Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Spinoza1111 03:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)The Legacy section is hopeless!

The Legacy section is beyond hope. It manages to mention "original instruments" and jumps over to heavy metal Bach, as if these phenomena were not two sides of the same commodified obscenity...and fails to mention Glenn Gould, Edward Said, or Theodore Adorno.

The attraction of "original instruments" is sheer apelike novelty as is the appearance of Bach in "a whiter shade of pale".

"Bach" becomes a signifier of resentment listening and right thinking "after" the important things in life (making money) have been taken care of, and for an hysterical religiosity which projects on a possibly impious composer one's unresolved discomfort with having to live in the present and not in a bookish fantasy.

Revert my changes to the Style session if you like. This whole article, apart from its technical music points, is hopeless. Make your dirt by yourselves.

[edit] External link?

In order to not get any edits I make deleted on the main article page, I want to ask if this link could be added to the main Bach article page:

I thought this was a very useful site with only free sheet music. What do you think?


[edit] "forceful suavity"

Seriously, what??

They're not my words, but those of Peter Williams in his biography of Bach. The lead of an article should paint the big picture; in a composer article, there's scope to provide a broad characterisation of the musical style of some composers, particularly major ones such as Bach. I can't think of another Baroque composer whose music could be described thus. Tony 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partita, BWV 1013

Pardon me for saying this, but the Partita, BWV 1013, played by a flute, on this page, isn't very good. The flutist hasn't isn't skilled enough to play the Partita. I suggest it be removed.

Agreed. Tony 10:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about Wolff's biography

I recently heard someone express serious misgivings about the book, which is listed at the end of the article, and is the subject of a number of reference citations. 'More a novel than musicology' was one comment—the suggestion was that the work is full of conjecture that is not properly labelled as such. It's only one person's opinion, but, all the same, it's disappointing to hear; I loved reading the book.

Does anyone have any comments?

I'll check all of the references to his book here to verify that they have a solid basis.

Tony 01:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed Wolff's book. In musicology (and in academia in general), it is a rarity to encounter such a work of un-pretentious, yet still erudite, self-assurance that comes with having an intimate knowledge of the field, that is still inviting to the non-specialist. Kemet 8 Jan 2006

I agree; that's why I was disappointed. Unsure what to think.

Have you read Siegele's chapter on Bach and politics of Saxony, in the Cambridge Companion? Tony 15:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Where / from whom did you hear the misgivings about Wolff's book, Tony, and what were they exactly? "Serious misgivings" is a serious charge: I hope whoever said it can prove it.
There are bitter rivalries within academia about Wolff, and about his book, but academics always debate: Wolff is a top dog in his discipline, at the moment, and all the others are sniping... academic democracy... His book's fundamental thesis, that Bach was a "learned" musician, goes further than most previous biographies have gone: Forkel & Spitta & Schweitzer and the rest all have said Bach was very special -- a genius, and so on -- but they never have contended that he was "learned" in an academic sense.
Wolff's point is that the sense of that dispute always has been overly-academic itself: he maintains Bach was as erudite, and systematic, and broadly and deeply familiar with every aspect of his discipline, as any academic is now or ever has been -- even moreso, in Bach's case, so Wolff still claims him for "genius", too.
There are little controversies around, such as, "who really wrote the toccata & fugue in D minor...", but those really are academic: a little like "who really wrote Shakespeare's plays..." -- and Wolff seems conservative and conventional on most such fine points, staying with the "youthful exuberance" school of thought on the one, and other accepted explanations on others. The book's real innovation lies in changing our view of 17th and early 18th c. musicians: we've always had "beer fiddlers" and "professionals", but academics have been musicologists only -- Wolff is trying to give us "composer & performer qua intellectual", perhaps changing our understanding of the academia of Bach's time more than he changes our understanding of Bach. Whether he has succeeded only time will tell, but either way it certainly is an elegant attempt: I'd rather read Wolff than most other "careful" analyses of Bach which I've read.
The Cambridge Companion does offer some contrasting views. Another is Laurence Dreyfus, Bach and the Patterns of Invention (Harvard, 1996), although Dreyfus wisely warns,
"A fundamental challenge posed by studying Bach's approach to invention... is to puzzle out how he is both a man 'of his age' and at the same time composes music that differs so strikingly from that of his contemporaries... I attempt to locate Bach neither as a musical conservative looking backward into the past nor as a self-styled progressive keeping up with the latest taste..."
-- probably, as with most academic debates, elements of all the various views are true.
--Kessler 02:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some reviews, of Wolff's biography:

  • Schulenberg, David, "Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician, and: Bach (review)", in Notes 58, no. 1 (2001): 59-62, ISSN: 0027-4380.
  • Yearsley, David, "Reviews - Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician", in Journal of the American Musicological Society 54, no. 2, (2001): 374 (8 pages), ISSN: 0003-0139.
  • Talbot, Michael, "REVIEWS OF BOOKS: INDEX - Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician", in Music & letters" 82, no. 4, (2001): 622 (4 pages), ISSN: 0027-4224.
  • Morana, Frank, "Bach the Learned Musician: Review Feature", in The American organist 34, no. 12, (December 01, 2000): 50, ISSN: 0164-3150.
  • Butt, John, "THE SAINT JOHANN SEBASTIAN PASSION - Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician", in The new republic (July 10, 2000): 33 (5 pages), ISSN: 0028-6583. [Butt edited and contributed to the Cambridge Companion.]
"...undoubtedly the most important Bach biography since Philipp Spitta's life was written over a century ago..."
--but --
"...there is something uneasy about comparing an uncanny intuition into a human cultural practice with a major paradigm shift in empirical science. The notion that Bach and Newton 'lived, thought, and worked in the same intellectual climate of scientific discovery and empirical testing of fundamental principles' is historically simplistic... Why must Bach have been ideal in every sense and dimension?"
  • lots of other reviews, too...

I haven't read any reviews of Wolff's book that are dismissive, though -- none that would say "More a novel than musicology" -- the book was a finalist for a Pulitzer, FWIW. It's a great read.

--Kessler 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style section: feedback requested

I've written a draft, which is at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Style.

  • Jashiin raised issues about the structure, the treatment of the chorale prelude and the canon (both addressed), and mentioned a few other sentences that others might not like (not yet addressed).
  • Kemet:
    • objected to the use 'genius' (addressed);
    • suggested that there were some anachronistic assumptions ('genius'?);
    • suggested that there should be mention of Bach's 'consistent use of denser chromaticism (as opposed to the increasing diatonicism in vogue during his life)' (queried by me); and
    • asked for 'a more musically technical and theoretical approach' (not addressed: pehaps review when the last section, 'Other aspects', is written).
  • Fugueman pointed out errors concerning numerology (addressed) and the Anna Magdalena Book (which I'm investigating).

Further feedback from these and other contributors is welcome; the section needs to be improved. Please insert below.

Tony 01:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the first section, "Compositional and intellectual brilliance". Some of it is covered already in "Early Years". Compare the first paragraph of your draft with the last two paragraphs of "Early Years". Personally, I don't like the way the "Life" sections are written, but since noone complains I guess you should somehow change the draft.

I like the 'Religious devotion' section best of all, but "Bach’s devout, personal relationship with the Lutheran God inevitably placed sacred music at the centre of his repertory" seems a little bit too strong to me - after all, much of his output is secular (perhaps only in form, given his ideas about music, but still), and to me "at the centre of his repertory" sounds inaccurate. This is a minor detail, of course, I just thought I'd mention it anyway. And while I'm at it: "The third factor in Bach’s style was the egotism that is inherent in every great artist." In many great artists.. but I guess not in all of them?

