Talk:Goldberg Variations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goldberg Variations is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't 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.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (See comments)
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Goldberg Variations as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian, Finnish or Italian language Wikipedias.

What piece is it that is played in Silence of the lambs? i downloaded the 82recording of glenn gould and it doesnt sound the same, help please?

Contents

[edit] Is the aria the first variation?

Thanks for adding these brief notes on each variation - they're very useful. However, I'm curious about this assertion that the aria is "not the theme but the first variation". That seems a rather odd thing to say to me seeing as the following thing is marked "Variation 1". I think I have the Williams book somewhere, but can't lay my hands on it, so any explanation of this is gratefully received. --Camembert

The theme, if you can call it that, is in the bass. There is a sequence g-f-e-d b-c-a-g etc which forms the structure of all the bass lines. The upper parts have nothing in common, unlike, say, the Diabelli, where the theme is varied in the upper part. This is why it is referred to as a chaconne. I think I'm right in saying that variations on a ground (ie in the bass) are pretty rare after 1750. BevRowe
PS I see you are interested in cinquains, too. We seem to be dogging each other.

I see what you mean, and you're right that variations on a ground are rare beyond the baroque (there's a rather jolly example in Beethoven, however: the 32 Variations in C minor, WoO80), but I still don't see why that makes the aria the first variation and not the theme. That bass-line has to come from somewhere (just as the top line has to come from somewhere in the Diabelli vars), and it comes from the theme. There's no rule that says that a piece in variation form must be based on the uppermost line. The Diabelli Variations aren't really based on the upper line either (which is after all tremendously dull), but on the underlying harmony (the 13th variation of that set makes this point rather wittily by only making a sound when the harmony changes) - in that sense, the Diabellis are rather like the Goldbergs. So I'm going to remove that comment from the article - sorry. Of course, the article could probably do with more discussion about why the piece is often reckoned to be a chaconne, but if we're going to present a list of variations, I don't see the logic in saying the aria isn't the theme. --Camembert

Another problem with Williams' opinion is that the Aria returns at the end with the same melody. This marks it out as special even if it were not titled 'Aria'. Yet another problem is that almost all actual chaconnes are continuous pieces with one single time signature through all sections, whereas the Goldbergs are separate pieces each with its own rhythm. If we are going to give house room to the "chaconne" theory I think we must explain these problems. I would say myself that Bach's composition falls outside previous categories. --Tdent 18:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integrating Williams

Here's an idea for how to handle this article: we make the comments in the list of variations into anonymous comments on pretty uncontroversial things, like "this is a canon at the second", and "a lively variation with imitation between the upper two parts" - quite dry, technical things like that. Then we put Williams' comments after the list: "Peter Williams, writing in his book Goldberg Variations comments that the aria is not really the theme, but the first variation. He also questions the presto possible tempo at which variation 11 is usually taken..." and so on. I'm a bit worried that we're giving too much prominence to Williams' interpretations of the piece, you see, and that by putting his views in the list we're presenting them as "correct", when a lot has been written about this piece, and there are many differing ideas about it. I think this will give us a better article. --Camembert

I've played around with the article a bit, and it's ended up a bit different to how I originally envisioned it, but I think it's an improvement - basically, Williams' views are labelled as such as they crop up, rather than labelling the entire list as being based on Williams. I hope everyone else think this is an improvement too, but if not, it's a pretty simple task to change it back. Some views of writers and performers other than Williams would be very useful - I'll see if I can dig anything up later. --Camembert

[edit] Recordings

Good, I like what you've done, in general anyway. I may have some detailed quibbles when I look at it more carefully. What about more recordings? I just put in a few I had to hand. BevRowe
I'll try to add some later, but can I suggest we put in the years recordings were made rather than the year they were released; Glenn Gould died in 1982, and Landowska must have died around the 1950s, I guess, so seeing 1993 and 2000 next to their names is a little odd. I'm not sure it's worth adding catalogue numbers, either, as they will differ with each reissue (and some of these recordings have been issued several times, in several countries). --Camembert
The date made would be much better but I put in what I had to hand.
No problem--I'll got through my books later tonight and see if I can come up with the recording dates. --Camembert

