Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Recommended recordings for laypersons

Would it be a nice idea to put such a section in? I would say Richter's Brandenburg Concertos, Szeryng's Violin Concertos (including the Air on the G String), and perhaps Gould's Goldberg Variations. -- Alassius (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Recommended by whom? - Fredrik | talk 18:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
That's why we'd discuss it here first isn't it? -- Alassius (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I think Fredrik's point is that the list couldn't be a reccomendation by Wikipedia. We aren't in the opinion business. Paul August ☎ 19:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. However, a section on the most critically acclaimed recordings, with references and citations, would be appropriate. Fredrik | talk 20:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, my thought wasn't on something good but rather something easy. Lay people who's not familar with but is interested in Bach could use this. If you think it will cause problems, that's ok, although I'd call it overcautious =( -- Alassius (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Many such recommendations have been published elsewhere. If some of those can be hunted down and cited, that'd be excellent. Fredrik | talk 22:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
At least these should be recommended in the article: jesujoy, BWV 208, 565, 578vfox, 1068, 1080/I/5/Bergel, especially the latter three are most important. These are easily accessible to any untrained ear.
I can see this becoming a time-wasting sinkhole of needless arguing about different POV's. It might be best to refer people to references to books, of which there are a number on the market, on how to build a classical music recordings collection etc. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

New (minor) opus found.[1] (The article is embarassingly mistaken. Wolff, whom it quotes, found new pieces c1985.) Kwantus 21:48, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

"Further reading" section need cleanup

I've copied the "further reading" section below:

  • The New Bach Reader by Hans T. David (Editor), Arthur Mendel, Christoph Wolff Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company; New Ed edition (1999) ISBN 0393319563
  • J. S. Bach (Vol 1) by Albert Schweitzer Publisher: Dover Publications (1966) ISBN 0486216314
  • Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician by Christoph Wolff Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company (2001) ISBN 0393322564
  • J. S. Bach As Organist: His Instruments, Music, and Performance Practices by George Stauffer, Ernest May Publisher By Indiana University Press (1999)ISBN 025321386X
  • The Bach Reader (W. W. Norton, 1966), edited by Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel, contains much interesting material, such as a large selection of contemporary documents, some by Bach himself.
  • The early biography by Johann Nikolaus Forkel, Über Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke (1802), a translation of which is included in The Bach Reader (see above), is of considerable value, as Forkel was able to correspond directly with people who had known Bach.
  • An early groundbreaking study of Bach's life and music is the multi-volume Johann Sebastian Bach (1889), by Philippe Spitta.
  • Another famous study of his life and music is J. S. Bach (1908), by the versatile scholar and organist Albert Schweitzer.
  • Christoph Wolff's more recent works (Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician and Johann Sebastian Bach: Essays) include a discussion of Bach's "original genius" in German aesthetics and music. Wolff gives an exciting account of the discovery of the famous Bach Family archive, evacuated from wartime Berlin's Singakademie to Silesia and from there vanished into Russia until just a few years ago, at <http://athome.harvard.edu/dh/wolff.html>.
  • Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid uses the music of Bach, the art of M.C. Escher and a wide range of other ideas to explore topics such as cognition, formal methods, logic and mathematics, particularly Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

I think it could stand a bit of"clean up", specifically:

  1. Any of the above that were used as references, should be moved to the "References" section.
  2. Since most of the entries are annotated, it would be good if they all were.
  3. They should have a consistent format (perhaps: title, author, rest of bibliographic info, — annotation).
  4. They should be in alphabetical order.

Paul August ☎ 22:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Paul August has presented some valuable ideas. However, I wonder whether alpha order is best? If we can agree on order of importance and relevance, or a way of sectioning them into genres, that would be more useful for the reader. Schweitzer's earlier attempt might come further down the list than Wolff's recent, excellent biography. A brief description could be added to all items. I wonder whether anyone would object if I removed most of the dots that pepper the list at the moment. The trend is towards minimal punctuation for ease of reading; it also reduces the required space. Tony 00:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I could support either alphabetical or historical order. One other thing -- it seems to me that books that are reflections or indirect treatments of Bach, such as Goedel, Escher, Bach, really ought to be in a different subcategory than books really and directly about Bach. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


Pronunciation of "Bach"

I thinnk there should be an explanation about how we pronounce the word Bach. Maybe by adding an IPA transliteration next to the word in introduction. CG 12:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

How large is the readership that (a) doesn't know how to pronounce Bach but (b) knows IPA? —Wahoofive (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But because its pronunciation might not be known for all readers, there's should be an explanation on how to say it. A lot of foreign languages-related articles (like Arabic and Hebrew) have this kind of explanation right next to the title, why not this german name? CG 20:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

sound excerpts

There's a forest of them at the end of the article, without essential information concerning the performers, recording technicians, date and venue of performance, etc. Instead of placing them in a big lump at the end, I propose that a few of them be located at strategic points through the article. I'd like one cantata movement in the Leipzig section, for example, and one or two movements in the section on his later life, and one or two for each of the genres under 'Works'. That way, we could cogently illustrate the text, and guide users towards focused (and thus limited) listening experiences as they read through the text. Does anyone object?

I'd also like to review the quality of the recordings, which I haven't yet worked out how to access. Tony 00:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The clip for Air (BWV1068) is OGG but was obviously transcoded from a plain MIDI, so the copyright attribution in bogus. It's also kinda lame to have a big OGG file with only MIDI quality.
Sounds great to me. Those links were added before the Works section even existed. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The files are in ogg format, which is easiest to listen to with Winamp. Unfortunately, the files are quite large; it would be nice to have brief excerpts in the body of the article so that people can quickly get an idea of what a Bach cantata sounds like, and maybe the whole works could stay at the end. Mark1 02:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
How long an excerpt are you looking at? I put the Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring.ogg up and it's 4402KB for a 21/2 minute piece. However, I could cut the file size in half (or more) by using a different compression. Would that be better than a excerpt? Both could still be available. CambridgeBayWeather 07:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It took me about 10 minutes to download a 6 megabyte movement, and my connection's not that bad. It would be nice to get it down to one or two megabytes (ideally be compressing more, failing which by excerpting). Mark1 07:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Winamp sound very Windows to me; what't the Mac version? I'd like to hear the excerpts before we decide what is retained, and where. Compression sounds as though it could solve some problems. Tony 12:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A non-Windows computer? How quaint. ;) Wikipedia:Media_help#Macintosh has a couple of suggestions. Mark1 03:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

How very 90s to pursue that sectarian debate, Mark. Thx 4 the link. Tony 04:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

New opening

I've just had a stab at rewording the opening, off the top of my head. I hope no one is offended by my removal of the footnote—we don't need to reach for a citation to justify our statements about his stature, at least at the opening, do we? I can't bear to link the word 'tonality', because that article is in such a mess.