Bach took pride in being a great teacher and mentor, and his Leipzig apartment was often host to visiting students. The importance to him of this aspect of being a musician was born out in the number of didactic works he wrote, including the Anna Magdalena Book, which was mostly compiled at Cöthen for the training of his eldest son, Friedemann.[ref] He may also have written the organ Trio Sonatas for teaching purposes.[ref]

Well, Fugueman already pointed this out and as far as I know its true: there was the Anna Magdalena Book, written for Anna Magdalena, and the Clavierbüchlein fur Wilhelm Friedmann for, um, Wilhelm Friedmann. I guess mentioning both would be ideal. I'd also advocate moving the sentence about Trio Sonatas to the "Works/Organ Works" section (which I'm drafting offline and which I will finalize and add to the article as soon as we agree on what exactly is covered in "Style"), because the Trio Sonatas are quite spectacular examples of Bach's late organ work and since their teaching purpose is questionable at best.

Related to his role as teacher was his drive to encompass whole genres by producing collections of movements that thoroughly explore the range of artistic and technical possibilities inherent in those genres. The most famous examples are the two books of the Well tempered keyboard, each of which presents a prelude and fugue in every major and minor key, in which all conceivable contrapuntal technique is displayed. The English and French Suites, and the Partitas, all keyboard works from the Cöthen period, systematically explore a range of metres and of sharp and flat keys. This urge to be encyclopedic, as it were, is evident throughout his life: the Goldberg Variations (1746?), present a sequence of canons that work through each available interval and distance, as though items on a list were being ticked off one by one. Similarly, the Art of Fugue (1749) is a manifesto of fugal techniques.

I don't think its fair to include the English/French Suites and the Partitas as examples of encyclopedic works - they are, after all, more about exploring and innovating the keyboard suite form, rather than about exploring a range of keys and meters. The sentence about the Goldberg Variations I think should be changed completely: first of all, its encyclopedic not because of the canons but because its probably the largest and the most varied cycle of variations of all Baroque compositions of the kind (if you really want to mention the canons, you can link GV to BWV1087 - the 14 canons on the GV ground bass' first notes - because that is really composed as an encyclopedia of canons.. I think like the other BWV108x works?). Besides, after reading this sentence, I guess an unexperienced reader will think of GV as of a sequence of canons, which is not true. Jashiin 13:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Jashiim. There's quite a lot there, so I hope you don't mind my taking a few days to deal with it. I look forward to reading your contribution to Works. Please note that Wahoofive has already proposed that the section on Works be siphoned off into a subarticle, because this one is getting rather large. If it goes to the FAC room, there will surely be complaints about length. I don't know what to do about it. Tony 14:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Can you make suggestions as to how the 'Life' sections might be modified, if you have misgivings about them? Tony 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, my main concern about "Life" is that everything is discussed - not only events in Bach's life but also the development of his style and stuff about individual works. To me, it makes the article less readable and writing other sections is harder (because you always have to think about whats covered in "Life" already). I believe that "Life" should only discuss the biography. That way, "Style" and "Works" are easier to write, they get more content and sound samples can be moved into "Works" to serve as representations of individual genres). Its not very modest of me to say so, but I did this kind of thing in Johann Pachelbel and it worked beautifully (although its not finished yet). But since this is a question of approach, not of actual errors or readability problems (as I said, noone complained), I never said anything about it, assuming we're only working on the rest of the article now. Jashiin 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read the draft again, and I have a few more suggestions: under "Compositional and intellectual brilliance"

  • pre-existing German music language—what do you mean by this? What were some features of this that distinguished it from those of other European regions?
  • More should be said of central and south German keyboard composers (Pachelbel, and particularly Froberger, (who I believe was a student of Frescobaldi, and is attributed with introducing Italian keyboard genres and styles into the Holy Roman Empire, which later became the bedrock of “German” baroque keyboard styles during the late Baroque. Bach had copies of his music from very early on).
Uhm, why do you think more should be said about them? Southern German influence on Bach was, I believe, not very serious. Pachelbel's influence is only traced in Bach's early works (that are also influenced by non-Southern German composers like Böhm or Bach's relatives' music), and Bach's suites have very little in common with Froberger's. As for Frescobaldi and Italian influence, it was more or less everywhere then, and is addressed in the draft. Jashiin 15:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right, non-northern German keyboard works had a stronger influence during Bach's formative years, and by Bach's time, Italian influences were more or less cultivated throughout the Holy Roman Empire. This recognition leads me to suggest that the style section provide more detail on Bach's earlier traits, to balance and compliment the detail provided for Bach's style during and after his Weimar years. I have not looked at Froberger's suites, but I seem to recall that in his polyphonic works (I'm thinking of ricercars and capriccios in particular), the frequent use of subjects on scale degrees that were not limited to 1 and 5 after the exposition, the economy of motive during the episodes (often based off of material from the subject), the use of sequences during episodes, and alterations of the subject after the exposition--all of which are strong features of Bach's fugal works from early on (but rare among other, even late, Baroque composers). Kemet 8 Jan 2006
Ah, I see your point now. You're right, they should be covered to provide proper balance. For some reason I hadn't thought of that :) Jashiin 22:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

under "Religious devotion"

  • pictorial symbolism might be over-emphasized. As a Baroque musician, Bach would have been thoroughly schooled in rhetoric, and would have assumed that musical devices could support the text, and, more importantly, the emotions implicit in the text. Pictorial elements in the music would have been the result of pre-compositional decisions that Bach made, to support the general affect of the text, but these elements were likely secondary to the ultimate goal of animating the listener to respond emotionally to the music on a pre-conscious level.
  • “On the largest level, the overall form of some of his sacred vocal works is evidence of subtle, elaborate planning: for example, the overall structure of the St Matthew Passion illustrates the liturgical and dramatic flow of the Easter story on a number levels simultaneously;[ref] the text, keys and variations of instrumental and vocal forces used in the movements of Cantata 11 (Lobet Gott in alle Landen) may form a structure that resembles the cross.” You are completely right here, but a stronger presentation would be one in which you highlight specific points in the text, and find the musical support in the score. Kemet 8 Jan 2006

Thanks, guys, these are all good points, and will require addressing. Any ideas about the overall size (which will impact on the structure)? How big should it be? After 30 Kb, the sign goes up at the top of the edit box; in the FAC room, they seem to complain if it's over about 50 Mb, although articles a little above that are occasionally promoted—but it becomes more difficult. The article is on 52 at the moment, although if 'Works' is siphoned off to a subarticle, there will be more room in life and/or style. What do you think? (I wonder whether info on Works might be integrated into the Work List article ...)

Does anyone want to keep the information that is currently in 'Legacy'; I think most or all of it could go.

Tony 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep the Legacy information, although it's perhaps more detailed than necessary. I suggest that the "works" section be spun off into only a single article; putting it into half a dozen articles (as you have redlinked) seems premature. I would not try to integrate it into the List of Works, which is a very long article already, and has already spun off a few sublists itself. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I too think the Legacy section has important things in it and should be kept. That said, what about "Transcriptions" and especially "Performances"? I wonder if we could have a separate article for these. There's a lot of classic recordings and I'm sure some people will want to write about the likes of Landowska, Gould, Harnoncourt or Koopman. "Performances" seems like a sub-topic, something that isn't a must in a composer article.. and "Transcriptions" can be moved into this separate article about performances as well. What do you all think? Jashiin 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I suggest we remove the BWV numbering (ie. "BWV 1–224 are cantatas, BWV 225–48 the large-scale choral works, BWV 250–524 chorales and sacred songs..") - it doesn't say much, its covered better in the BWV article and deleting it would leave some valuable space for maybe a small generic introduciton to the "Works" section.. or simply reduce the size of the article. Jashiin 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Points taken; I wonder whether the first two sections should each be separate articles; there appears to be no other way of keeping to a reasonable 'summary' length. One could be called 'Johann Sebatian Bach (life)' and the other 'Johann Sebastian Bach (style)'. No one has done this yet with a composer article, but it is perfectly consistent with WP's guidelines.

