074, which they didn't; Emans & Hiemke talk about the early prints, including "non-original" ones, so pretending they talk about the same as Wolff's "original editions" (an expression they don't use) is OR/SYNTH; I'm not even sure Wolff equates "earlier printed works" to "original editions", it certainly is not in the quoted reference (note 1, p. 430). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? I don't think so. It doesn't say so in the article. The treatment of BWV 1074 in Yearsley has a whole chapter, so the best source was chosen. That is how wikipedia articles are edited. The two chapters of Christoph Wolff are about the printed works and he clearly uses that terminology. I added a second reference to please Francis Schonken; in its current form there was no change to the text itself. But now Francis Schonken is trying to find all sorts of reasons why adding the second reference is disturbing him, confusing him, etc. These points are trivial, verging on childish, and are just wasting my time. I cannot respond to objections that are not within wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article not a list

My own suggestion is that the article has to be moved to a more appropriate title. In this possible context, given the content, a "list" is inappropriate. The use of the term "context", which does not really convey much to readers, shows that the article is not a list but a fully fledged article. The use of raw material from the Bach archives is not helpful. It is a poor man's attempt to create wikipedia on content, by misrepresenting the use of primary sources. It looks like an amateurish scrap-book. Articles cannot be created from raw lists that predate 1750. The best idea, given the known subject matter and the reliable secondary sources, is to remove the word "list" from any mention of the article. Experience has shown that it encourages poor wikipedian editing practice (raw lists and/or unreliable liner notes of very low quality).

This article seems to be an article not a list at all. Given the engravings/printing published within Bach's lifetime, the carefully secondary primary sources have not been summarised accurately in the lede. Indeed it seems that the main contributor seems to be user:Francis Schonken and his WP:original research, concocted by Francis Schonken himself. On the other hand, the extremely eminent Bach scholar Christoph Wolff has written a reliable secondary source on this topic. As far as I am aware, he is one of the significant authorities on this topic. The reliable secondary source or sources have therefore not been summarised accurately in the article. I see no consensus on the article.

It is possible to write reliable secondary sources on items like the Art of the Fugue or the Musical Offering. That has not been attempted here in any way. Likewise a detailed account on Grove's Music Online concerning Georg Christian Schmelli and his Gesangbuch has been ignored. There is no mention at all. The liner notes of Brilliant Classics are not a reliable source. Perhaps the editor user:Francis Schonken doe not have access to the content on Oxford University Press, usually available from academic institutions. It seems a perverse decision to prioritise content based on raw lists from the digital Bach archive in Leipzig and liner notes. Why ignore the content on Grove's Music Online, just because editors haven't been able to access material directly on-line. Much specialist material on barqoue music is not available on-line.

So far I have not any new major content on Francis Schonken, involving any new sources. That does not seem to be the purpose of {{in-use}}. Perhaps Francis Schonken can explain what he has in mind? So far he has not attempted to discuss consensus. I can see the attempt to use an inappropriate format to steamroll the to use on-line unreliable content (raw archives, liner notes, etc) to avoid using academic scholarship (secondary sources) not accessible on-line. That is certainly not policy for wikipedia. It also does not seem to be very useful for the reader; this kind of content is misleading; and the reader must feel quite short-changed by wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for your comments: I will look at them later as the major restructuring is still ongoing (I thought it best to do it in small steps). Your comments are welcome here, if possible I'll adopt them piecemeal in the restructuring. For your proposal to rename the article: see WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The most relevant tags at the moment seem to be WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. So far there has been no evidence that User:Francis Schonken has produced any new content. On the contrary secondary sources seem to have been disregarded deliberately: but the exclusive use of on-line material is often a poor man's substitute for reliable secondary sources; expert resources that are not on-line available are often only in crucial specialist libraries and encyclopedias (e.g. academic music libraries). Trying to avoid using reliable sources like Grove's Music Online can be counter-productive: these are valuable resources, often indispensable for summarising/paraphrasing contents on wikipedia. Why should readers be forced to write unreliable content on sub-standard liner notes from Brilliant Classics? Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistent with eighteenth century practice, ..."

I removed this phrase from the third sentence of the "Context" section, "Consistent with eighteenth century practice, these publications were almost exclusively limited to keyboard works, rather than choral, chamber or orchestral works", here. Not really a good summary of what is found on the first page of Wolff 1991a, and seems to be an over-interpretation of something stemming from a time when the printed music of several of Bach's contemporaries was hardly described in scholarly literature: at least Vivaldi's and Telemann's printed music are completely inconsistent with this so-called consistency. I'd simply omit it (retaining the rest of the sentence which can do well without this introductory phrase) for lack of relevance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Francis Schonken wrote seems incorrect. In the corresponding Chapter 27, Christoph Wolff writes

"Only a small number of Bach's works appeared in print during his life. As is characteristic of music printing of eighteenth century, Bach's publications consisted almost completely of keyboard works; vocal and instrumental ~~ensembles were~~ rarely published at the time."