This opening statement about his style could be extended and enhanced in some detail in the section on style further down. Perhaps four or five hundred words, with a few sound excerpts for exemplification? Tony 14:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Nice work; it now has a color and flair that most WP articles lack. Although you didn't write this, "all the strands of the Baroque style" is a little hyperbolic. Opera was a key invention of the Baroque and Bach did nothing with that. Oratorio was also pretty important and his contributions there were insignificant. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with "nice work". I value your new opening and appreciate your taking the time to write it. However, I do have a critical comment. I believe that this view of Bach as primarily a consummator of Baroque music, which musicologists agree does characterize one aspect of his achievement, downplays his role as a radical innovator and downplays the radical discontinuity between his music and all earlier Baroque music, his role as in effect the first modern composer, ranging from his fundamentally launching the era of equal temperament to that in his formal structures which influenced composers from Beethoven to Schoenberg and Webern (who felt driven to orchestrate Bach but not Vivaldi, Scarlatti, or Handel). Adorno discusses this issue in his essay "Bach Defended Against His Admirers" in his book Prisms. So it's not that I think that what you say is wrong, it's just that the introduction is currently missing this aspect of Bach. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Adorno isn't my favorite guy (musical criticism from a Marxist perspective leaves a bad taste in my mouth), and maybe that's a little exaggerated (equal temperament would have come in anyway), but I agree that we shouldn't downplay Bach's innovative side. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to make you rest easier,Adorno's essay about Bach isn't particularly Marxist. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoofive, I did write that statement about 'strands', and I guess I was hoping that no one would pick up the lack-of-opera thing; yeah, it's true. I suppose I was thinking that his cantatas are close enough in form to count, which is a slight fudge. I'll work out some way of rewording it slightly. Thanks. Jeremy, I stand by the statements about his relationship to the baroque, and my point is that he was a conservative, avoiding discontinuities with the past; he made his extraordinary mark within traditional forms and music language, by making them superb. By the way, his conservatism was at least partly related to his role in expressing a fairly reactionary ideology, that of Lutheranism. The seating arrangements in the Leipzig churches definitely reflected social class. Bach also had a part to play in the jostling for power by the opposing factions of the city and monarch's parties. Tony 00:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Assessment of the sound excerpts

Contributors: Please consider listening to a sample of the excerpts in the 'Media' section towards the bottom of the article. In my view, they need to be drastically pruned. I think it's a problem that no information has been provided on the artists and recordings. Tony

  • Short Prelude and Fugue, BWV 558
    • This is a prelude for organ, probably composed in his early teens. It's a pretty ordinary piece, and not a good illustration of the great composer's abilities. The performance is plodding, with several wrong notes and an unreliable pulse; the organ sound is undistinguished. I suggest that this be binned.Tony


  • Cantata 140 (appears to be a live concert performance)
    • Modern orchestra, unfortunately. 1st movement: It's very fast, even rushed, but I guess you get used to the pace. A certain 'boxiness' to the sound, and the first violin(s) is a little strident. 2nd movement: Organ/cello continuo sound not smoothly integrated; the tenor strains to reach the upper notes. 3rd movt: The soloists are pretty bad, especially the male. Ahem .... this is not acceptable, IMHO.Tony
  • Chorale from Cantata 'Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben' BWV 147 (Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring)
    • Appears to be an electronic keyboard; wheezy and not very good (wrong notes in a few places).Tony
  • Suite in e minor, BWV 996
    • This is a reasonable professional performance, but on a very strange harpsichord—sounds as though the buff stop is on, right through in every movement. Not recommended.Tony
  • Keyboard Concerto No. 1 in d minor, BWV 1052
    • It's a quite a good, professional performance, but the solo part is played on a piano rather than a harpsichord, and there's little regard for performance practice. I could live with this recording if a more authentic one couldn't be found without copyright problems. Rather large files—first movement over 11 Mb. Tony
  • Italian Concerto BWV 996
    • I listened to the first movement. At least it's on a harpsichord; pretty good performance, but the recording quality is wanting—rather closely miked, and almost no reverb. All a bit dry. Oh, and the harpsichord isn't wonderfully in tune. Tony

Partita No. 1 BWV 1013

    • It's for flute; I presume it was written for violin. Nicely played indeed, except that I find the flow occasionally disturbed by the performer's dwelling on certain notes. I'd rather have the original violin, but this may be usable, I suppose.Tony

new sound excerpts

I've just inserted the first of what I hope will be several sound excerpts distributed (cautiously) through the text. Do people feel that it's nested smoothly under the top paragraph. I suppose that I'm keen to support the opening assertions about his style with a good example. (BTW, I have to change the copyright tag to 'Copyright', on the advice of a bureaucrat, TUF-KAT. Tony 02:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

footnotes

Forgive me: I have a problem with footnotes that provide parenthetical quips, as opposed to footnotes that are reference citations. I'd like to remove the first two footnotes.

The first, right at the opening, clutters the composer's dates. If someone thinks that the calendar change of 10 days during Bach's lifetime is important enough to raise in a summary article, it would be better to locate this information in a less prominent place.

The second footnote doesn't appear to have much to do with the sentence to which it's attached; the link in the footnote, apparently about Bach's greatness, yields such gems as:

'Twentieth-century pop culture, like a continuously mutating virus, replicates itself with minor variations upon each new generation, achieving commercial acclaim by copying the latest Oscar, Emmy, or Grammy. Copying, without respect for the artwork or the artist, and copying in order to learn technique are different matters indeed; one is kitsch, the other, an education.'