I can see two other advantages in splitting life and style: first, the mentions of style in the life section, and of his life in the style section, would sit more easily. I can see why Jashiim has pointed out the repetition as is. (I find it hard to account for either his life events or his style without reference to the other.) In addition, the audio excerpts that already appear in 'life' could probably stay if it were made a separate article, and more could easily be added to a 'style' article without appearing to be overloaded with audio.

The second advantage would be that the 'style' article could go into greater depth and technical detail without being accused of departing from 'summary style'. As a separate article, length would not be an issue, at least initially.

If split, perhaps the 'life' article could go to FAC fairly soon .... ?  :-)

What do you all think?

Tony 06:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the Ludwig van Beethoven article - is thas what you mean? They have short summaries in the article (like, very short), link to several separate articles and even have a template to move around these separate articles. I'm not sure if I like this, seems kind of uncomfortable. What we're doing here now is more like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, where you've got "Life" and "Style" but no "Works" section - instead, there's a link to a list of selected works which links to individual pieces' articles. I reckon this is downright bad as there's no real discussion of important works, no lists of important works, no nothing.
I suggest we just keep writing whatever we see fit (we're not submitting the article to FAC yet, eh? :), no matter the size. Its more effective because you have everything on one page and don't need to jump to other articles to see if a topic was already covered. Then, when the article is more or less complete, we'll look and maybe try to remove/reword some things. If its still too big, then we'll have to write summaries and create additional articles. Jashiin 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Carrying on writing for the moment, irrespective of total length, is fine by me. So ... do I understand correctly that you don't recommend either the Beethoven or the Mozart structure, ultimately? Tony 09:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ideally I'd want to see ONE solid article with no sub-articles or a very small number of those (see my suggestion on "performances" above). But since Bach is extremely important and there's a lot to write, I guess its not possible and we'll have to go with a Beethoven-like structure. I don't like it much but it seems to be the only reasonable way. Jashiin 09:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just thought about it like 5 minutes ago; what if we only leave "Life" and "Works" in the article, and make a separate Johann Sebastian Bach's musical style and innovations (example name, the Beethoven one is named that way) article? Some advantages:

  • this establishes a nice standard form for articles on composers (so that less known, obscure composers or minor composers get a fair description of their works, and more important ones like Bach or Mozart get the same plus an additional article on their style and innovations, which is linked from the "Works" section in the main article)
  • makes editing much easier, because
    • in "Life", you can now refer to whatever works you see fit and write about style development, all without having to check the "Style" section for repetitions,
    • in "Works", you have much more room for miscellaneous details about composition.

In addition, we can have a little introduction to "Works" (Works -> Introduction, Organ Works, Works for Harpsichord,... etc.) where the "Style" article is summarized, for example the issue about numbers in Bach's music could be addressed and the fact that "many of his sacred works contain short motifs that, by recurrent association, can be regarded as pictorial symbolism and articulations of liturgical concepts". The only problem I can think of is that the article is already pretty big, and if we expand "Works", its going to be even bigger. But then Bach is an extremely important musician, is it even possible to have a decent article on him that is <32k? :) Jashiin 10:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. But life and works are less closely interrelated than are style and works. Unsure about 'innovation' as a theme; some people would contend that Bach wasn't a great innovator (as strange as it seems, they may have something there). I presume that the works section/article would be listy, i.e., would not contain a great deal of info about style ...? There is a role for a list, I think. If we're agreed that there are three macro-themes—life, style and works—I guess the following structures are possible:

  • Option 1: three separate articles
  • Option 2: one article, as now, heavily summarised, with daughter articles for all three (?)
  • Option 3: life and style as one article; works as another (this allows his stylistic development to be treated in relation to his life story, with offshoots to the various genres of his works)
  • Option 4: life and works as one article; style as a stand-alone article (your proposal, which allows his output to be categorised and listed alongside his life story)
  • Option 5: style and works as one article; life as a stand-alone article (may have merit)

I do like the idea of including at least a little info about style in the life story; it's integral to understanding how he evolved. (I think you're hinting at that ...)

Tony 11:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was hinting at that, and its precisely why I think "Style" can have a separate article. If you look at the article now, it pretty much covers a lot of things about style, both in "Life" (where there are even aural examples) and in "Works" (which is underdeveloped at the moment, but looking at "Other keyboard works" you and me worked on, the section covers both individual works and aspects of style such as the development of the suite form and the WTC concept/influence). If we make "Works" into a decent section (with an introduction like the one I described above), the article will have plenty of information on style. Jashiin 11:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, could be good—I'm flexible; but of course there are more ways than one to conceive a good structure for this article. Let's give the others a chance to comment. Tony 14:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
My vote would be to spin off biography and works into separate articles (retaining summaries here, of course) but keeping the Style section in this article, since it's much more central to the significance of this composer than life or works. I realize this doesn't match either the Beethoven or Mozart articles, but I don't see the importance of a standardized format for composer articles. If you do spin off "style", definitely don't use the word "innovations" (should be removed from the Beethoven example as well). Some of the stylistic development probably should be trimmed from the bio section. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British English: references

How far, exactly, does the use of British English extend in this article? For instance, the Schweitzer book clearly says "J. S. Bach", but it's not listed that way in the "further reading" section. I feel that we should draw a distinction between normal use of JS Bach in the article and "J. S. Bach" when it is listed that way in a quote or a book title. --Sesquialtera II 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English clearly makes exceptions for quotations and for proper names (which would include book titles). Feel free to correct. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to use "old style" and "new style" birth/death dates? According to the Wikipedia article on them, they are usually only used for older British Commonwealth events, not German.

The Old Style and New Style dates article is not very good. Although it implies what you say, the implication is wrong. Markyour words 12:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Markalexander. Protestant countries outside the British Empire (including Germany) adopted the calendar change in 1700, whereas the Brits waited until 1752. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eisenach/Leipzig in Germany

The term "Germany" WAS used in the 18th century. Germany was not defined exactly, it had no real governmental structure, it was somehow mixed up with the Holy Roman Empire, but it was doubtlessly existent! The "germans" of that time were hessians, saxonians, bavarians, austrians etc., but they were also conscious of their german identity. So Eisenach and Leipzig are towns in Germany nowadays, and so they were in the 18th century! -- 80.145.113.50 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