I summarised the sentences as follows:

"Very few works by Johann Sebastian Bach were published within his liftetime. Consistent with eighteenth century practice, these publications were almost exclusively limited to keyboard works, rather than choral, chamber or orchestral works"

That is a very reasonable summary/paraphrase. Please could User:Softlavender check that, if she's available? At the moment Francis Schonken is preventing any other users from editing this article: for over a week now, Francis Schonken has placed a tag on the article, stating {{in-use}}. On 28 December 2017, less than one day before a major stroke, I produced a large amount of new content about Christoph Wolff using a reliable secondary source [4]. Why then is Francis Schonken editing against WP:Consensus and why has he apparently been taking advantage of the stroke. (Fortunately and miraculously, my verbal ability has mostly been restored after 2 months, but one month ago that was not the case.) Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolff certainly nowhere says "... rather than choral, chamber or orchestral works" (emphasis added): the bulk of early 18th-century music publishing was chamber music (whether by 18th-century definition of chamber music, i.e. "da camera", or by modern definition of chamber music). He says that "vocal and instrumental ensemble music was rarely published at the time" (BTW, misquoted above – I struck the misquoted part), not "vocal or instrumental ensemble music", which would be incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1912 & 2014 Bach-Jahrbuch, Bachs Klavier- und Orgelwerke. Das Handbuch, Teil II, Laaber-Verlag

I have the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch in the 1920 Sedley Taylor collection of the main Cambridge University Library. I borrowed it at 6 pm at the UL on 2 February 2018. Apart from that book and my clothes, it was the only thing I has at Addenbrookes A&E and the cardiology ward after the two episodes of syncope one hour later; the team of paramedics arrived at the ambulance there just before a mathematical friend and colleague was sent to A&E and died 2 days later of a stroke (his funeral was on 23 February).

The 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch is not an on-line resource; in the Cardiology Ward K3 I was able to check that there was no mention of Johann Kuhnau on Arnold Schering. (One of the registrars in K3, from Germany, could see the gothic text and noted his given name Johannes and the distinction between that spelling and Johann. During the efforts to restore blood pressure back to normal, there was very little else to do.)

That is what happens when users on wikipedia try to interpolate unreliable information from on-line resources, which are essentially unreliable. After I was discharged on 8 February 2018, I have been in a weakened state. I have been able to walk to the UL to look for the 2014 Bach-Jahrbuch; it is again not an on-line resource and it contains a summary of organ registration in a 2008 note by Bernhard Haas (again not an on-line resource). One of the series of books "About Bach" edited by Stauffer and Butler contains the chapter on Clavier-Übung I; it is not an on-line resource, i.e. as an electronic documents; however, it can be borrowed by the Woolf Institute in the University of Cambridge. User:Francis Schonken has been able to view a snippet from the on-line preview. There are three sentences which can be viewed on wikipedia without using copyvio. The short excerpt from the very beginning are available on JSTOR and Project Muse.

"Over the course of his long career in Leipzig, Johann Sebastian Bach saw seven editions of his works into print (Table 1). Each of these publications generated several hundred exemplars, most of which were sold to colleagues, friends, students, and the general public (often at the three annual Leipzig trade fairs) or given away as special gifts. Each time Bach issued a publication, however, he seems to have kept a certain number of prints for himself, at least one of which served as his personal copy, or Handexemplar, of the work. Into these prints he often entered, by hand, corrections and small changes to the musical text. In many cases scholars have been able to identify these personal copies from among the surviving original prints preserved in libraries and private collections today."

User:Francis Schonken has cherry-picked the preview: since he does not have the whole document by Andrew Talle, it is impossible to judge whether he has assessed his chapter in a reasonable way. The excerpts here seem to be biased: the on-line preview seems to have ignored the context of Talle's contribution. Francis Schonken did not have these documents but made it appear as if he had. My own editing on Jonh Butt's translating/paraphrasing/summarising of BWV 769 continues. Francis Schonken has decided that nobody but he can edit his own private article (see {{in-use}}). Perhaps he should ask for help on the arbitration committee: he has so far taken no notice of User:Doug Weller.

On 23–24 February I was again in the ambulance with chest pains on the left side. I was there for 8 hours and was discharged. The pharmacist unfortunately confirmed that the medication was inappropriate so there will be a further incident at Addenbrookes or possibly Papworth. These are not "antics" but something quite serious. On the afternoon in my College Organ where I could play Volume 8 of the Complete Organ Works (Breitkopf Nr. 6588), I was able to play Variatio IV in peace with a period of respite, before another a 111/999 emergency call. The pleasure of the high tenor stop in the cantus firmus will not diminish the on-line content that Francis Schonken is trying to simulate. I understand that he might want to compete with me; but in the spiral staircase on the 1705 two manual organ and pedalboard near to the chapel portrait of Lady Margaret Beaufort, that is my reality.