I think Wikipedia should be authoritative enough to describe his greatness without external reference. Tony 09:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree about the second footnote. Treat the first one with caution, however; Bach's dates have been the subject of a number of reverts due to the calendar change during his lifetime. Maybe right at the bottom of the intro paragraph, or right at the top of the bio section. (P.S. Wasn't it you who put that info in the footnote in the first place?) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the calendar stuff that was cluttering the very opening and put it in the footnote, thinking that someone would be offended otherwise. In my view, a better way around this problem is to make it (1685–1750); it's only a summary article. Tony 15:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sebastian as the preferred given name

The article never states it explicitly, but strongly suggests that he did not use Johann, and was known as "Sebastian Bach". What is the authority for this? True, I have seen him referred to as that in old reference books, but nowadays he is universally known as either "Johann Sebastian Bach", or "J S Bach", never simply "Sebastian Bach". If it is the case that he WAS known as "Sebastian Bach" in his day, that does not alter the fact that he is not known as that anymore, and something needs to be said to explain this change of nomenclature. JackofOz 07:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently that was he was called from childhood. Christoph Wolff uses the name throughout his book (see references in the article). It was an unusual name in that part of Germany, and for the Bach family. It had the advantage of distinguishing him from the countless other Johanns in the family. Tony 13:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tony. It still doesn't alter the fact that he is not usually referred to as "Sebastian" any more. Whether it is technically correct or not, the fact is that the world now calls him "Johann Sebastian", and nothing is going to alter that. The fact that he was known as plain "Sebastian" during his lifetime definitely deserves a mention in the article, but to continually refer to him by the name he used to be known by but is no longer known by, is bordering on pedantry and/or anachronism and can only detract from the credibility of the article. I'm trying to think of another example of where a person is now known by a different name than the one they generally used in their lifetime, but I can't quite bring one to mind. Maybe JSB is unique in this respect too. JackofOz 14:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've known his first name as 'Sebastian' for decades. Forkel refers to him as 'Seb. Bach' (Chapter 3); the examiner's certificate for his application for the Leipzig job refers to him as 'Jo. Sebastian Bach'. I can find more evidence if you want. If people don't know that his first name was Sebastian, they'll suddenly learn through reading this article. Tony 15:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you give us a citation which actually discusses the name, rather than just using it? I've seen "Sebastian Bach" in numerous books, too, but have always assumed it was a pedagogical shortcut since so many others in his family had the first name of Johann. Looking through the bibliography in Baker's, all of the books and articles cited refer to him as "J.S. Bach" or "Johann Sebastian Bach"; none just as "Sebastian Bach" (in their titles, at least). So does the Wolff book cited. I think JackOfOz is right that we should use his full name throughout the article. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wolff uses 'Sebastian Bach' throughout the text. Tony 16:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wolff p14: 'Both parents must have known that no other member of the extended Thuringian family of musicians bore the name Sebastian. Had they been interested in a name more readily found among family members, Johann Georg Koch, the ducal forester, could have served [in place of the town piper of Gotha, Sebastian Nagel]: after all, "Georg" was the name of Ambrosius's [the father's] elder brother,... Nevertheless, Ambrosius—perhaps proud of the singularity within the family of his own name—not only favoured the unique "Sebastian", he also chose a fellow musician as the name-lending godfather.'

I disagree that it is 'pedantry' or 'anachronism' to refer to him as Sebastian in the part of the article where his distinctive first name is convenient to distinguish him from other members of the extended family. It's entirely natural. In other parts of the article, 'Bach' will do. Have you read Wolff's book? Tony 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For every reference you can provide that calls him "Sebastian", I can give you two others that call him "Johann Sebastian". When was the last time you went to a symphony concert where they played, eg. a Brandenburg Concerto by "Sebastian Bach"? When was the last time you bought a CD or sheet music containing works by "Sebastian Bach"? When was the last time ABC Classic FM referred to him as "Sebastian Bach"? The answer to all 3 questions is, never. It is always either "J S Bach", or the full "Johann Sebastian Bach", never just "Sebastian Bach". Neither Grove nor Slonimsky would agree with you (although they would probably acknowledge that he was called "Sebastian" in his own lifetime - I'd have to check). Cheers JackofOz 00:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with you 99%, Jack -- the only quibble is that Slonimsky, too, uses "Sebastian Bach" within the article (though not as the article title). But you're right about concert programs, sheet music, recordings, etc. —Wahoofive (talk)

This is not a concert program note, which would be much less likely to refer to Sebastian Bach (although it might be possible after introducing his full name—hard to tell without seeing an actual example). In the early part of this encyclopedic biography, we're discussing the composer as a child/youth in the context of his family. I've already pointed out that 'Sebastian' is useful to distinguish him from others in his milieu who were called Johann. It also conveys to the reader the intimacy of this part of his life. It was, after all, the name he answered to when not in formal circumstances.

My plan is that after discussing that early part of his life, we switch simply to 'Bach'. I don't like the idea of spelling out 'Johann Sebastian Bach' in full, because it ends up being long-winded, and in this summary article, there's so much that we want to include, but will be unable to because of the limit on size. I don't like 'JS Bach' when discussing his childhood and youth, because it's too formal. Tony 03:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that idea. This is much more in keeping with the preferred style. Some biographical articles tend to use the given name to refer to the person, but I think that is far too familiar. Admittedly, Bach is a special case because there were many Bachs and all of them were composers, so it is tempting to use the given name to distinguish between them. But that said, in any given article we know exactly which Bach we are talking about, so unless we're referring to a relative with the same surname, "Bach" will do just fine. Cheers JackofOz 04:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

Beats me why this article is vandalised so often. Does Bach represent some kind of older-generation, stuffy, conservative image in the minds of teenage males? Tony 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • well...he didn't in my mind when I was a teenage male. But my girlfriend at the time rather preferred her Beethoven...—Gaff ταλκ 06:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death

I hope no one objects to my pruning of the opening to simply (1685–1750), with the the actual dates relocated to the footnote. The reasons are because:

  • it will be easier to comprehend than the current forest of numbers and symbols—straight and to the point; and
  • it will be more attractive on the page.

I'd be happier removing the footnote as well, because it's debatable whether the actual dates of his birth and death are required in a summary article, but I've retained them in the footnote. Tony 02:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death. We should keep the month and day for each date. I'm not sure what you mean by "summary article". This is a biography article. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). —Wahoofive (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll revert if you feel strongly about it. But first:

  • the link doesn't really say that you have to include the dates; and
  • don't you think it's neater? The info is still there, in the footnote ....

Also, I wouldn't describe this as a 'biographical' article; it's an article on JS Bach; biography is just one part of it, don't you think?