An addition: try the terms "Maximilian" and "Rex Germaniae" together on google (english language) and you will find an interesting wiki-discussion about the problem (with an obvious result). -- 80.145.76.209 17:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To save the Google search, this person is referring to Talk:List of German monarchs. After carefully reading through the entire discussion, I did not actually see an "obvious result", but rather it seemed that the consensus was that "Germany" did not exist but the culture was "German" until the 1800s. However, Germany and History of Germany happily refer to the land as "Germany" even in B.C. I guess I am not convinced that it's accurate to call the land "Germany", but it makes it easier for the casual reader to understand immediately where Bach lived. -Sesquialtera II 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon - I am a German / from Germany, interested in history, non-nationalistic, and for me it seems to be quite absurd (and a little bit presuming) to be tought by a foreigner that there was no “Germany” before 1871! Was Monteverdi born in Italy? Was Vivaldi, or Rossini? Of course they were! Although there was no STATE Italy before 1860. But for many centuries before there was a cultural entity commonly called Italy. And so was “das deutsche Land”, Deutschland, Germania, Germany. And even more, Germany was the dominant part of the Holy Roman Empire. Both were often considered to be the same, so "Germany" could also be unterstood as a political entity before 1806.
Following a few google-search-results for the term “Teutschland” (the older / south german form of “Deutschland“):
Das Friedejauchende Teutschland (“peace-praising Germany”), 1653
http://diglib.hab.de/content.php?dir=drucke/380-4-quod-1&xml=feast.xml&imgtyp=
A text of G.W. Leibniz, 1697, he mentions “Teutschland” nine times
http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~gloning/lbnz-ug.htm
Map: “Teutschland, Pohlen, Ungarn, Turcken, Russland” (Germany, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Russia), 1719
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:2ERE4TggGWUJ:www.davidrumsey.com/maps23.html+Teutschland&hl=de&gl=de&ct=clnk&cd=26
Frisch, J. L.: Vorstellung der Vögel in Teutschland: (“birds in Germany”), 1720
http://www.animalbase.uni-goettingen.de/zooweb/servlet/AnimalBase/home/reference?id=1147
-- 80.145.117.131 23:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi - sorry if I offended you at all. My earlier hesitation about "Germany" probably comes from my own country's history, where it's a little up in the air whether to call people living here in 1750 "Americans" (e.g. Use of the word American), so I am cautious towards similar situations, which it seems Germany is not. Sorry, again. -Sesquialtera II 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Below, I've pasted in my query on the discussion page of the German-language Bach article, and the responses; the first was in German, from the anon user above, so I put through a translation application and tweaked it. Tony 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear contributors The contributors to the Bach article in the English WP are debating whether it is appropriate to use the word 'Germany' and 'German' with respect to Bach, as opposed to 'Thuringia' and 'Saxony'. The issue revolves around whether German speakers had a notion of a German nation in the 18th century, before Bismark. Did they refer to 'Germany', and did they call their language 'Deutch'? Were you a foreigner if you spoke German but came from, say Hamburg or Austria? Tony1


To make this topic more accessible (and because my English is no good): In 1508, Emperor Maximilian I. called himself Rex Germaniae (you can Google it). From the Great Elector, the sentence comes: "Consider that you are a German". Still in the 18th century, the (Roman) Emperor was recognised as the common realm head (also in Saxony and Hamburg), and the terms Holy Roman Empire and "Germany" and/or 'German country".
I corrected the translation a bit. -- 217.186.36.181 00:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tony1, as far as I know, in Bach's time the term "Deutschland" or "deutsches Land" has been in common use for decades or even centuries. The notion should have been different from today's, rather in the sense of a cultural than a national area, because Germany was splitted in many small states inhabited by different "tribes". I think the problem for the English WP is that "Deutschland"'s translation "Germany" has a completely different overall notion, especially after WW2 :-( and thus seems inapt to speak about those things of old. But all this is my personal opinion, you might want to wait for a real expert's view. Regards, Qpaly ♬ (Christian) 08:32, 28. Jan 2006 (CET)


Dear Tony1, without calling myself a "real expert" I basically agree with Qpaly's description. For sure the inhabitants of the many German-speaking states and cities called their common language "deutsch". There was a common feeling of being a "cultural nation" from that perspecitve they wouldn't look at each others as foreigners, even though regional dialects and culture played an important role (still true for today's Germany). From a "legal" view however a "Hamburger" was a forgeigner for a Saxonian since the citizens were subjects to their local souvereigns (with exception of the "Free Cities") and Germany was not a nation state at this time. Regards, Montaigne 13:45, 28. Jan 2006 (CET)


Problem solved, it seems? Germany should probably go back into the bio. Tony 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anon. comment

hi everyone!!! I enjoyed reading the article, but it can be a little more organized and and have a little more infomation. -69.3.26.27 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daughter Articles for works

I have created a very preliminary JS Bach (works for keyboard), merging organ and harpsichord (incl. clavichord, etc...) into the single generic category of keyboard, per discussion. I note from feedback on the composers discussion page that for specific works and sets of works, the idea of using TITLE (BWV #) or (BWV ###-###) seems acceptable.

In order to avoid duplication with the main article, I suggest that the sub-articles be concerned with the more technical aspects of the body of compositions under discussion, such as specific influence, innovations of technique, publication or edition history, etc.... Since the List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach is admirably comprehensive, I also suggest that these pages simply refer back to it so interested readers can link to individual compositions of interest in the genre. Eusebeus 12:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm afraid it wasn't decided yet whether separate articles for works are needed or a separate article for style - see this talk page, a few paragraphs above (where Tony lists the available options and invites contributors to vote, and also my message that begins with "I just thought about it like 5 minutes ago..", and, uh, that whole section :). If we decide to create a separate article on "Style", there will be no need for daughter "Works" articles (its function will be carried by "Works" here). Jashiin 12:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I wasn't directly asking for a vote, but just inviting input from all interested contributors. There are lots of options and lots of ideas, and I have so much work elsewhere at the moment that I find it hard to focus on the issues, I'm afraid. Suggest we wait until more people comment, then try to achieve some kind of consensus. It will be hard, I suspect! Tony 13:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC) PS Eusebeus, I like your start of a keyboard article, all the same.

Thanks for the comment and I was not trying to circumvent discussion. I think, fwiw, for major composers these kinds of specialty articles are certainly relevant. Even if we incorporate style into its own article per the discussion above, the wealth of information about specific bodies of compositions is enough to warrant separate discussions to avoid the main page from becoming bloated with tecnical info (I think). Put another way, each of these proposed works articles is a huge topic on its own, and perhaps the best way to demonstrate that is to start writing one up. Between the choral, orchestral and keyboard music, there is a ton of stuff to cover. For Keyboard works, for example, we have the authenticity question (particularly for organ) per orig. manuscripts discussion, as well as issues such as
how they would have been performed
changing fingerings over time
notable editions (contemporary publication, versus later 18th, & 19th - 20th C)
specific influence over later composers, etc etc....
I have taken the liberty of creating this as a separate article, but would certainly have no objection to having it merged into a larger distinct article that considered such aspects for the Bach corpus as a whole, or domesticated back to the main JSB artice, if that was deemed preferable. But I do think that the separate issues raised by style and compositions should be considered. (Another example (in specie if not kind) noted in the partitas, is the Italian Concerto rounding out the sequential key spread of the Partitas. That is worth noting, but not a stylistic point and not something one wants to choke up the main article space with.) Eusebeus 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with like, everything you said, and the only problem I see is individual works' articles like English Suites or Goldberg Variations.. if you want to cover that much detail in JS Bach (works for keyboard) (and similar articles), will there be anything at all left to write in articles about individual works? Jashiin 15:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That depends on how truly geeky you want to get I guess :). It is one thing, for example, to dicuss Bach's general innovations in creating pantonal or tonally arranged sets of works for keyboard (the 48, etc...). Quite another to discuss them in intense individual detail. Also, as another example, it might be interesting to note the individual publication dates of all the partitas, but that would likely be too detailed for the general Keyboard works page. Eusebeus 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The individual publication dates of the partitas ARE covered, in Bach compositions printed during the composer's lifetime :) Seriously though, I thought about it and maybe you're right, maybe I'm just being paranoid. In any case, good work on JS Bach (works for keyboard), keep it up :) Jashiin 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Presumably the process is fairly organic. If a main article on the keyboard, choral, etc... works covers the core material, and a subarticle is basically repetition, then it should be merged back no question. If you check my record on AfD and you will see that I am no fan of article-spread. Eusebeus 15:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The content of the article is fine, but the usual practice on Wikipedia is to write everything in a general-topic article first, then only spin it off after it becomes too large. It seems to me you're trying to organize the article set by anticipating how large the articles will get in the future, which is putting the cart before the horse. Anyway, I agree with others that it makes more sense to anticipate that individual works (e.g. Brandenburg concertos or Well-tempered Clavier) are going to get their own articles, so an article on Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach seems more realistic than splitting it by genre. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to resolve the existing redlinks in the main article which had anticipated this level of breakdown (and which I agree with). With over a thousand works under consideration, broadly lumping them into three or four generic categories is I would suspect probably safe, although your point is well-taken. Eusebeus 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distance Arnstadt-Weimar seems to be wrong!

