Talk:Partita for Violin No. 1 (Bach)

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

Somebody needs to (re)write this article!

This article was and remains (as of Oct 16, 2016) a stub. With its History section (which I just deleted) it was an incoherent and inaccurate one. The piece deserves its own article, I think, but somebody needs to write it. The person who created it in 2012 made an attempt, but it was both 1) original research and 2) conversational/not encyclopedic. For that reason (I guess), subsequent editors cut it down until it made no sense at all and it contained less about this piece than does the Wikipedia article about the entire set. Hopefully one of us out here will try again! David Couch (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubles?

Why is there nothing about the "Double" movements? After each one of the four movements mentioned here, there is another one which follows the same structure and melody, but is not necessarily played as the same dance. I think these movements should be included in the list, or at least mentioned somewhere, but maybe this has already been discussed?

Delhovlyn (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any discussion - or any good reason not to add this information! You go right ahead. The Land (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added simple explanation by pasting from the Wikipedia article about the whole set of sonatas and partitas.David Couch (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claim

About each Double, the article says "elaborates on the bass-line of the prior movement". That claim has no source and it's also wrong. It could be eliminated. 190.173.245.64 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]