Hi there, I've just added two harpsicord recordings. I've got some piano recs: W. Kempff, A. Gavrilov and C. Pi-hsien. Before I add them, do you think it is feasible to give them an order? Which one? Some recs do not have a date... --M/ (W/it:)

Recording dates seem to be hard to come by, unless someone knows a source I don't. Chronological would be the best principle, I think, but if that's not possible, then having ===Harpsichord===/===Piano=== and alphabetical within categories might be best. Opus33 15:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A joke about the Goldberg Variations

Woody Allen said that when he was a kid he thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg tried the night of their honeymoon. Kingturtle 18:49 22 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Gould's opinion of his 1955 recording

I changed the wording of the commentary on Gould's 1955 recording a little bit, for I heard an interview with him concerning this topic (it's availible on CD) and he didn't say he would hate it but that he could not any longer identify with his early interpretation.

To read about the correction in the paragraph on his 1981 version, please click: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glenn_Gould

--JensG 22:41, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Again, I'm the source of the "hate" comment, and again I don't recall any more where that information came from. I have probably characterized his opinion a bit too strongly, so changing it from "hate" is probably appropriate. If I run across the source again, I'll note it here. Noel 05:20, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Some queries

1. Is Variation 11 really played "as fast as possible"? Surely true of amateurs, but I suspect top performers could go faster if they wanted to but feel it wouldn't be esthetically appropriate. I propose to delete if no one complains.

2. Ok to include the Keyserlingk anecdote in its original text by Forkel? It's a bit long, but is charmingly told...

3. I chucked "masterpiece" in favor of something hopefully less banal (it was my fault in the first place). Please revert if you really want the Goldberg Variations to contend for the title of "Bach's masterpiece."

4. Does anyone know how to format a Table of Contents in two columns? What we have now is very long.

5. Is anyone out there truly fond of the passage about Hannibal Lecter? In general I think the pop-culture bits belong not in the Wikipedia's classical music articles (no one looks up Goldberg Variations to learn about Hannibal Lecter), but in the article on the relevant work of popular culture (i.e., you put this sentence in Silence of the Lambs, so people can learn the answer to the question "What's that music Hannibal is listening to?"). Please object if you think otherwise.

Cheers, Opus33 17:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. It should be played at a pretty fast lick, but it can be slowed up a little to no detriment, I think.
4. You can't, unless you force a manual TOC which looks more ugly.
5. That sounds a good idea.
Dysprosia 00:34, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about point five. I quite like those bits of trivia scattered around the place. I don't think they do much harm, and they give some impression of how these things get used outside their original context. I can see it looks a little bit silly just now, with only The Silence of the Lambs mentioned, but eventually there could be a whole section of the article on how bits of the piece get used for other purposes, and for what purposes they tend to be used, which could be moderately interesting. That said, it's not something I really feel strongly about, and if you take it out, I won't complain. Just take this as a very (very) mild grumble against it.

Other than that, I'm with you all the way, especially on Forkel's version of the Keyserlingk anecdote, which would be really good to have in the article. --Camembert

Does a manual TOC necessarily look more ugly? I've given it a shot. If it passes the ugliness test, there's another consideration: upkeep: if anyone adds or subtracts a section, it has to be updates. - Nunh-huh 03:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that the wikitech to make pretty tables has improved considerably since the last time I saw an attempt at a manual TOC. This one looks okay :) Dysprosia 03:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See original queries for numbering:

1, "fast as possible for 11": I fudged this slightly. Funny, looking at the score I would judge that 11 isn't really all that fast. The ones that really engage the speed-demon are more likely to be 20, 23, 26, and 28.

2, Forkel on Keyserlingk: done, along with Forkel's Quodlibet tale

3: no one complained :-)

4: This is cool.