Tony 07:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether I feel strongly isn't the point, nor whether it's neater; it's just a matter of consistency with WP policy. The examples shown on the MOS page I cited all include the month and day unless they are not known. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


First Paragraph

This sentence was removed for unclear reasons: "Bach's genius in counterpoint earned him the modern title of "Master of the Fugue" and no other composer in history has arguably composed fugues with such rich harmony, contrapuntal creativity and powerful rhythm as he did."—Gaff ταλκ 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

First, "arguably" is a weasel word. I've never heard the term "Master of the Fugue", although certainly his mastery of the craft is generally recognized. We'd need a citation for that. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your edits, now that I loook again. I don't really like the phrase "Master of the Fugue," to begin with. I think we're better without it. By the way, I meant no offense changing organisation to organization. Just personal preference and I am neutral about it.—Gaff ταλκ 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Gaff. WP's policy is that unless there's a good reason, the existing spelling of an article, of whichever variety of English, should not be changed (provided it's consistent). So if Bach had been written in US English to start with, we'd leave that unchanged. Tony 03:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Prison?

I am surprised to see no mention of his imprisonment in Weimar. 82.69.91.179 08:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of translated work titles

I'm wondering whether English translations of all German titles (such as for the cantatas) should be used, without the original German. This might make for less clutter, and make the text more accessible to English-speaking non-musicians and music lovers. Perhaps there might be one or two exceptions, such as Clavierübung (Keyboard practice), which sounds kind of odd in English alone.

I'm unsure; what do people think? Also, are people happy with the way italics are used? I'm not sure that it's consistent at the moment.

Tony 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Cantatas at least should be in the original language- that seems to be the norm for titles of recordings. Mark1 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the German titles are used so much in English-speaking countries-- e.g. when the cantatas being played on the radio, on CD's, in concert programs when they're being performed -- that the German titles should be preserved in the article for both their identifying function as well as for their educational function with regard to Bach. Someone who doesn't know German and to whom, on first reading the Bach article, "Wachet auf" means nothing, may find that it takes on meaning for them if they discover and come to love and know Bach. So I'm in favor of keeping the German titles. Many of the radio stations I've ever heard them on in the U.S. use the German titles in announcing them (even though they sometimes mispronounce them). A related question, which I find harder to answer, is whether the translations into English should be real or conventional. What I mean is that there are some conventions in English about the English titles that are inaccurate but that are used because, for example, they're taken from poetically rendered texts used for singing the cantatas in English. So, for example, "Wachet auf" really means "Wake up" or "Awaken", but the cantata is sometimes described as "Sleepers Wake", I think because it goes better with the first three notes of the chorale melody. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's important to make a distinction between a translation and an English version which must necessarily depart from the literal meaning in order to fit the poetic form. I'd vote to stay with the German in most cases; Mass in B minor is an exception, as is St. Matthew Passion. Remember, though, that Bach didn't really give his pieces titles the way an author titles his books; they were attached to the pieces at a later time. In the case of the cantatas, it's just the first line, the same way we title Renaissance motets. So there's no real argument for authenticity, but I agree with Jeremy that the German names of the cantatas are equally well-known, at least in America, and (unlike the English versions) the German titles are standardized. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, generally German plus translation, I'm hearing. I'd go for the conventional translation rather than literal. Tony 07:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, at a later point I'll ask people to go through and comment on any translation/non-translation instances they're not happy with, if that's OK with everyone. Probably better to take an overall view when the article is nearing FAC quality. Tony 02:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

sound files

I'm not happy with the quality of many of the files that appear in the 'Media' section, an issue that I raised earlier on this page, now archived. In addition, I don't think any of the info pages provides the basic details that are required.

At a later stage, when more sound files are inserted into the body of the text (I plan to include some 30-second files under fair use), I'll ask for us to reach some kind of consensus.

In my view, there's no doubt that the first one should go: it's way below the standard of performance and recording that will do Bach justice, and besides, it's juvenilia (with apologies to the performer, who was trail-blazing the notion of creating/using sound examples in music articles—good on him). Does anyone object to my deleting it? Tony 02:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

pruning of sound excerpts under 'Media'

The out of tune, the poorly recorded and the quirky have gone. Can anyone shed light on why the Prelude and Fugue in a minor from WTC1 has a bumping white noise in the background? Pity, because it's a good performance, although on piano. Tony 08:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wendy Carlos etc.

I just moved the following addition to here: " and the synthesized Switched-On Bach by electronic music pioneer Wendy Carlos." It may be that Wendy Carlos should be in the article as opposed to more discussion of influences or performance trends, but not as an example of "recognizing the musical and pedagogical value of Bach". Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


After this, do not remove the following from the Performances section: "Wendy Carlos recorded Switched-On Bach in 1968 on the newly invented Moog synthesizer; this recording, along with Glenn Gould's idiosyncratic performances, was an immense contribution to popularisation of Bach's music during the 20th century."

Wendy is not an example of "recognizing the musical and pedagogical value of Bach" but his (her)popularisation merits cannot be denied.

Other keyboard works

I tried to avoid details like the naming of "french" and "english" suites, the structure of the partitas, miscellaneous things about Goldberg Variations, etc., but the section became huge anyway. Is this okay or should I revert to the earlier edit?

I was going to make a similar type of expanding/rewriting for the organ works, but now that I see how big the keyboard works section grew, I'm in doubt whether I should do this or not. What do you think? Jashiin 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have always expected that eventually the sections on Bach's works would outgrow this article and be moved into separate articles, so the more, the merrier. Not paper. Good work, by the way. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The addition is good. However, my concern is that when it goes to the FAC page, there'll be criticism of the overall length—see the current complaints about Apple Macintosh. (I say this while acknowledging that my own contibutions over the last few weeks have increased the size). It's 52 Kb now, so perhaps we could be as concise as possible in accounting for the works. I have a mind to conflate a few of the shorter subsections: possibly 'Organ works' and 'Other keyboard works' (don't like relegating hpschd to 'other'), 'Chamber music' and 'Orchestral works', and 'Cantatas' and 'Large works' (not happy with that categorisation).
I plan to rewrite the 'Style' section soon; I think that this can be done without an increase in size. Tony 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I move we plan to complete the repertoire sections AND move them into separate articles, leaving only summaries, BEFORE re-applying for FA. There's substantial room for expansion in the Style area; really it should be a level-2 header with subheads for harmonic language, contrapuntal techniques, form, orchestration, etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'm also mindful of the fact that there's now more mention of his output in the biographical section. So what kind of work summary do you envisage? Perhaps a whistle-stop panning over the output, starting with the BWV explanation? Tony 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We need to reach a consensus about what to call the daughter articles on the works. I've had a (not wholly consistent) stab at it—see broken links under 'Works'. Who's got ideas? Tony 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we need (vocal works), not just (cantatas). It'd give us space for the motets, the arias, the passions and the masses. Other titles seem quite good, solo lute works being the only problem.. or do they fit into the chamber music category, like the solo violin/cello/flute pieces? Jashiin 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed and fixed. Tony 13:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we maybe return to the old introduction to "Other keyboard works"? The earlier version explained the terms 'clavier' and 'klavier' and the difference between them, and thats pretty important. And while the earlier introduction suggests that the works may have been intended for harpsichord or clavichord, the new introduction states the works were written specifically for the harpsichord.. is this really true? What about the clavichord (which Bach loved to play and improvise on) and the lute-harpsichord (surely there was a reason why he had TWO of those)? I suggest getting the old version back and inserting the new line Many of his keyboard works are anthologies that show an eagerness to encompass whole theoretical systems in an encyclopedic fashion, as it were. into it, since of course this is important. Jashiin 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jashiin, here's the original lead:

Bach wrote many works for "clavier," usually understood to mean an unspecified keyboard. Although the piano ("Klavier" in German) was invented in Bach’s lifetime, most scholars doubt he had one or intended any of his music for it. His keyboard works may have been intended for harpsichord or clavichord instead.

I wonder why the piano needs to be mentioned at all in a summary article about Bach. I'm not sure that it was called 'Klavier' at the time; it was much later, that Beethoven had a 'Hammerklavier'. While Bach is rumoured to have tried out a fortepiano in Potsdam (already stated in the article), it played no part in his output. The previous lead seems equivocal on this point: 'may have' and 'instead', as though the piano is the assumed default. And stating that 'the piano ... was invented in Bach's lifetime' belies the fact that the prototype resembled a harpsichord in tone more than it did a modern piano.

Concerning the clavichord, only a small minority of Bach's works are clearly written with this instrument in mind (perhaps some of the little pieces in the Anna Magdelena Book, and a few numbers from the WTC). While the clavichord may have served as a practice instrument and for private performances of a wider repertoire, in my view, it doesn't deserve more than a passing reference. I suspect that Bach's 'lute harpsichords' are in the same boat. I suppose my concern is to minimise unnecessary complexity, since we're writing for readers of a range of backgrounds.

I've reworded the opening sentence in the light of your comments. Is it more to your liking?

Bach wrote many works for the harpsichord, some of which may also have been played on the clavichord.

Thanks for fixing the links. Tony 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I like this version better :) As for the piano bit, I believe it originated from here: Talk:Well-Tempered Clavier#German translation. The words 'clavier' and 'klavier' are often used when discussing Bach's "other keyboard music" (not just the WTC/WTK) - this is why I think something about it should be inserted in the introduction. Something that would clarify that a) Bach wrote many so-called 'works for clavier/klavier', b) in Bach's time, klavier = clavier, not piano since the piano was invented later, and c) the 'clavier' works are typically referred to as 'works for harpsichord'. Now that I've read your points I agree that the old introduction wasn't very good.. but I still think the section needs some kind of explanation for this. Jashiin 14:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Article length

Hi, I realise I'm not a regular editor of this article, but could I suggest that the current biography section be simplified greatly and the original be moved to another page? This would allow for development of the "Music styles" section too. Articles longer than 30KB are recommended to be split, see Wikipedia:Article size... just a suggestion, anyway. Neonumbers 10:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I should really refer to the entire written part of the article... well... I'll leave that to you... Neonumbers 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean by 'the entire written part'. I think that biography and style should be the central components in most composer articles, and Wahoofive's recent suggestion that the sections on Bach's works be shortened and siphoned off to daughter articles will lead to a significant reduction in size. I'd also like to prune the 'Legacy' section, which includes some rather trivial stuff. While the style section needs to be longer than it was, there should be an overall reduction in size. I note that information about style and output are now woven into the biography, at least more than they were; this is a good thing, in my view—do you agree?

The status of the 30 KB threshold is uncertain. Many articles, including those that are promoted to FAs, are significantly larger than this, particularly those that deal with a megatopic. Tony 13:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure — I leave it to your judgement — it was just something I noticed. I see you've already got it all sussed out.
Personally, I am very happy with the 30kb guideline because in my view it is the limit (roughly) before it should be divided... opinions... not important here... Don't mind me. The length of the article just struck me a bit — you've got lots of people here (unlike the article I'm trying to push towards FA!). I defer to your judgement, and this is a very fine article. Neonumbers 04:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Music

How old was he when he started doing music?

Restoration of sound files

A contributor has restored all of the (IMV unsatisfactory) sound files that I removed a few weeks ago. There have been two discussions on this page over some months, and ample notice of the removal. Please participate in the discussion on whether the sound files should be retained—since no one objected during those discussions, I intend to remove them again, unless there's a good reason not to. Tony 02:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Tony 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Style

This article needs a less flowery, more technical (but still readable) description of style: "Bach's music is an explosion of melodic invention; his motives are as deeply inspired and original as any melodies ever written. This, coupled with his unparalleled genius for structural perfection and his endless exploration into new musical realms throughout his entire prolific career make him the most consummate musician who ever lived" really does little to describe Bach's style. I suggest something like, "An overwhelmingly tendency toward a thick[contrapuntal] texture, combined with linear tonic/dominant harmonic progressions and consistent motor rhythms, create sense of forward motion and drive in the majority of JS Bach's music. As with most other Baroque composers, Bach's music generally contains motific unity; melodic and rhythmic patterns introduced at the beginning of a work or movement will be found throughout the same piece of music, constantly unfolding and evolving through various harmonic, melodic and rhythmic changes." And so forth... Kemet 2 January 2006

The problem with that approach is that it doesn't really tell us anything about Bach as opposed to every other Baroque composer. Bach, AFAIK, didn't do anything different from the others, he just did it better. And to bring out that difference you need value judgments rather than dry, technical descriptions. Since value judgments aren't Wikipedia's thing, the standard way out is to quote other people's judgments (of which we have plenty to choose from). Mark1 03:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Mark, your point is well taken. At the same time, the purpose of the article is not to promote Bach as a "better" Baroque composer; this is implicitly a value judgement. Therefore, a "dry, technical" description is exactly what Wikipedia needs. Not everyone loves Bach, and the article should not be yet another exercise in Bach worship. I am among those who love Bach, but neither my nor other Bach lovers' editorials have a place in a neutral article that seeks to inform, rather than preach to other members of the choir. As for sources, if the information (such as the general descriptions I offered) is common knowledge (at least among specialists), then there is no need to cite them--this is standard procedure in scholarship. Kemet 3 Janaury 2006.
  • I'm working on a replacement for the text in the style section, which was posted there just to fill the gap. I'm sorry to take so long—it's not an easy task, but it's nearly ready. When I paste it in, I'll ask for critical comments from everyone. Tony 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Kemet, the paragraph that you have recently written describes compositional features that could apply to any baroque composer—some to any composer in the tonal tradition. They say nothing about Bach's unique style. What is a 'linear' V/I harmonic progression? What is a 'consistent' motor rhythm? What good composer lacks 'a sense of forward momentum'? You assert that the 'patterns introduced at the beginning of a work are continually transformed by contrapuntal and melodic inversion, augmentation, diminution, and stretto' as though these techniques can be found in every work. They can't.

