Talk:Partita for keyboard No. 6, BWV 830

Let's not edit-war

To User:Fresternoch: You said in your last edit summary that you do not know what MOS:ALSO is. That was my mistake, I apologise for the typo. I should have typed WP:ALSO or MOS:SEEALSO. If you follow either link, you will be taken to a section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style where the use of a "See also" section is explained. Amongst other things, it says, "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Both of the items you placed in a "See also" section are already linked in the article itself. Which would you prefer: removing the mention of these items in the article, or deleting them from the "See also" section? While we are at it, you keep removing my requests for sources to support claims that are by no means self-evident. It is not good enough to claim "consensus" that this partita is "more difficult by far" than the other five (and I assume you mean to play, rather than to listen to or to comprehend intellectually). This is not a particularly relevant point anyway, except in a keyboard pedagogy text, but it amounts to an expert opinion. Not only is the reader entitled to know who these experts are (or at least, who is is the recognized authority who represents this group of experts), but Wikipedia policy demands it. If you have not already done so, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To User:Jerome Kohl: Thanks for doing this on the talk page instead of continue this "war", as well to your explanation about the "See also" section, I really appreciated that. I think I would prefer deleting the "See also" section. As for your claims for this partita about "most difficult by far" (I assume that because you typed "more" instead of "most"), it is the most difficult out of all because of the structure, technique, counterpoint and stamina, which I have combined my personal opinion and various sources. I can't remember the source name because of its length and I looked over it about half a year ago. I apologize here about not letting the readers entitled to know who these experts were. — Fresternoch (talk) August 5th, 2014. — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the most difficult things to get used to on Wikipedia (and please forgive me if you have already been editing here for a long time and know this already) is the feeling that nobody trusts you to know what you are talking about. The simple facts are that, despite the many editors of good will and better judgment, there are a few bad apples who make malicious or ill-informed edits, and this has led in the past to cases of libel, amongst other things. Because all edits on Wikipedia are made anonymously, all must be regarded as being of equal value, until proved otherwise. This means that no one can be taken at his or her word, and therefore any point of view or doubtful claim must be referenced to a reliable source. The judgment that this Partita is more difficult to play than any of the others is an example of such a claim. "Doubtful" does not mean "untrue", but merely that it is not immediately evident to any reader who should happen along. All this said, a "Citation needed" template can be left in place for some time, to give the editor who inserted the claim time to go and find the required source. Sometimes such a tag may appear to have been inserted unnecessarily (and may be an insincere, michievous edit), but please consider each case very carefully before removing the tag without at the same time adding the required source. On Wikipedia, verifiability is the criterion for inclusion, not "truth".

It is always best in cases of doubt or disagreement to open a discussion on the article's Talk page. I should have done so long before now, and apologise for having been so slow to do so. I think we need to have similar discussions on the Nach Bach (Rochberg) article, and perhaps also on the biographical page for George Rochberg, where we are having similar difficulties.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Op. 1

Does not exist for Bach. It is not used in any texts. The sad thing abut this article is that it is content-free. I find that a great shame, as these are some of Bach's best works. Whoever created this has not bothered finding any sources, which is very easy in this case. I have to refer to this Partita elsewhere, but will not link to this article at the moment because it is unusable at present. Opus numbers were used by Handel for the works published in his lifetime. I have written articles on his Op.4, Op.6 and Op.7. I will add the obvious source myself from the article I am creating at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless a source discusses the particular phrasing of the title page, I don't see how we can on wikipedia. If we were to go by the title page, Clavier-Übung would not have this orthography. There is no evidence that anybody who has previously edited this article has looked at any sources. I have the Wiener Urext edition here. I'll look to see what they write. In Schulenberg's book does not use this term in the chapter on Clavier-Übung I. Elsewhere in the book he makes a joke about the first Partita. I am not surprised that there is no intersection of what is in Schulenberg's book and what can be found on wikipedia. The same applies to Well Tempered Clavier and Ledbetter's book on that subject. What exactly is the purpose of articles like this one? It is a sub-stub. Mathsci (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggest you check the title page of the original edition, which is available on Wikimedia Commons: File:Clavier-Übung-I-title-page.jpg, and is linked from this article. In abbreviated form, the title reads: "Clavir Ubung / … / von Johann Sebastian Bach / … / Opus 1. / In Verlegung des Autoris. / 1731".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I uploaded it on Commons and added it to the article. You probably hadn't noticed. Mathsci (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a primary source which you have no competence to interpret. If editors bothered at looking at sources, this article would not be the miserable sub-stub it is at the moment. When I write about title pages, I summarise what I find in books (there are several instances of that). I don't make things up or pretend to editorialise as if I were a Bach scholar. Mathsci (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out that the images in the main article of the title page and the start of BWV 825 were uploaded on commons and added by me a few years ago. The title page of BWV 825, the first published partita (1726), was inscribed in exactly the same way, as explained in the Wiener Urtext edition, i.e. it was entitled "Clavier Ubung / bestehend ... " Hard to find that information on wikipedia. Opus 1 was added for the entire collection, as explained in the Wiener Urtext edition. We have to look at the sources to sort these things out. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Harvnb