5: Well, ok. --Opus33 23:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plea for Landowska amplification

Those of you who have done so nicely on this page (you know who you are!) would undoubtedly be able to improve the article on Wanda Landowska.... hint, hint! - Nunh-huh 20:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh--I'm definitely not a Landowska expert (and I'm not sure you were even referring to me!), but I'll put a couple suggestions for the article on your personal page. Opus33 06:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Count ... whatsisname

What was the name of the count the variations were written for? At the beginning it's "Count Hermann Karl von Keyserlingk", later "Count Kaiserling"... --Akumiszcza 08:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] we should delete the trivia section

while it may be true the music is heard in some hollywood movie, this is NOT THE PLACE to mention it.

for all I care, write that into the silence of the lambs trivia section but NOT in the goldberg variations. Please! talk of blown out of perspective...


Although the book specifies that Lecter is listening to Glenn Gould's 1981 recording, this is not the piece played in the film.

[edit] Goldberg Novel

Can we please stop posting a link to Nancy's Goldberg Variations novel as not only does it not have anything to do with the variations, but is not prominent a novel to even be worth mentioning. Its a romance novel and doesnt need to be linked to here.

It's standard procedure to disambiguate terms in this way. Plus, if the disambiguation link is present, it may improve the chances of the article on the novel being written. Whether or not it's a romance novel is entirely irrelevant. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe there is any ambiguity concerning the Goldberg Variations. I have never heard a single person confuse the name with a book no one knows about. I understand this for common terms and names, but I dont think this is something that at all would cause confusion for people as anyone who knows the name goldberg variations is almost certainly not going to confuse it with or even know of the novel. Besides, there are others as well that we would have to mention such as The Goldberg Variations by Mark Glanville or The Goldberg variations by Ron Elisha etc. It should be left out like every other respectable encyclopedia or Groves dictionary entry.
What other encyclopedias do is irrelevant. It's Wikipedia editorial policy to point to other uses and/or disambiguation pages. Since you're pointed out additional uses of "Goldberg Variations", I'll start a proper disambiguation page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions

  • 1. Where does the English translation of Forkel's text come from? If it is from a book or a CD booklet or an article of some sort, isn't the translation copyrighted?
Hello, Jashiin. As the article now notes, it's from the Kirkpatrick edition of the score. Please note that you can legally quote people if it's brief, as is done in book reviews and scholarly citations; however, I don't know what the upper length limit is. If you think we're over the legal limit, I could try tracking down the original German (which is definitely out of copyright) and doing a different translation. Opus33 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing this up. I think we should leave the text for now, but if you can make a translation of Forkel's text sometime later, it'd be great (since, after all, Forkel is quoted two times in the article and surely that can cause trouble over the translation's copyright status). Jashiin 19:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. Is it really okay to use the 4/4 time signature on the bass line image? The original aria is in 3/4, and the image can be very misleading for a casual reader.
I've fixed this; the image now follows Kirkpatrick in using no time signature. Thanks for spotting the problem. Opus33 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Jashiin 19:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 3. In "Variation 8", does the "Williams compared this to fireworks" line really show anything? It doesn't look anything like fireworks in the score, to me at least. In "Variation 28" there's this line again, plus the "compare the final prelude from Debussy's second book of preludes" thing. I've looked at the score and listened to Debussy's piece and I see almost nothing common in these two works.
I'd be quite content if you took these out. Opus33 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 4. For "Quodlibet": the two folk songs are there allright, and according to [1] there are some similarities between one of the folk songs and a chorale; however there's nothing like "A cross between a chorale and a medley of popular tunes" as the article states. Does anyone know more about this?
In the commentaries I've read, everybody talks about the folk tunes and nobody talks about the chorale. Opus33 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 5. The list of recordings is pretty big and its very far from a complete one (compare to [2], which isn't complete as well). Not to mention that many of the artists mentioned have more recordings of GV than listed here (Schiff, Jaccottet, Tureck has more than two, Kirkpatrick has more than one, etc). Why don't we move it to another article to save space here? I suggest simply mentioning several important recordings (Serkin's 1928 recording since its the first ever, Landowska's two versions since they're the first harpsichord ones, Tureck's earliest recording since it influenced Gould, Gould's and Kirkpatrick's recordings since they're, well, important) somewhere in the article instead. Jashiin 18:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's true that we are over the recommended article length limit, so this seems like a good idea to me. Opus33 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Allright. Does List of recordings of Goldberg Variations sound like a good name for such article? Or we could do a Goldberg Variations/Recordings sub-article. Jashiin 19:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
List of recordings of Goldberg Variations sounds fine, perhaps with a "the" before "Goldberg"? Re. Goldberg Variations/Recordings, my understanding is that sub-articles with slash addresses are against Wikipedia policy. (They had them in the early years of the decade, but later got rid of them.) Opus33 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, the list is now at List of recordings of the Goldberg Variations. Nothing fancy there at the moment, I simply moved the text. I'll add a shorter section on recordings here and reference the more comprehensive list, but a bit later, I'd like to rewrite the descriptions of individual variations first. Or someone else can add a section on recordings if they're interested. Jashiin 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variation 19