"He was invited to inspect and give the inaugural recital on the new organ at St Boniface’s Church in Arnstadt. The Bach family had close connections with this oldest town in Thuringia, about 180 km to the southwest of Weimar at the edge of the great forest."

Compare that to the 40 km according to this map.

Since I don't know whether the cities themselves are correct, I'm just leaving it as it is. Someone who knows more about Bach should take a look at this. Michaël 09:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The link doesn't appear to work. Can you paste the map here, or is it too big? Tony 10:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits

I have no doubt that BWV565 is by Bach, on stylistic grounds. This is supported by Wolff and other authoritative texts. Can people comment on whether the reference to it should remain excised?

On JC Bach's birth date of 1735 vis a vis Maria Barbara's death in 1720, weren't there two JC Bach's?

Tony 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have a whole section on this in the article about BWV 565. See Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Authorship controversy and Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Violin. So since there is some controversy regarding the authorship and since the exact year of composition is unknown, I think EldKatt was right to do the edit. Jashiin 07:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Jashiin pretty much said it all, but, as the person who made the edit, I'd like to throw in my own comments, too. Personally, on stylistic grounds again, I have little doubt that BWV 565 is not an authentic organ work by Bach, but, honestly, neither of our personal opinions matter here. What we can say for sure is that there is some considerable controversy regarding the authorship. Wikipedia should reflect that objectively, of course. I'm not proposing that we should remove all references to the work from the article—but we shouldn't use it as an example of an Arnstadt work when we really don't know when it was written (or by whom, which is also somewhat important in this matter). (It is usually assumed that it's an early work, but that's just because it's so crudely written, if you pardon my sincerity. Besides that, there is nothing to go on in dating it.) EldKatt (Talk) 11:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some reference to 565, since it's so famous, but without prejudging the authenticity issue. On the sons issue, Tony, are you saying there were two Johann Christians, or one Johann Christian and another JC? Bach had a uncle called Johann Christoff, and a son called Johann Christoff Friedrich, but both Johann Christoff Friedrich and Johann Christian were Anna Magdalena's sons (according to Bach family). HenryFlower 12:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 3 has failed, for the following reason:

(While this is quite a good article I failed it on a number of points. There are a number of POV statements such as "he enriched the prevailing German style with a robust and dazzling contrapuntal technique" and "Bach's forceful suavity and vast output have earned him wide acknowledgment" both of which are just in the intro. The section on Style is severely lacking and I noted it is listed on this page in the to-do list. There are links to main articles which are red. This article should summarize these articles. How can it summarize that which doesn't exist? This article could use a stay on peer review. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Has poor old mediocre GA now become as exacting and demanding as FA. I've not contributed one word to this page, I just chanced by, to look something up, and saw this had failed. Sorry Ganymead I normally agree with most of your actions, but here I cannot, if this is not "good article" what on earth do most wikipedia pages become - "speedy deletes" I should think. Now Ganymead, go and have a re-think - please Giano | talk 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even know it had been nominated. Who did that? It would be nice to have consensus before a nomination. Tony 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a bizarre-looking notation cross has been inserted, but does not seem to be referred to in the text. May I remove it? Tony 01:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the introduction is too tame. Bach exceeded most of his contemporaries by far and would easily be considered one of the greatest composer in the western world. Who neutered the intro? 66.171.76.139 06:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On on whose string?

I'm trying to start an article on one of Bach's song. However, what is it called?

Spinoza1111 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Please refrain. If you think that music consists of "songs", you're not qualified. Furthermore, it's a movement of a larger work.

You might have phrased that rather more diplomatically ... --Quadalpha 03:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Air on a G String
  • Air on the G String
  • Air for a G String
  • Air for the G String

I've seen all on Google... --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called Air and it is the second movement from from Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major, BWV 1068. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Just "Air"? Oh, I did find this now:
Image:Air_(Bach).ogg
--Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes - I believe the title "Air on the G-string" is a relatively modern confection. :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 11:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Its origins lie in a transcription for violin and piano by August Wilhelmj, who transposed it so that it could be played on the G string alone. Using that title when talking about Bach's original setting would be patently incorrect. EldKatt (Talk) 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be best to start with Orchestra Suite No. 3 (Bach) rather than with articles on individual movements. HenryFlower 15:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

I wonder whether this article should be protected from continual vandalism via ban on anon users' editing it?

Tony 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And another example today (Bach -->Bitch). I'm sick of it. Tony 03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is getting a bit old, isn't it? I wonder why Bach is such a popular target for vandals. Anyway, I would support such a ban on anonymous editry. Adso de Fimnu 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, go with my blessing. --Quadalpha 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism - someone sticks a list of porn websites into the legacy section. This is getting ridiculous. Shall I request semi - protection?Moreschi 10:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be wise, but does anyone object? Is it possible to block anon users only? Tony 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi - protection bans anon users and very new (four - days - old) users from editing. If no one has voted against this by tomorrow (Thursday) morning, I will request semi - protection. The article badly needs it. Lords knows why the vandals are going for Bach, as he hardly seems like an obvious target, but who can understand the sick and twisted mind of a vandal? Best, Moreschi 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text thus far at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection:

This has recently been hit by a spate of vandalism. Please semi-protect to prevent the anonymous vandals preventing useful work from being done. Thank you. --Moreschi 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not enough vandalism to semi-protect. 3 in the last 24 hours aren't enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, how many in the past 24 hours is enough? Is there a policy, or is this just your call? I'd like to amend Moreschi's text above: The Bach article is regularly vandalised by anon users, probably teenage boys who are 'researching' school assignments for their music class. While the vandalism occurs less frequently than several times a day, it has been regular for many months and typically comprises odious sexual references. Apart from the unpleasantness of reverting the vandalism, we suspect that that page is visited by many young people, and wish to avoid the embarrassment of their reading these sexual references in an article on one of the great musicians of the millenium. Functional anon edits seldom occur, and there are no disputes or edit wars among the contributors. Tony 10:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus about GA nomination?

Where has this latest nomination been discussed on the talk page? Tony 10:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style section

The previous text was stubby and failed to say much about Bach's particular style. I've pasted in an attempt at a more comprehensive explanation; possibly it could be shortened, and people may have useful ideas for improving it. Tony 02:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I'll do the references and sound clip soon.

Great job, and yes, this is much better than what was there before. I remember the old draft had several sections though, what happened to that? I feel the text could use a couple of sections.

  • Throughout his teens and 20s, his output showed increasing skill in the large-scale organisation of musical ideas, and the enhancement of the Buxtehudian model of improvisatory preludes and counterpoint of limited complexity. I'm not sure if its entirely accurate to say that Bach's prelude style was an enhancement of Buxtehude's; the latter was interested in combining free and strict music in multisectional preludes (so the model isn't exactly of improvisatory nature), while Bach composed preludes of all kinds. I assume you were referring to Buxtehude in the "counterpoint of limited complexity" phrase - if you meant Bach, I think its somewhat confusing ("showed increasing skill in.. counterpoint of limited complexity"?)
  • Unlike Handel's, Bach's contrapuntal textures tend to be more cumulative than those of Handel and most other composers of the day [...] - I have a feeling that the "Unlike Handel's," bit is a leftover from a previous version of the sentence.. if its not, I suggest removing them anyway.

