Talk:Wilhelm Friedemann Bach

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Lutheranism Low‑importance

	Wilhelm Friedemann Bach is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs work

This article needs some serious editing. It is full of false premisses and wrong facts.

Examples and sources always appreciated. (Edit: the bit about "idle and dissolute habits" etc. - well, it's an adaptation of material from a document from the early 20th century. You're right; it needs sectioning- Biography, Music, Style, a list of works... - less POV, improvement in a number of ways. The notes I have to a good recording of some piano works- copyrighted, but other material exists that isn't, e.g. articles in other Wikipedias, and the LoC entries say, for a partial worklist- well, the notes do seem to agree that he didn't hold down jobs well, mind, etc.- and I suspect not idle and dissolute habits but something else entirely but doubt it's encyclopaedic either.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. The article is B-class; its quality is best raised by providing more images, and inline citations. (The latter may be difficult if most of the material here is still EB1911.) There are other, smaller, defects; read my detailed review on the comments page. Questions and comments about this review can be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird sentence...

In 1762, he negotiated for the post of Kapellmeister to the court of Darmstadt; although he protracted the negotiations for reasons that are opaque to historians and did not actively take the post, but nevertheless was appointed "Hofkapellmeister of Hessen-Darmstadt", a title he used in the dedication of his Harpsichord Concerto in E minor. Is it only me or is the sentence grammatically illogical?! Especially the "but" comes totally unexpected and lets the reader go "Eh?" -andy 92.229.170.31 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clavier-Büchlein vs. Klavierbüchlein

Although "Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach" would be the correct spelling in modern German it is more appropriate to use here the original title as written in 1720 by Johann Sebastian Bach himself: "Clavier-Büchlein vor Wilhelm Friedemann Bach". Uka (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the wiki entry for the buchlein uses the modern spelling. I added to the article the modern spelling so it can be linked.

Fdarcy (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...a good solution --Uka (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rameau's nephew

curious to know the source of the imputation that friedemann was a model for rameau's nephew... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumicke (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should the suggestion that friedemann bach may have been a model for rameau's nephew be removed? i can see no evidence for it in schulenberg, falck, wollny, or anywhere except this article. is anyone aware of anything that supports this? thanks. Doctor Tulp (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim as it sounds like nonsense. Surprised it took this long...

Picture titled wrong?

The portrait accompanying this entry is titled "Johann Christian Bach (the so-called Halle Clavier-Bach), fourth cousin and pupil of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, in a portrait by Friedrich Georg Weitsch." In fact, I believe it *is* W. F. Bach. J. C Bach's portrait in his entry is totally different. (Added) It is, in fact, "Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, oil on canvas by W. Weitsch (1760)." I'll try to update the main page. Opus131 (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait has been known since 2005 to be that of the Halle J. C. Bach (not the famous J. C. Bach who was W. F.'s half brother). There was no such painter as "W. Weitsch" and the painting is probably from the 1790s or later; the actual artist, F. G. Weitsch, was only born in 1758. See my book, cited in the article, p. 11. Dschulen (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC) David Schulenberg[reply]

I've replaced the image at the top with something that is actually him. As I uploaded it, the picture was being discussed on BBC Radio 3, complete with a discussion with David Schulenberg. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog

Correct catalog is not BR (Bach Repertorium), but BR-WFB instead. There are many "BR" catalogs to Bach, XXX composers. See: http://bach-digital.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.121.248 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wilhelm Friedemann Bach/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach: 2008-11-23==

This is an assessment of article Wilhelm Friedemann Bach by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?

Good.

===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

Good.

===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

Good.

===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.

Presumed complete; the catalog notations need explanation.

===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?

Good.

===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)

More images needed. One sound clip.

===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?

Article contains pointers to references; little indication they were used; One inline cite.

===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)

Lead is short. Footer material disordered.

===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review===

Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
Article footer material needs organization (WP:LAYOUT)
Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE)
Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD)

===Summary=== This article gives a fairly good biographical and professional musical overview of the man. It lacks inline citations, which is a barrier to GA/FA consideration. Fixing this may be difficult, if in fact most of the extant material is EB1911. The article needs more images. The footer sections are disorganized; see WP:LAYOUT for the order.

The list of works is presumed to be complete; the format of the leading information in each entry should be explained (or removed if it is not meaningful here). If his works were catalogued, the catalog designations should be given.

Article is B-class. Magic♪piano 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

BR WFB vs. Falck

I think the "translation" from Falck to BR is not always correct.

The two flute sonatas in e minor (F 52) and F major (F 51) are BR WFB B 17 and B 18, according to publisher Carus (Stuttgart). So maybe B 10 and B 11 are lost, but that's not F 51 and F 52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.221.23 (talk • contribs)

Please see the relevant pages at the Bach Digital website (which afaik trump whatever may have appeared on recording sleeves or liner notes, or whatever music publishers may contend):

Sonata in F major (Three Sonatas for flute and bc, No. 1) BR‑WFB B 10; [= Fk 51] → lost
Sonata in A minor (Three Sonatas for flute and bc, No. 2) BR‑WFB B 11; [= Fk 52] → lost
Sonata in D major (Three Sonatas for flute and bc, No. 3) BR‑WFB B 12; [= Fk 53] → lost
Sonata in E minor BR‑WFB B 17; Fk deest, survives in D-B Mus. ms. anon. 1554 and is published in the mentioned Carus edition
Sonata in F major BR‑WFB B 18; Fk deest, survives in D-B Mus. ms. anon. 1554 and is published in the mentioned Carus edition

("Fk deest" means that the composition is not numbered in the Falck catalogue). For clarity, I don't see where Carus, a fairly conscientious music publisher, would contend that the "two flute sonatas in e minor (F 52) and F major (F 51) are BR WFB B 17 and B 18"; on the contrary: Peter Wollny, currently president of the Bach Archive, and thus ultimately also responsible for the content of the Bach Digital website, writes in the introduction to the Carus score "Three Sonatas for flute and basso continuo (Fk 51–53; BR WFB B 10–12) must be considered lost". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]