Looking at the score, I can't see how "The first seven bars of this variation set out the bass theme on which the entire set is built with particular clarity". I mean, its there sort of.. but no particular clarity compared to other variations. But I'm not much of an expert, so maybe someone can tell me what I missed? I wanted to make an image for the article but when I looked at the score, I thought maybe the description in the article is incorrect.

Hello Jashiin. Perhaps the original author should have said "four bars" instead of seven? Variation 19 does begin with four very clear bars of bouncing octaves, outlining "G F# E D". In order to compare, I looked through the variations. Quite a few of them have a clear "G F# E D" in the bass for the first four measures, but I would venture to say that 19 has the very plainest version (some possible rivals: 4, 22, 29).
I could see leaving this passage in, if you changed the "seven" to "four". But I would also not be upset if you deleted it. Opus33 16:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I think that adding your explanation to the article would fit perfectly. The description for this variation could go: "Variation 19 is a gentle three-voice passepied in 3/8 time. It begins with four very clear bars of bouncing octaves, outlining the notes G, F#, E, D, the beginning notes of the bass line on which the entire set is built. Quite a few variations state the sequence clearly, but this particular variaion can be said to have the very plainest version." Or would this qualify as original research? A pity if it would. Jashiin 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say that if you do just the first sentence you just gave, and not the second, then we'd be fine as far as avoiding original research. Be sure to add a link to passepied. Opus33 17:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the soprano voice has no accent marks in the Bach Gesellschaft edition, and I think they're probably a later addition. So the "The soprano voice, detached gently with accenting" might be wrong as well. Does anyone know more about this? Jashiin 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the editions I own are Kirkpatrick and Bischoff, neither of which were prepared before the discovery of the manuscript copy in 1974. However, for what it's worth: (1) Bischoff marks the bass line (only) as staccato--doubtless his idea and not Bach's, because (2) Kirkpatrick, a rigorous scholar, gives absolutely nothing but the notes.
Is the Bach Gesellschaft edition post-1974? We should really base the decision on a modern edition. I could poke around in a music library if that would help. Pending further information, I think it would be wise to take the "detached gently" bit out. Cheers, Opus33 16:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, no, its a 19th century edition (see Bach Gesellschaft) I use because it has nothing added to the score, unlike later editions with staccato marks, tempo indications, etc. The other edition I use is pre-1974 as well. I guess I'll remove that bit for now. Jashiin 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The copy I have uses accenting, but the description of "detached gently" is accurate. Dysprosia 06:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, could I attempt to clarify? An article about the Goldberg Variations has to be an article about the Goldberg Variations as Bach wrote them. The problem is that many of the versions you can buy in a music store are versions that were "edited" (altered) by some other musician. What we need to establish the facts here is an urtext edition, preferably one made with the benefit of the autograph (original handwritten copy) discovered 1974. I'll try to find this in the library. Opus33 16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the score -- any edition? The description of a detached soprano voice is clear if you have seen the score for v.19. I've even played for you the first few bars of the thing. Dysprosia 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the article text implies that the soprano voice is detached because of accent marks ("detached gently with accenting), and that might not be the case. The question isn't if it is detached/giving a gentle feeling or not, the question is whether there's any accenting in Bach's original score. Jashiin 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That's essentially what I said above. Dysprosia 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now located (and cited) a post-1974 urtext edition, and can verify that in Variation 19 it has nothing but the notes--nothing at all to indicate that the right hand part should be played "gently detached," as our article was saying.