Also, it would be nice to mention the Orgelbuchlein somewhere in the chorale prelude paragraph (the chorale type he invented there perfectly fits the description you gave of "a dense, contrapuntal latticework against relatively slow-moving, overarching statements of the tune"), and maybe describe one or two more melodic symbols. Other than these minor things, I reckon the section is quite good. Jashiin 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll address these concerns when I go back to this article. There were three types of chorale prelude, weren't there? (I'm not good on that area.) Did Bach leave his mark on all types? Tony 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its more complex than that, there were many different types of chorale preludes (bicinium, several kinds of cantus firmus settings, the Pachelbel model, chorale fughettas, etc.). Bach did compose in most (if not all), but I reckon his major contribution was the type he invented in Orgelbuchlein; unfortunately I don't know if he did make significant contributions to the already existing models. Jashiin 12:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review

It has been noted that this article is well written and informative. It was nominated last year as a Featured Article, and the concerns raised then appear to have been addressed. It has twice been nominated recently as a Good Article, failing originally on very minor grounds. It was felt at the time that the rejection of the original Good Article nomination was rather harsh. I have passed it through as a Good Article as it appears that concerns about the article are minor in comparison to its overwhelming achievements. It would appear to me that with some assistance that this article could be put forward again for nomination as a Featured Article. SilkTork 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound file placement

I was under the impression that it was orthodox to put sound files at the end of the article. Is it absolutely necessary to put the Christmas Oratorio and Brandenburg Concerto files after the sections? I think it disrupts the article a little. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never been one for orthodoxy. The sound files could all go at the bottom, but having them in the body of the article allows the text to refer to a sound file that is readily accessible. This issue might be discussed here before action is taken to relocate them.

Please take care not to introduce inaccuracies into the text, particularly at the top. Tony 08:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style of "style"

Random paragraph that caught my eye.

Bach's gift for creating lovely music must also be recognized, especially under the brilliant light of his technical accomplishments. The building blocks of Baroque composition, for example counterpoint or basso profundo, are so massive that in lesser hands their proper use often seems to constitute composition. But Bach's work reveals an imagination for beautiful melody and rich harmony nearly unmatched and often transcending its musical style, when other composers were merely competent.

The rest of the section has a similar tone.

Most of this simply isn't verifiable. How does one ascertain that his "imagination for beautiful melody and rich harmony" was "nearly unmatched and often transcending its musical style"? What exactly is transcending a musical style? Can our readers look this up somewhere? Do we need to emphasize that Bach was great by calling "other composers" "merely competent"?

Don't get me wrong. I adore Bach and I'll happily agree with anyone who says he was a musical genius, but paragraphs like the above are not good style for a reference work. I might accept them from a notable expert on the subject, as his or her professional opinion, but Wikipedia itself cannot serve as such an expert, by proxy or otherwise. If you want to insert colorful language like the above, you should let other, well-respected voices do the talking for you. That's what being a secondary source is all about. Wikipedia should not try to be a critic, not even a critic paraphrasing the most common opinions.

To remind: it's not about whether what we've described is true, in the sense that it's widely acknowledged by others. Any praise of Bach is probably true :-), and we definitely need to make clear why he's held in such high regard. I'm pretty sure we can find dozens of sources that will sing Bach's praises explicitly, on any aspect of his style that you care to mention. We should quote these and summarize them accurately, not write our own essay.

It's not exactly an issue of missing references either. I highly doubt that the statements as they are now admit direct references at all (although nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong). Yet on the other hand, phrases like "Bach's devout, personal relationship with the Lutheran God" practically cry out for external references, because readers will want to look up how we know he had such a relationship. (The subject of Bach and religion could probably fill an article on its own, but that's another matter.)

No criticism of the original contributors is intended (heaven knows I haven't contributed anything to it); I just wanted to make clear that being well-written (like the section undoubtedly is) isn't enough. If we're striving to get this to a featured article (which is no less than Bach deserves, after all) we'll need to try harder. 82.92.119.11 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph, and the following one: I wasn't aware that someone had added them. Here they are, together. Please state here if you object to their removal.

Bach's gift for creating lovely music must also be recognized, especially under the brilliant light of his technical accomplishments. The building blocks of Baroque composition, for example counterpoint or basso profundo, are so massive that in lesser hands their proper use often seems to constitute composition. But Bach's work reveals an imagination for beautiful melody and rich harmony nearly unmatched and often transcending its musical style, when other composers were merely competent.
Contemporary composers, notably Handel, also wrote much music that is beautiful and lasting (and still played frequently today). But Bach arguably stands much further on, next to the two giants of Western music, Beethoven and Mozart, for his quality and construction of song. Compositions such as "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" or "Air on a G String" are wonderful, eloquent pieces that remain fresh and interesting even after repeated hearings, the tunes effortless and soaring. Longer works such as the "Toccata and Fugue" or even the "('Little') Fugue in G" not only have memorable melodies and harmonies, their musical themes develop richly, woven into a weight that never becomes leaden.

Tony 01:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent anon edit about Veit Bach

While not copyright-free/GFDL, this is one source that I think??? provides some backing for the recent change made by an anonymous editor re: recent research about Veit Bach, though it doesn't, that I can tell, specify its own sources? Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In David W. Barber's book Bach, Beethoven, and the Boys, he writes,
"Johann Sebastian's great-great-grandfather, old Veit Bach, was a miller. He liked to play his lute while the millstones ground flour in the background. J.S. later said it probably helped him keep time. Veit had escaped to Thuringia from Hungary, where they frown on that sort of thing."
I realize it's not exactly a scholarly source, but it is a source, nonetheless. In any case, it seems clear that Veit did migrate from Hungary. Adso de Fimnu 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's in the New Grove article on the Bach family (not the J.S. Bach article; look in the article on the family). The anon essentially got it right as far as I see. My 1980 Grove is skeptical about the family's origins in Hungary per se, but the article in the online, current Grove has it otherwise, so the research must have been after 1980 (I didn't pick through the massive bibliography to see just where it came from, but it must be there). Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this addition. Veit appears to have been an ancestor, but his Hungarian origins are uncertain. See Wolff's biography. Tony 12:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent additon of Froberger's first and middle names

Are they necessary? Given that the article is already longer than recommended, why not refer to them by their surname alone, unless there's a reason to distinguish them from others of the same name? Tony 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinoza1111 03:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Bach rescued from his devotees

The Style section is POV and contains undocumented assertions about Bach's piety. It also contains language, which in striving to make "Bach" beyond critique and an implicit rebuke to music made by subaltern peoples, which belongs in a children's book for racist homeschoolers.

We simply do not know whether Bach "cherished" his role as a teacher. He may have begrudged the time.

Is simple Lutheran piety evident in BWV 4? In BWV 140? Many real Protestants of Bach's time, who disliked emotion in divine services, would have found the setting of "der Wurger kann uns nicht mehr Schaden" far too Italian. BWV 140's first "movement" is more about the Sinfonia, which seems to get Bach's full attention as opposed to the words.

Now, the above is just speculation and POV. But so is the assumption that Bach was single of heart and of purpose.

His performers may have resented his complexity and his insistence on his text and may have accused him of Popery.