The edit that contains reference to melodic inversion, augmentation, diminution, and stretto is not mine, and I have requested mediation for the style section, which contrasts sharply with an otherwise informative article.

The tendency for a thick contrapuntal texture IS a trait that sets Bach apart from other Baroque composers of his time; while most of his contemporaries explored simpler "gallant" styles of the early and mid 18th-century, JS Bach focused primarily on thick contrapuntal textures. Not mentioned before was Bach's consistent use of denser chromaticism (as opposed to the increasing diatonicism in vogue during his life). I am sure that the author of this article will include this and other traits in his description.

As suggested earlier in the article, "Bachian" traits are otherwise not innovations by Bach, but intensifications of conventional Baroque musical practice which include: idiomatic exchange between the human voice and other instruments (passagework for the human voice more suited for other instruments [this was a typical complaint against Bach during his lifetime]; simplification of the modal system (gradual abandonment of the "church" modes save what we now call the major and minor keys); stark vocal inflection in recitatives (exaggeration of pitch contours in human speech) to highlight aspects of texts and stir emotions in the listener (a clear example of the Doctrine of the Affections). Again, it is not my purpose to write the style section, as I am sure that the author will do this.

I will clarify some language--I have used similar language with my students who were non-music majors, and since they generally readily understood , then I used similar language in my suggestion to avoid jargon--of course they had the advantage of listening examples. "Linear" derives from the voice-leading [of individual melodic lines] in the counterpoint that follows the tonic-dominant harmonic progression. A consistent motor rhythm is a incessant rhythmic drive, usually articulated at the quarter-note or eighth-note. I will not address the issue of "good" composers whose works appear to lack a sense of momentum, as this is a value judgement and has no place in an informative article. Kemet 3 January 2006


Please don't make offensive threats on my user page. Tony 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Please refrain from using US spelling in this article, as requested at the top of the edit box.Tony 15:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You've requested mediation? How absurd. I certainly didn't write any of the text that is there now. What is there to mediate? Tony 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft style section for critical review by contributors

I've sat here and written this draft from the top of my head, without stopping. Therefore, it's pretty raw, but may be useful as a starting point. I still have to locate the exact references, and I've not yet sat back and thought about it at a distance.

A number of stylistic features, such as certain features of his melodic treatment and scoring, remain to be inserted at the end.

While this account can't include every detail (summary style), it needs to explain the most important aspects of his style. I'm assuming that we're going to relocate into daughter articles most of the information about works that appears after the style section, as Wahoofive suggested a few weeks ago. Thus, the article will focus on biography and style, with links to detailed information about his works.

I'd be pleased to receive some feedback from contributors.

___________________

Draft moved to Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Style —Wahoofive (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

____________

Tony 07:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Great work, easy to read and explains a lot. Kind of big and not very structured, but I guess its because its what it is, a raw draft.

Do the section headings improve it in this respect?

Yes, they really do. I think the problem was that each section had several paragraphs and it was a bit confusing. Now that the factors each have a heading, its much better. Jashiin 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of technical gripes:

  • He invested the chorale prelude, already a standard Lutheran form, with a more cogent, tightly integrated architecture, in which the intervallic patterns and melodic contours of the tune were typically treated in a dense, contrapuntal latticework against relatively slow-moving, overarching statements of the tune.

This is kind of misleading to me, because well, chorale prelude wasn't ONE standard Lutheran form, there was more like 8-10 standard forms for it. Bach's earliest chorale preludes were based on Pachelbel's models, which are one thing, and later in life he was more or less following Buxtehude and developing a multi-sectional chorale form, with "a dense, contrapuntal latticework.." etc. So either I'm wrong about these things or the paragraph should be changed.

OK, I'd wondered about that: we talk of 'sonata form' in reference to a variety of formal strategies that have several aspects in common; I guess I expected that 'chorale prelude' could be used as an umbrella term, likewise. But if you don't think so, does 'already a standard set of Lutheran forms' solve the problem?

No, what I meant was that Bach didn't innovate ALL the forms of chorale prelude, his most important contribution was the development of the melismatic chorale (adornments, virtuoso passagework, multiple sections, dense counterpoint), continuing the Northern German (read: Buxtehude's) tradition. I might be wrong on this though; perhaps Bach had other innovations in other chorale models, that I don't know of. I guess lets leave it as 'already a standard set of Lutheran forms' until someone more knowledgable comes along and points things out. Jashiin 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • [ref] canons are notoriously difficult to construct, requiring advanced powers of spatial imagination.

You certainly realize there are different types of canons, some are easy to construct (rounds, two-voice canons) and some are notoriously difficult to construct (mensuration canons). So the phrase isn't exactly correct to me. Since the canons (I presume you're referring to BWV1072–1080) don't form an integral part of Bach's oeuvre, I reckon this whole paragraph can be removed to save space.

Let's remove it.

Maybe I'll add some more later. Also, I'm sure that not everyone is going to like the three factors you're building the section on. Even though they're very well suited as a base for what you were doing, they're still subjective judgements and as such, they will attract more subjective judgements. The same goes for lots of things in the text, like "the organ, the instrument that most strongly embodies the duality of reverence and personal display" etc. Jashiin 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Now that I've read the "Style" section here on Talk, I believe that some of Kemet's points should be addressed too. Basically the two paragraphs that start with "The tendency for a thick contrapuntal texture..." and end with "...as I am sure that the author will do this." These contain some details I believe to be valuable, particularily the second paragraph. I realize there's some kind of misunderstanding/quarreling between you and Kemet, but I my opinion is that this is the kind of thing that happens when there are separate sections for "Style" and "Works" - one will inevitably be more technical, the other peppered with more or less subjective value statements. Jashiin 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I realised after saving that I'd left out the chromatic bit, which is worth a mention. The contrapuntal thing is mentioned a number of times already. In Kemet's para, the contrasting of contrapuntal and gallant doesn't appear logical to me.