Hoping this will not create acrimony, I've therefore removed the "gently detached" bit from the article. Perhaps it might go in in a future section--we could say "Gould plays these notes gently detached, Leonhardt legato, etc."

I'm sorry this conversation has taken on an irked tone; I didn't mean to offend Dysprosia. However, I firmly believe that we should not be describing the right hand line as "gently detached" unless Bach said it should be (by writing staccato marks, for instance). Dysprosia's views are on this point as expressed above seem very unclear to me, and I encourage her to attempt to clarify if this has some chance of being useful.

The funny thing is, I like to play those notes "gently detached" myself! But the preferences of non-famous performers are not encyclopedia material.

Opus33 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are not my views -- the detachment is self-evident. Dysprosia 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not self-evident to me, and that's not how I play it on harpsichord. Only the middle voice is necessarily detached due to repeated notes - if the upper voice were legato it might make a nice contrast. There are lots of ways to play it... De gustibus. --Tdent 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variation 21

I'm not sure how Variation 21 is "reminiscent of a chorale setting".. it doesn't look like that to me. Can anyone elaborate on this or should we delete the line from the article? (even if it is true, a better explanation is required since there are many types of chorale settings) Jashiin 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a chorale to me.
Perhaps worth mentioning that the eight-note motif that begins the canon appears inverted at the start of the second half. Opus33 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove the chorale line then. I don't think the whole motif is seen inverted in the second section, but I guess I'll mention that too, since most of it is present. Jashiin 14:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passepied?

I have qualms about identifying certain variations (4 and 19) as 'passepieds'. The usual form of the passepied, as it appears in the Baroque suite, has two main characteristics: it is in very fast triple time, and each section (and usually each phrase) starts on the 3rd beat of the bar with a single quaver upbeat. But neither of the variations has such upbeats, and while no.4 is usually played at passepied tempo, no.19 is usually quite a bit slower due to its smaller note values. I would prefer to say that no.4 is *reminiscent* of the passepied, and leave no.19 without a label.

The point about upbeats is important since Baroque dance movements were often defined by their presence or absence: Gavottes had two upbeats starting at the half bar, whereas Bourrees had only a quarter bar's upbeat.

--Tdent 11:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tdent. I also had qualms about "passepied", as I had never read this anywhere myself, but I kept it in to be consistent with this rest of the article. I'll fix this next time I edit (if no one else does it first). Opus33 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, my sources for naming the two variations passepieds were the liner notes of the Hewitt CD, not much of authority I guess, so go ahead and make the edit. Although I have to disagree with the upbeats point, since I've heard/seen gavottes without upbeats, for instance, and surely there are some passepieds without any? Probably by middle Baroque composers who are always dismissed as "inferior to Bach". Jashiin 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a significant number of passepieds without upbeats, you are welcome to cite them. I don't know any (outside Debussy) and the argument is not based on a claim that every single one must invariably have an upbeat. Nothing to do with compositorial prestige either! The definition is actually just that the piece should have the title "passepied" at the top. What we mean here is whether a movement by Bach without that title has nevertheless the same musical characteristics as extant movements called "passepied". Similar ambiguity in saying "this variation is a dance". Literally this is untrue, we mean that it has musical characteristics in common with other pieces that are definitely dance music. (Many "sarabandes" by Bach are quite undanceable-to, despite being formally dance movements.) I would have no problem with saying "like the passepied dance movement, var.4 is in 3/8 time with a preponderance of quaver rhythms". --Tdent 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jashiin,
I think it's perfectly ok to mention the passepieds, but you would want to mention your source (this is official policy; see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I have no problem with citing liner notes.
Opus33 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the only way to mention the passepieds now that someone has serious arguments against it is something like "pianist Angela Hewitt considers this to be a passepied". I did try to spice up the descriptions by talking about various performers' interpretations, but I think that adding notes like this would be too much. Because this isn't a question of personal preference or interpretation, is the form of the piece, something that should be quite definite. Plus, I think I've seen some serious mistake once in some other text by Hewitt, so maybe she is wrong here. As for citing sources, I was going to do that a bit later, when I'm finished with individual variations' descriptions. Which I hope will be sometime this week - for some reason its very hard for me to write about these particular pieces!). Jashiin 18:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I'm not very happy with the structure that is currently present in the article. Here are my two main reasons:

Hello Jashiin,
A general comment concerning the editing of this article is that we should keep our audience in mind. I would take as our most likely reader someone who knows the piece fairly well, possibly works on learning how to play it, and wants to get a distilled version (along with references for further reading) of what experts have said about the work.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I mean, someone who already knows the piece well is probably reading the books listed in "Further Reading"! And buying different recordings to get a better idea of how certain things can be played. Now, imagine someone who only recently got interested in Bach and wants to explore works other than the BWV 565/Air on G string - surely that person deserves to know what Variations 20 or 25 at least sound like? Even someone who knows nothing about music notation can follow the notated examples while listening to the pieces and will benefit greatly from doing so. This was always my prime motivation, to give accessible information and to get people interested, to give articles educational value. Jashiin 11:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Further comments interleaved below. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First reason: "Editions", "Reception", "Recordings", "Books" are all too short and don't have much potential:

  • "Editions": there are probably dozens if not hundreds of editions, listing only a couple of important ones doesn't amount to a whole section and can be done while discussing the publication history and the history of the work.
I'm rather concerned with your remark "don't have much potential". To the contrary, our readers deserve to be informed which editions add notes and markings that aren't from Bach. Moreover, since Bach's truest intentions weren't even known until the discovery of his own marked copy in 1975, there are some very good editions (e.g. Kirkpatrick's) that still can't be relied on.
I'll try to check my local library sometime to get more editions in the list, to make it more useful in this respect. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that discussing different editions isn't required, I'm merely saying that there are hundreds of editions and we can't possibly cover them all. I was thinking that mentioning one or two important editions and the fact that no editions made before 1975 are entirely accurate was enough for the article, and not enough for a separate section. If you can find several other important editions, then by all means lets keep the section, its just that I don't think there are many significant editions..
  • "Reception": I can't think of any ways to expand "Reception" into a full-fledged section either, even if we mention Serkin, Landowska, Tureck and Gould. Its just a paragraph about how the work wasn't very popular until the early 20th century, and as such, I think it can be used to expand the lead or be mentioned while discussing the history of the work.
I do feel that "lead" sections should be short. Certainly they are in the New Grove and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, both of which I think are good role models. This would be a reason to keep "Reception" separate. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I was following the Manual of Style for leads (Wikipedia:Lead_section) and the intentions I've described above. Plus, the New Grove leads aren't always short (two paragraphs for JSB, one large paragraph for Pachelbel, etc.). Jashiin 11:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Recordings": there's just one sentence here, "A great variety of recordings of the work have been made, on both harpsichord and piano. For a partial listing, see List of recordings of the Goldberg Variations." - there isn't enough material for an entire section, and the link can be easily mentioned in "See also".
Fine with me. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Books": this should really be renamed to "References" as in most articles, along with the comments on individual books (see Johann Sebastian Bach or Johann Pachelbel). As it stands, I don't know where to put my inline citations/references, because I'd need to create another section for them!
Fine with me. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Second reason (much more important): The information about the structure of the piece is currently scattered: some bits in "Composition", some in "Form", some in descriptions of variations 16, 30 and the Aria da capo, and some in the introduction to "The Variations". I'm pretty sure its inconvenient to the readers, and I don't feel its quite convenient for editors: for instance, I didn't edit the description of Variation 16 because it begins with "The set of variations fall in two "halves", consisting of the first fifteen, and the following fifteen." which is really a statement about the form of the piece, not about Variation 16. I couldn't delete the sentence, because its important information, and I couldn't place the sentence anywhere else, because there are too many places where it'd fit - "Form", "The variations", etc.)

I would advocate, as a general principle, to put whatever can go into general sections the material which is general, and limit the individual variation sections of the absolute minimum, i.e. what is particular to the individual variations. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
See above, my comments about the educational value of the article. Jashiin 11:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Third reason: some of the section titles and the order the sections appear in are somewhat misleading. The first thing I think about when I see the header "Composition" is that the section is going to describe the work. Instead, the section describes the history of its creation. When I'm done reading "Form", I'm thinking descriptions of individual variations will follow, instead, there's a "Reception" section, then "The variations" with more information on the form, and only after that come the descriptions.