I have for this reason balanced the section with Adorno's and Glenn Gould's readings of Bach.

I found this section to be very unhelpful and rather offensive. This poorly written and judgemental section, which is polluted with academic jargon like "self-identical" and "resentment-listener" should be removed, since it disrupts the flow of information about Bach's work and life and inserts raw and ugly bias. I had to read it several times to understand what the section was about, because it disrupted the flow of the article so badly. The discussion of the name of "Air for the G string" is especially silly and not appropriate for an article on Bach. It is extraordinarily ironic that someone felt it appropriate to deliver a lecture to readers about listening to Bach with tolerance and respect, and then immediately displayed a complete lack of tolerance and respect by judging Bach listeners to be racist and close-minded (see the remark about the listener being at odds with "a world of music that is today no longer written by white European males".) This comes across as very hypocritical and amateurish. All of this section should be removed, it is not relevant to this article and detracts from the article's quality.BryanC 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If you, or anyone else, would like to remove the last five paragraphs of the "style" section, it's fine with me. I just read them through, and find they add little, aside from a dose of some of the roll-your-eyes trendy academic jargon I was happy to discard once I was out the grad school door many years ago. Any other opinions on this? I for one would be happy to see this part excised. Antandrus (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)As I said, make your dirt by yourselves. The style section, before I changed it, was a complete New Critical joke in which Bach was a sacred cow, filled with POV ranting about how great Bach was, and is. I tried to balance it with post New Criticism.

As to "grad school", I am well aware of how it makes barbarians out of graduate students, including Milton hating Milton specialists and classical "musicians" who hate classical music.

I work for a living, and I don't steal time from my employers while creating horseshit about Bach, screwing up networks, and telling your co-workers what fools your graduate school professors were while at the same time reminding them that your Mommy and Daddy had the big bucks to waste, putting you through Juillard or graduate school. Therefore I don't have the time to rework this article, and I ask other participants to do so, reflecting something other than the New Criticism of the dead white male in this article.

As I said, make your dirt by yourselves.

If your primary approach to J.S. Bach is that he's a "dead white male", and if your primary interaction style is the rant such as the one above, I strongly suggest that you take your own advice and cease to work on this article. Much appreciated, Antandrus (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of the Bach cross

Why is it there? What does it add to the text? Who invented it? Where's the reference?

I'm removing it soon (again) if these questions can't be answered. Tony 23:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The sleeve of some recording I no longer have here (possibly Savall and Koopman's recording of gamba sonatas, on the Alia Vox label, but I am not sure) contained that cross, handwritten in what looks to me like Bach's hand. Therefore I am rather sure that it has some significance, but I have no idea where the manuscript is from, nor have I been able to find any references to the cross online. I have a scan of the autograph cross itself on my computer, if anyone is interested. The sleeves of Suzuki's cantata recordings on BIS (at least the ones I own) contain a printed version of the cross, but that's about the only other place where I have seen it. EldKatt (Talk) 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it adds anything to the text? I mean, if we knew for certain that there was an interesting story behind it, maybe. But I'm inclined to exclude it, since the article already has plenty of images, and there are tons more that could be added. Tony 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As it stands, I would agree that it doesn't add anything to the text; or rather, the text doesn't provide anything for it to add to. If the text managed to explain anything about where it's from or why it's significant, though, this would make a helpful addition: I recall my own disappointment upon, after seeing it in one of the above-mentioned CD sleeves, being unable to find any informative references to it. If we can't find out anything about it, though, and it stays unexplained, I agree that it might be best to remove it. EldKatt (Talk) 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christoph Wolff video stream

Who added the link to this fascinating lecture? It's excellent—musicology at its best. Tony 12:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] semiprotected

I listed it for sprotection a few months ago, and was knocked back. Don't know how it was managed this time, but I like it. Let's hope that it's permanent. Tony 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highly influential

I have doubts Perlman is a highly influential interpreter of Bach's violin music. When other violinist think of Bach recordings that influenced them, I doubt Perlman's Bach recordings would come up. Some of the people listed need a short justification. For example, Ton Koopman's organ playing actually isn't well received by reviewers in Fanfare or the American Record Guide. Maybe he is influential as a teacher? -- 66.171.76.139 07:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts about listing "influential" performers at all, because it's always going to be highly subjective. I agree that Perlman probably shouldn't be there. Tony 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I'm not thrilled about having GA status at all for this article. I have major problems with the process of assigning GA status, which I think really doesn't count for much. So I'm happy for it to be withdrawn (although others might not). Yes, more inline citations are necessary, but I don't have time at the moment to do them. A more obvious problem is the omission of a whole section on his life. Tony 06:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You are free to feel that way and even voluntarily de-list the article if you wish. The value of a GA tag is only as high as the quality of the articles that it is attached to. Hence the purpose of this review. Agne 06:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing the section on notable performers

I can see that this will be a cause of trouble. What about removing it altogether? Tony 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That these performers are renowned for playing Bach is noteworthy in articles about them, but it is not information about Bach nor his music. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Invites spam and does not impart much useful information pertinent to Bach the man. Eusebeus 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup: let's take it out. These kinds of sections always grow like weed patches, and add little to the articles. Antandrus (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numerology

Sorry to be sceptical, but what research has been done to determine that 14 and 41 are particularly prevalent in his music? What criteria were used in its measurement? Has research proved that 13, 15, 40 and 42 are less prevalent using the same criteria? I understand that Bach himself apparently gave importance to these two numbers from time to time, but the article does not convince me that he added this constraint to his musical style. I understand that music and number are often strangely connected, but has anyone pointed to an instance where it is clear that 14 and 41 make Bach's music go like this rather than like that? This site states, "This is an example of how numerology can detract attention from what is important in Bach's music.". If it's to be included, I think the paragraph needs to be very thoroughly referenced. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True. Perhaps 14 and ?52 might be mentioned, but let's not make a big deal of it. It's kind of mechanistic, anyway. Tony 12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: after trying to recast it I ended up removing it. It said A more subtle manifestation of Bach’s personal identity lies in simple arithmetic: by assigning a cardinal number to each letter of the alphabet, he derived the number 14 for his surname (B = 2, A = 1, C = 3, and H = 8) and 41 for his full name. These numbers occur time and again in his output, whether in the number of notes in a fugal subject or the number of bars in an episode.
I accept that Bach may have derived the numbers 14 and 42 himself, and used them occasionally as favourite numbers in daily life. Until some criteria are put forward, and evidence is produced that with those criteria other numbers do not occur in his music as often, and with the same criteria evidence is also produced that 14 and 42 occur more often in Bach's than in other composers' music, then either it is original research, or any references that state it are not reliable. Unless Bach left evidence that he used numerology in his works, we cannot know. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What we can know is that many theorists and critics (if my memory serves me right, that is; I haven't checked lately) have put forth these numerologic ideas, whether we like it or not. We should certainly think twice before claiming that Bach did these things, but I do believe that we have the sources to say that some noteworthy people said he did. I'll leave it for others to find them, though, because I lack the time. EldKatt (Talk) 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with RobertG. I don't mind a mention of numerology as an issue, but I'm OK without one at all. What I wrote above (does put too strong a spin on it—fait accomplis—whereas, yes, I'd like some statistical support for the notion. Tony 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography details

Bibliography, these digital days, is an-art-not-a-science so no offense intended if I've stepped on anyone's toes, but I tried finding a few of these entries in libraries and had some trouble, so I thought I'd flesh out full names and standardize formats a bit. And ISBNs are becoming a mess, now, with the new ISBN-13's coming in on January 1, but I've tried at least to indicate several numbers where available: ISBNs often are the easiest tools for clearing up multiple-edition confusions, also for distinguishing & identifying UK/US editions or reprintings of the same work. What is Wikipedia going to do about the new ISBN-13's, I wonder?...