Harvnb us not used in text. If Jerome Kohl persists in making disruptive edits trying to make harvnb references in the text (is that how he curates these content-free sub=stubs?), I will report him at WP:ANI for disruption. I would point out that these partitas have been discussed copiously in the academic literature by numerous authors. The idea that this page should be preserved as an arid and useless list is ridiculous. There is plenty of material that can be added from Schulenberg's book on this particular Partita and there are plenty of journal articles. I do not have time at the moment since I'm busy on other articles. If Jerome Kohl does not have the initiative to find references himself, he shouod not hinder others. That does not benefit the reader. Invernting his own rules about harvnb was a silly thing to do. Why did he make those disruptive edits? Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Report away. Where have you been on this article for the past two years? If anyone is being disruptive here, it is you. You are a knoledgable editor who does good work. Why do you have this chip on your shoulder? You must be perfectly aware that "harvnb" is a template, and its purpose is for use in text. I cannot believe that an editor with your experience has never before encountered parenthetical referencing, nor can you be unaware of WP:CITEVAR (neither of which were invented by me). If I am wrong, and you are not aware of these things, then I suggest you read these two article and, when you are in a better mood, please return here for a civil discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The question is why you tampered with perfectly good edits You know how the citation method works. It is used in countless articles, in the sciences and the arts. If you don't feel like creating proper content yourself, why edit disruptively when others do so? Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I could equally ask you the same question. I have not tampered with your content edits; why do you tamper with my perfectly good citation-formatting edits, per WP:CITEVAR? They have no bearing at all on your splendid contributions. I am indeed aware of how many different citation methods (not just "the" method") work, and from your use of the harvtxt template I infer that you do, as well. I can only agree with you that parenthetical citations are used in countless articles, as it has been here. So what is your complaint, and why do you want to change the established style? If you have a sound argument, I am willing to listen to it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Gigue: time signature

In the only copy of these Partitas I have right now, which is a facsimile of the old Bach-Gesellschaft edition, this Gigue has no numeric time signature. In its place is a closed complete oval shape with a vertical line passing through its centre and extending through the top and bottom of the oval. (I suspect that this rather typographic-looking oval might actually be intended to represent a circle, but maybe that's not the case.) The sign as it's printed looks extremely similar to what most modern publishers use as their "Coda" sign, except that those signs include a horizontal line through the middle, while this one seems not to.

- Does my copy have the proper sign, according to modern scholarship?

- I'm dimly aware that in some music older than that of Bach, a closed circle with a vertical line through the middle indicated a three-part (rather than two-part) division of a certain class of long notes, somewhat akin to what modern teachers call "compound time". For a modern example, in 3/4 time there are three beats, and each beat can be divided into two shorter notes; in 9/8 time there are also three beats, but with 9/8 each beat divides into three shorter notes, not two.

- Is Bach instructing that notes in this Gigue printed with equal time values should be played using unequal time values? (presumably with the first note of each equal pair taking two-thirds of the available time, and the second note taking one-third of the time)? Or is he using this sign in a different way?

- I have heard respected performers who emphatically do not modify any of the printed note values, though of course not every performer qualifies as a historian. Are they ignoring the time signature, or are they observing it in a way that I haven't understood yet? TooManyFingers (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think an approximation of that time signature is the sign Ø or . It's mentioned at Time signature#Early music usage and Mensural notation calls it "Musical symbol tempus perfectum cum prolatione perfecta diminution-1". The German Wikipedia at de:Clavierübung gives Ø = 4/2 for the Gigue. That's all I know. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your signs are what I meant. My suspicion is that the time signature actually means "Not 4/2 but 24/8". But of course I can't prove it. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsure how to format citation

Under "Reception and legacy", someone has quoted Martin Gester, and there's a notice saying it needs a citation. I don't know how to format that citation properly, but I do know where the information is available.

The following web page published by Gester includes a link to a PDF containing the quote: https://www.martingester.com/2020/05/26/bach-clavier-%C3%BCbung-1-engl/

Here's the direct link to that file as given by Gester on his page: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qssiya8ldob0gtl/Bach%20Partitas%20engl%20def.pdf?dl=0 TooManyFingers (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that source. It's now in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)