Does anyone agree that the current structure isn't ideal? Or maybe I missed some important aspects of it? I came up with an alternative structure, which looks like this:

  • Lead (current lead + "Reception", both expanded a bit)
See above re. length of leads. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • History (current "Composition" + "BWV 1087" + "Publication", perhaps "Editions")
I suggest "Editions" should go late, perhaps in the References section. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Structure
  • General information (parts of "Composition", "The variations", etc, all mentioned above, "Form", some parts expanded a bit)
I'm quite concerned you're contemplating deletions from "Compositions". I think our readers deserve to be given the Forkel story in full; it's very standard material. Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not conemplating ANY deletions from any of the sections mentioned. Only re-arranging existing material. See below. Jashiin 11:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Variation 1
    • Variation 2
    • etc.
  • Transcriptions (current "Transcriptions" expanded)
  • See also (include links to other variation sets and the list of recordings)
  • References
    • Books (list the titles from "Books")
    • Footnotes (inline citations, will add these to the descriptions of individual variations and it'd be nice to have some for the Kirkpatrick bits and translation)
  • External links (current "External links")

Not much shorter, but still less sections and, most importantly, more coherent. What do you think? Jashiin 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the basic proposed reorganization is fine.
Concerning the general length and the sense of non-coherence (which I share), my main suggestion is that the discussion of the individual variations should be trimmed back, in the following way: they should not include any passages that simply say what the notes are. If a particular variation has a descending scale, that will be pretty obvious to anyone who knows what a descending scale is. They don't have to read it in an encyclopedia.
I've answered above concerning my motivation to write the individual variations' descriptions the way I wrote them.. I'm really worried we have such conflicting points of view on the function of the encyclopedia. Anyway, I created a page at User:Jashiin/GVdraft with the article re-organized, "Editions" and "Receptions" kept intact as you suggested. Would you take a look at it? I think its much more coherent (and I reckon there were no major deletions, too) and, well, I really wouldn't want to shorten the descriptions of variations - if we only leave the performers' and musicologists' remarks, we'll end up with - in my opinion - a very poor article which will look quite unfinished (because we don't have enough remarks to cover all variations). Jashiin 11:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yours sincerely, Opus33 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variation 10

If I'm not mistaken, Bach used this theme in BWV 1066, the orchestral suite in C. I think it would be nice to add if someone could verify it for me.

Some leaps towards the end of the theme are indeed very similar, but apart from that, the first half or so (including, for instance, the trill, which is a rather significant feature) is rather different. The similarity is probably best attributed to coincidence. EldKatt (Talk) 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

I notice that this page has no citations for any of its quotes or claims. For example, "Variation 25 is widely believed to be one of the most beautiful and impressive parts of the Goldberg Variations." Says who? "Recent research by musicologist and teacher Cory Hall, however, suggests that this variation was probably intended to be played at a much slower tempo to match that of Variation 25." Where/when did he/she say that? I'll concede that nothing sticks out to me as terribly controversial in this article, but shouldn't claims and some quotes be sourced? Even if for no other reason than to help people get more information. Organ123 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The article still reflects the "bad old days" of Wikipedia when people just put in whatever they felt like without sources, and it's time to upgrade to the newer, source-based standard. Would it be safe to do a fair amount of trimback, and build up again with proper sourcing? Opus33 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think so, yes. But I also think there is a lot of interesting information in this article that is probably defensible, and maybe people could try to find the sources for what they're saying and just tack on the citations, rather than delete it altogether. But yeah, I think the wikipedia guidelines say that non-cited, doubt-worthy information can be deleted by any user... Organ123 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, maybe I'll go ahead and stick a "not verified" box at the top of the page. I hope that will encourage people to try to start using citations. Organ123 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masonry

I heard Bach was a Mason and he composed the GV to be admitted.Also that in a famous potrait he's holding a part of the score. Any likelyhood? Just hearsay.--Gacelo (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. However there are some sources that cite that it is likely that Bach was adept of the Rosicrucianism . DTBone (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)