The contrast between post-Baroque ("gallant"), among whose salient features were more homophony, less florid melodic lines, "relaxed" music more suited for non-noble musicians ("amateurs") and whose evolution reflected a growing influence of a music market catering to the middle classes during the early 18th century; and Baroque, some of whose main features I described above (including the counterpoint), is an essential point to remember when viewing Bach in the context of his contemporaries. By Bach's time, "baroque" was increasingly considered out-dated, artificial, pretentious and too overtly aristocratic, while "gallant" music, rooted in classicism, focused on simplicity, elegance and increasing accesibility to members of the non-courtly bourgeoisie. This tension was manifest throughout the 18th century and reached its flashpoint during the French Revolution, as we all already know.
As an aside, I realize that this is a raw draft, but I think that the discussion of Bach’s self-acknowledgement and bold assertion of “genius” is anachronistic and could lead the discussion astray. Clearly, he must have realized early on that he was intellectually superior to most of his peers and he had little patience for the less talented, but I am not sure if he would have attributed this to “genius.” He was, after all, never considered the social equal of his employers (during a time when the correspondence between social status and innate ability was assumed and unquestioned), and knew where his bread was buttered, so to speak. Wolff indicated this throughout his book. It wasn’t until Beethoven’s generation that composers could truly proclaim their genius (warranted or not) because they had been finding new sources of income—the music market aiming to attract amateur musicians from the middle classes.

Also, to the extent that displays of virtuosity and warm reception from his listeners must have nurtured Bach’s ego, you are right. At the same time, musicians of his time were expected to be professionally proficient on several musical instruments. Musical competence, excellence, virtuosity and ease of execution were taken for granted by members of the nobility and gentry by at least the previous century, and this sort of cultural capital enhanced one’s social position. JS Bach, as a servant and later employee of members of these classes, and from a family with a long history of serving these classes, probably more likely saw his dazzling displays more as required, additional credit to be added to his list of qualifications that would impress current and future employers, than as examples of his unique genius. Dewald’s The European Nobility, Elias’s Court Society and Hill’s Baroque Music are all very good references for this consideration. Kemet 4 Jan 2006

Lots of words, but ... what's your point? Do you have succinct advice as to what should be removed from or added to or changed? I'm very keen to respond to your feedback, but please focus on the matters that you think should be changed, and your (brief) reasons. Thanks. Tony 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If you truly want frank feedback from the contributors, then you cannot dictate the manner with which we give it to you. If you want a well-polished final product, then you should graciously accept any pertinent critiques, regardless of their length or brevity. In any event, I think my reasoning is very transparent in my critiques. If I need to be more concise, if less accomodating by providing details then here you go: use less editorial language, review some of the anachronistic assumptions you make, and strive for a more musically technical and theoretical approach. These considerations will compliment the solid historical tone of your article. Kemet 4 Jan 2006
  • Oh deary me, this is becoming very tedious. I ask for focussed feedback and you accuse me of dictating the manner in which it comes. You also accuse me, by implication, of being ungracious.

Let me say that you lack the most basic interpersonal skills; well, you may possess them in other contexts, but here, I suggest that you take a more cooperative approach. Telling others that they should accept any pertinent critiques (read: critiques that you feel are pertinent) is not conducive to teamwork. What is required is some consensus building, some give and take, and patient negotiation.

You'll get nowhere by giving long lectures that, by your own admission, are not consise. Then when you say you're providing details, you come out with vague assertions that can't be pinned down. What is 'editorial language'? Which assumptions are anachronistic? In what respects should the approach be more technical and theoretical? How on earth do you expect us to make sense of what you're saying. I haven't got time to waste trying to second-guess what you mean. Why not be direct and specific, pointing to particular parts of the text?

Now, to revisit two points you made above: I don't like 'thick' counterpoint, which may be taken as pejorative; 'dense' is probably better, don't you think? Your statement 'Bach's consistent use of denser chromaticism (as opposed to the increasing diatonicism in vogue during his life)' does not ring true to me, unless you're referring to particular passages in which he used chromaticism to depict pain or sorrow. Buxtehude and others used chromaticism just as much as Bach. Here, we're trying to characterise Bach in relation to other composers.

Having criticised you, I'm going to ask you from now on to try not to criticise the person, just the text; your civility in that respect will be returned. Tony 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I know that; do you have some comments on the draft? Tony 11:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As you certainly know, in scholarly discourse, one is expected to provide details when one critiques the work of another, even if one errs on the side of verbosity (which you unfortunately misperceive to be a personal lecture against you). I have already pinned down the issues I had with your article, but given your displeasure because I used “a lot of words,” I provided a synopsis of my critique, whose details were already expressed several times.
If you prefer to use “dense” rather than “thick” to describe Bach’s counterpoint, by all means please do so. Personal perceptions aside, it is an historical fact that Baroque music, and Bach’s music in particular, typically featured denser chromaticism (usually modal interchange and/or frequent and elided modulations to various scale degrees other than 1 and 5) than composers of the first half of the 18th-century. Keep in mind the increasing influence of the music market, whose non-noble clientele (most of whom were not professional musicians) generally wanted more accessible music (some of whose features were less counterpoint, less florid passagework across genres, simpler modulations (mainly tonic to dominant, which means less dense chromaticism). Kemet 5 Jan 2006


Is it too long?

I thought it was just the right length. Jashiin 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Tony 09:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User Fugueman has kindly provided some feedback on my userpage; I've presumed that he doesn't mind my pasting it in here; I'm grateful for his pointing out several errors, and look forward to further critical comments. In particular, I'm unsure about the subheadings.

