Talk:Neumeister Collection

Collection vs. Chorales

This article is about the Neumeister Collection, which is the name used throughout the previous version, my revision, and the musicological literature. The Neumeister Chorales is the name given to a subset of the Neumeister Collection, the thirty-one pieces by J.S. Bach, BWV 1090-1120. Can editors petition to have an article renamed? If so, how? Stan Anson 14:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Using the requested moves process, but perhaps that move isn't controversial enough to require that. It'd be a good idea to notify WikiProject Classical Music if you decide to do that though. Graham87 09:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the page; I've also updated the links where necessary. Graham87 12:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Stan Anson (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Aligning media

Is there a way to force the media widget to the left? I've tried the style manual without success. For now I have dropped the media section to the bottom, which is wrong, but preferable to having it scramble the rest of the page. Stan Anson 15:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. —Patrug (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over discovery

I'm removing a few lines because they seem to support one side of the dispute (about which I am not an authority), aren't supported by the sources, and don't seem very relevant to the subject of the article.

"Their conclusions were confirmed in January 1985 by German organist Wilhelm Krumbach (de) (1937–2005), who had been working on the same material independently, and with a fatal lack of urgency, since 1981."
-I'm removing "with a fatal lack of urgency."

"Wolff freely acknowledged that he brought his announcement forward..."
-I'm removing "freely" because it makes it sound like the sentence is a response to an accusation (that Wolff tried to hide his motivation for making the announcement).

I'm deleting the following sentence because it is not supported by the New York Times article cited and doesn't seem very relevant to the subject of the Neumeister Collection: "Krumbach was unhappy with the way things turned out."

Sawdust Restaurant (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, for what it's worth. I've moved your section to the end of the page, in standard order. You can use the "new section" link next to the "Edit this page" link to add a new section in the correct format. Graham87 06:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over discovery ... and some history

When I started working on this page (2 March 2014), it claimed that Krumbach was the discoverer and did not mention Wolff and his colleagues. It was me who corrected this to give Wolff et al. credit, in line with general (if not quite universal) scholarly opinion. Given this background, I'd be curious to know which "one side of the dispute" Sawdust Restaurant thinks I support.

I also tried to give a sense of the dispute—extremely bitter by musicological standards—that arose between Krumbach and Wolff. Hence the references to Krumbach's lack of urgency and his unhappiness, which acknowledged both his failings and his sense of grievance—again, which "one side" does this support? The New York Times article does not use the words "Krumbach is unhappy," but it manifestly describes an unhappy man.

The use of "freely" was superfluous and the intro is better without it—it was when I came back to remove it myself last August that I noticed (and reverted) the other changes.

The effect of those changes was to airbrush the dispute out of existence. Unlike anything I wrote, this is a partisan distortion—history as written by the victors. Please explain here how you would rewrite the intro without giving the misleading impression that Krumbach and Wolff were buddies. 217.39.7.254 (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I haven't said anything about the curious claim that the circumstances in which a famously rediscovered manuscript was rediscovered are not relevant. 217.39.7.254 (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Added another source in which Krumbach gives voice to his unhappiness. 86.187.119.234 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Belated thanks – much better support from your Chicago Tribune reference. —Patrug (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neumeister Collection. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313072752/http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0130102-103857/unrestricted/Jones_dis.pdf to http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0130102-103857/unrestricted/Jones_dis.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Authentic?

I remember something about the ascription to Bach being spurious, at least partly. Arguments for this included the poor quality of some chorale preludes and the source being ambiguous. At least the issue was controversial, and may Baroque Music teacher, dr. Albert Clement, was absolutely convinced they were spurious, possibly by Pachelbel. However, the article accepts this ascription as correct, except for one particular prelude. As a musicologist I could look this up, but it would take me some trouble since I'm not a specialist. Could someone shed a bit of light on this? Steinbach (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)