Today or tomorrow I will use the 111/999 options again; perhaps my GP will advise me also (i have an appointment). The pleasure of playing BWV 678, BWV 682, BWV 686 and BWV 768/iv (pieces that I regularly practice) are realities which give me consulation and some respite from hospital. Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, I have full access to:

Talle, Andrew (2008). "A Print of Clavierübung I from J.S. Bach's Personal Library". In Stauffer, George; Butler, Gregory (eds.). About Bach. University of Illinois Press. pp. 157–168. ISBN 0-252-03344-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

For clarity, the full document (in fact, the entire About Bach book edited by Stauffer and Butler), not just the summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the actual book in the University of Cambridge (Cambridge Theological Federation, Woolf Institute, ML410 BUT), but not to the electronic document (only a preview from JSTOR and Project Muse). The University of Cambridge does not have electronic access, see [5]; so I am curious how you have access in Ghent? In the USA, I believe academic institutes have access through proxies, but how do you have access in Ghent? At the moment I am using such a proxy from the University of Cambridge. So how does that work in Ghent? Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is relevant to steer at WP:OUTING of how I have access to the book. Suffice to say that the access is entirely legit.

Mathsci, please stop worrying: reading what you wrote above it seems like your health should get your primary focus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing JSTOR requires some valid academic institute, e.g. the University of Cambridge. For certain electronic books (e.g. "About Bach"), some books are not available there. The physical object, however, can be borrowed elsewhere. I have previously used a similar series to borrow volumes from "Bach Perspectives". For the particular book "About Bach", however, it is easy to see that all but three pages of the document are available on pages 157–168 of google books (162, 165 and 168 are not available). Another book that I borrowed, the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch, includes the article of Arnold Schering and mentions nothing at all about Johann Kuhnau. That contradicts what has been claimed elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't follow what you're trying to say or ask about this Kuhnau: where is he mentioned? Not in the article afaics. Not in the Talle piece afaics. Is he in one of the other references of this article? And if so, what is the problem? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, Johann Kuhnau, J. S. Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor, is often mentioned in connection to Bach's first Clavier-Übung volumes, e.g.:

Wolff 1991, pp. 189–190
Williams 2016, pp. 361ff
Emans & Hiemke 2015, pp. 229–230

Kuhnau context is, for instance, also mentioned in Wikipedia's Clavier-Übung article. Do we mention this Kuhnau in this list article, whether or not he is mentioned in the 1912 or 2014 Bach-Jahrbuch? For clarity, another Kuhnau, i.e. Johann Andreas Kuhnau, is also mentioned, for instance in Wolff 1991 pp. 131–133, but afaics not in connection to 18th-century prints of Bach's work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN

At the moment in his editing and his timetabling, Francis Schonken seems to have created a scheme that prevents other users from being able to contribute or participate in this topic. Little major content from Francis Schonken's efforts have so far resulted from producing reliable secondary sources. Given the topic, there are vast amounts on this topic, which could be briefly and usefully summarised in these secondary sources. Some attempt should be made to counterbalance dry data from outdated and often primary sources: this type of dry data risks wikipedia readers being discouraged from the subject matter. I have made a minor start in rectifying this. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above. These edits remove information in an unhelpful way that is hard to understand. As far as I can tell, as the main editor of the article Clavier-Übung III, the edits as the moment seem to be disruptive vandalism. The edits at the moment (5 October 2020) have one source (concocted from the Bach Archive), not several as in previous sources, which have been removed without explanation (hence, vandalism). The sources of Peters exist, so why suppress sources in that way? Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For CU III, this is a complete mess, created by edits that are are at the moment, quite out of of control. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Bach's printed output with that of some of his contemporaries

I think it would be interesting for the reader to compare Bach's printed output with that of some of his contemporaries:

Smaller printed output, e.g.:
Printed output somewhat comparable to Bach's, e.g.:
- François Couperin
- Antonio Vivaldi
More prolific in printed output:
- Georg Philipp Telemann

... or other composers, e.g. Louis Marchand, Johann Adolf Scheibe, ... Would there be any secondary sources discussing this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: in the article Bach's printed output is now compared to that of "earlier composers such as Monteverdi, Palestrina, Praetorius and Schütz"; I'm asking for input, reliable sources, discussing the same for composers of Bach's generation. Might be such sources don't exist, but that does not make the question inappropriate for this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for clarity, I'm not preventing "other users from being able to contribute or participate in this topic" – another reason why I opened this topic, which in a concrete way enables participation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Printing versus publishing

This article as it currently reads is far too fuzzy, even perhaps coy or disingenuous, about the distinction. Printing is not publishing and publishing is not necessarily printing. Grove puts it thus: "Musical texts may be printed but not published. Luxurious editions were often prepared as keepsakes for private and limited circulation, as, for example, were the earliest copies of Parthenia (London, 1613/14); later impressions of this book, however, were intended for sale and should therefore be regarded as having been published. Other music was printed but not published in order to ensure control over performances.... The opposite condition can also exist: music may be published but not printed." TheScotch (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]