Hi Tony, This is "fugueman," a sometime contributor to Wikipedia. I'm still trying to figure out how things work, haven't quite gotten the hang of the difference between talk pages, discussion, how to get messages to people, etc. Anyway, I was the one who added the lines about contrapuntal and melodic inversion to the "Bach style" section--thought I was changing the discussion page, but it changed the article. I've since read a quite lengthy revision of the style section, which I like very much. I assume that this is yours. I did catch a couple of errors, but haven't been able to find the page to correct them. One had to do with pedagogical works. The Notebook for Anna Magdalena was not written for Wilhelm Friedemann, but for Anna Magdalena. The book pedagogical book written for Wilhelm Friedemann was the Clavierbüchlein for Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. The second error had to do with numerology. The revision is correct in summing BACH = 14. But there was something in there about his complete name summing to 52. I'm not sure where this figure came from. JSBACH = 41. All of this is, of course, presuming that Bach used a German natural order alphabet (what Smend used), as opposed to Latin Milesian or some other form. In my own research, the only numbers that I would place confidence in are the 14 (BACH), 41 (JSBACH), and 43 (CREDO). I would not place confidence in the German natural order sums for SEBASTIAN BACH (100), JOHANN BACH (72), or JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH (158) I want to commend your work on the article. My interest is to contribute in whatever way I can. Cheers fugueman

Tony 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fugueman—My blooper in 52; now changed to 41 as you pointed out; I presume that mention of the other numbers is unnecessary (it's a summary article, and already a little long, I think). On the Anna Magdalena Book, you're quite right, of course, it was formally written for her. If you don't mind, I'll leave in the bit about its being for the training of WF until I check this matter in Wolff's biography. Tony 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cabal mediation

Greetings everyone, I am the cabalist assigned to this case. I shall review the matter and get back to you shortly on how we will proceed. I think the most important thing is that we all keep everything civil. I'm going to go out on a limb and request that mediation take place on this talk page (as this will help draw in other, less-frequent editors of the article). --Cyde Weys votetalk 07:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The cabal mediation page for this article is located here, by the way. First I need to establish that there is an actual controversy. Reading over the case file I'm not sure if there is a legitimate argument over encyclopedic content or ruffled feathers over, what, non-displaying comments? Tony1 and Kemet, I would like some initial statements by you two. Please tell me what you think the disagreement is over and if it is over the article text, what your preferred version is. Keep your comments on this page. Thanks! --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is a lack of courtesy; the disagreements over the content are totally legit, and will eventually be resolved via the usual editing process. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
As mediator I can help not only with editing disputes but also with clash of personality disputes. Although it seems like perhaps this request for cabal mediation was not warranted, I'm going to stick around for awhile and watch as things progress and make sure everything stays fine and dandy. I would still like to hear from the two people mentioned on the Request for Mediation. Perhaps, in their view, the problem is something other than a lack of courtesy (or, in addition). --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You have heard from me: see your mediation page, on which I wondered why on earth mediation was requested. Seems like a waste of everyone's time. Tony 23:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Since Kemet is the one who requested mediation I will hold off on doing anything until I hear from him again. If anyone else needs me though, I'll still be watching this page. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my fear is that a premature decision to create an official kerfuffle, with our own mediation page and this section, will frighten off other contributors for the moment, just when they're needed. It would have been better to assess the situation for a few more days before taking official action. Now, you're "watching" us. Hmmm. It's a pity that Kemet arrived one day, and the next day brought a mediator in: very sudden, very regrettable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) .
Ohh don't worry, this is a good kind of watching. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well I do worry, as I said.Tony 09:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As I expressed before in my request for mediation, I have made other suggestions with other articles, and I never encounted a hypersensitive author. Tony seems to take these critiques far too peronally, and forgets that this isn't "his" article; he might be the chief contributor, but he should be open to frank (and reasoned) critiques and outright corrections and edits if they improve the accuracy and quality of the artcile. He began the quarrel by sending me a rude message, calling my suggestion "dreadful twaddle." I then sent him a message expressing my hope that the new matrial he produced would be a bit more than "flowery emptiness." In hindsight I should have brushed the rudeness aside, but I'm only human. Since then I have tried to ignore his still rude comments and concentrate on the material of the article, but as I said, he takes it too personally and reacts with derision. At the risk of ruffling his feathers, I sense that he is struggling to find the appropriate musical vocabulary to express what he wants to say, so he substitutes "technical" (but still readily accessible) language (keys, scales, chords, chord progressions, sequences, etc.), with highly figurative and subjective language that ultimately says little about the MUSIC. For my part, I do not claim to be the expert (but I do have some helpful suggestions), and if someone more knowledgeable in the subject corrects my contributions, then that's is exactly how it should be. In any event, someone sent me some records of Tony's interaction with other users, and apparently I am not the only one who has encountered problems with him. Kemet 5 Jan 2005

I've already pointed out that the 'flowery' text wasn't mine; you based your assessments on nothing that I'd written. I've also explained that it wasn't your text I was referring to when I made the comment on your page. How much more do you want? I'd appreciate it if you refrained from making personal comments. On a brighter note, despite our quarrel, I look forward to your input on the Bach style section; you clearly have knowledge that is valuable to the article. Are you willing to collaborate? Tony 09:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your first personal message to me did not indicate to whom you directed your initial comment--since you sent it to me, then I think it was a reasonable assumption that I was the intended audience. In any event, we are now beating a dead horse. I am willing to completely forget this quarrel and move on to more productive activity, such as collaborating to improve the article. Kemet 6 Jan 2006

Well good, sounds like you guys are finding common ground. Just let the past be past and focus on what's important. I guess I can leave now, but ... The cabal is always watching you. shhhhh --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)]

Well, thanks for your bib and bob. Next time, assess the situation for a little longer before blundering in. (It's your first time, so you're forgiven.) And watch in silence if you wish, but don't tell us about it, because it may appear intimidatory on this side. Tony 01:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm really not trying to intimidate anyone. And I'm from the Cabal Mediation Committee, so the use of a little humor is understandable. And sometimes when people are being counter-productive all it takes is the knowledge that someone is watching them for them to shape up. That seems to be what happened here. --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no evidence for that. I'm sorry that you're insisting on bringing back all the unpleasantness; I'd hoped to make a fresh start. I do not welcome your presence, I think it's counterproductive, and I have no intention of participating in your deliberations. Tony 02:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What unpleasantness am I bringing back? You can't resolve problems by sweeping them under the rug. And this is about making a real fresh start, not simply wiping the slate without solving any of the underlying problems. And I'm sorry that you feel that mediation is unwelcome, but it's precisely situations like these where it is most needed. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, your presence is inappropriate, and will continue to sully this endeavour. You've come in prematurely at the behest of your client; I do not see you as disinterested; you make self-serving statements without good evidence (i.e., I'm watching you, and things have shaped up); you've just bandied about a general accusation that people have been 'counter-productive' (sic). This is not a good way to mediate; on the contrary, it's a style that is likely to offend. While you persist, things are going to be very tense. Tony 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You have your view on this matter and I have mine. I'd just like to clarify that I am no one's "client" and I certainly did not approach this article with any particular view in mind. I'm closing out this case as there doesn't seem to be anything to do here. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)