I don't find the following item, in WorldCat or a couple of other bibliographic resources: so I have put in Terry's version instead --

  • Forkel, Johann Nicolaus; On Johann Sebastian Bach's Life, Genius, and Works, (1802), translated by A. C. F. Kollmann (1820)

--Kessler 23:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style section

The style section needs a lot of work; it is currently unreferenced and very messy. I wish I could contribute in this sense, but I don't know nearly enough about Bach. Would anyone be willing to take this up? -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hip-hop

There was a hip-hop song made on top of the song "Air" by this composer. Does anyone know who the artist of this mix is, and what the track's name is? I think it would be notable under a trivia section or so, but if not, I still want to know who did that remix thing of Air. Thanks. --Adriaan90 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. I have had to revert this page because a registered user is posting profane and childish material. Can this page possibly be locked from editing? 24.137.123.106 00:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhm... ok... Anyhoo, I finally found that hip hop remix, it was Everything's Gonna Be Alright by Sweetbox... thanks anyway for all of you who read my first comment lol... --Adriaan90 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Johann Sebastian Bach

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro paragraph

It seems to me that the intro paragraph has major pov problems. I think he's a great composer but I also think that we're suppose to explain him, not praise him. Words like robust, and sacred seem like blatant pov and things like "He is arguably the greatest composer of his time, and one of the greatest composers of all time" are too. He may have been a great composer but that doesn't make him an exception to the NPOV wiki policy. Mighty Draco 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sacred" is a technical term, not a term of praise here. I don't see the opening in POV terms. The claims are couched in much evidence presented throughout the article. The lead is meant to prepare the reader for the greater level of detail in the body of the article. Tony 09:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I tweaked it again; I think some of the previous wording (going back a couple days) was better. The north German style was already contrapuntal (think of Buxtehude, Scheidemann, Scheidt, Schein, and all the others going all the way back to their Venetian School models); "sacred" indeed has a precise meaning, opposed to "secular". Someone will probably want a cite on that "triumvirate" but it shouldn't be hard to find, since those three names often get said in the same breath. Antandrus (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The external links reported a jungle of sites which were irrelevant, not found (reporting 404 errors), spam sites and two redundant links. I putted some order in there (I hope). Please do not add sites with poor contents, with one or two music files or with a only brief text. I have however added a website with an huge selection of midis where it is possible to download them (I wasn't able to download from the suggested classicalmidiconnection!?!) Alegreen 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I don't like some of the recent changes, particularly in the lead; I intend to at least partically revert them. In particular, where are the two recordings that I painstakingly arranged copyright for? Tony 12:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound File Quality

I noticed this was talked about a bit in the discussion archive, but the Prelude and Fugue in A Minor has a horrible clicking through parts of it, like it was ripped from a scratched CD or something. I suggest it be removed.--20.139.226.50 03:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tony 11:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BVW565

no mention of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, despite being one of his most famous works?

There was, but authorship was disputed. Tony 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That is interesting. Cheers!__Seadog ♪ 04:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
To me, it's definitely in his style, although immature. But I was howled down. Tony 04:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does definitely in Bach's syle, I never knew that it was ever disputed. I will try to read up on it.__Seadog ♪ 04:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Also not to be vague but has any body looked at the style part of the article. To me it seems very out of tune from the rest of the article (IMO the article is great). I say this because it is very large and has 0 references, does anybody have any ideas to trim it up and work on it. An image would be very nice but I have no honest clue as to what image.__Seadog ♪ 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the style section as a start, about ?a year ago, since there was hardly anything on Bach's style in the article. It has been changed since, and yes, you're right, it probably needs trimming and referencing. Tony 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I applaud you that you started it since I do remember about a year ago there was nothing. But I believe if we can work on that maybe (that is a big maybe) then it might have a chance at the FA. I have noticed that you are very good when it comes to your criteria for rfa, since you have certain criteria it would be a great help if you could help. I believe that we actually have interacted little before...I believe it was at the Hinduism FA which no census was achieved. You gave some very good constructive criticism and was a large help. Thanks.__Seadog ♪ 12:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA is a hated, sometimes-abusive process for promotion to Worker Ant (admin.) ....? Tony 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I propose that "Bach" go directly to the Bach disambiguation page, rather than redirecting to Johann Sebastian. Bach's sons are very important, as we all know, and coming directly here could confuse some novices. It also is potentially passing up the opportunity to educate those who know of only one Bach. Perhaps someone should create a "Bach family" article, even if it is no more than a paragraph of text and a list. Vaux 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Surely the Well-Tempered Clavier should have a mention in the introductory paragraph? Being one of the great works of keyboard literature it should be one of the first works associated with the composer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.145.187 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

There's a limit to the number of individual works that can be named at the opening. We already have the Goldberg Variations and the keyboard suites and partiitas. I guess I don't care all that much if you really want to add the Well Tempered Clavier, but it's mentioned in the article already, and the sentence is long already. Tony 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

If it's not good, I'd rather not have it at all. Currently, the dates of birth and death are repeated. The article starts with them, so why repeat in the box? We have "composer, pianist", but the piano didn't exist then. And it's kind of compartmentalising. He was a teacher and a conductor too. Tony 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I also dislike it; indeed I don't like infoboxes on "classical" music articles at all. It's dangerously oversimplifying to compartmentalise people, pieces, trends, and so forth this way: maybe it's better with current popular music styles, but I'm not expert there. If the infobox has to stay by consensus, pianist should be replaced with "organist", but jamming Bach into "occupation: composer, organist" just makes my skin crawl. Sorry. Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask for people who object to the removal of the infobox to argue their case here? Tony 03:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yuck: someone's just added "tutor". He was a singer too. Must we compartmentalise? I intend to remove the infobox in the next day or two, since no one has presented an argument for it. Tony 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ummm, aesthetic considerations aside, infoboxes are a part of the fabric of Wikipedia, and their use is explicitly mentioned in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system. I think the burden is on those who wish to throw aside the apparent consensus opinion of the Wikipedia community to justify swimming against the tide. The infobox has problems? {{sofixit}}. --Ling.Nut 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
We've pointed out the problems above; they are major ones, in my view. I couldn't care less about that silly Version 1.0 project—fatuous, with no cogent explanation as to why it exists. Their preferences have no official status on WP, and where is this consensus about infoboxes? Tony 14:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
We've lost them on featured articles before, as they create a lot of useless clutter. Sandy (Talk) 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am sick of seeing this same argument popping up all over Wikipedia. There is no consensus at all to use or not to use info boxes. While there might just possibly be a slight excuse for them on scientific pages there is absolutely no need for them at all on biographies. Where all relevant information in contained in the lead (as it should be) to repeat it again in an ugly box is unnecessary. Tony is a competent and experienced editor, if he feels this page does not need an info box, then it does not need it. Editors suddenly arriving and plonking these unsightly box on pages on which they have previously had little input is in my view almost trolling for trouble. If people want to see just how much time can be wasted on this matter they should look at the many sections following [1] where the info box discussion on a very similar page to this goes on and on becoming more and more bitter - all to achieve what? At the end of the day nothing. Giano 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll add to the swell of voices here and paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "Mr. Gorbachev, remove this infobox!" It's unsightly, repeats the same info in the lead and adds nothing to the article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The infobox is gone, and {{Grading scheme}} does not mention the word "infobox" anymore. Kusma (討論) 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article Review of GA status

This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. --Ling.Nut 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be excellent. GA status is a worthless badge, IMV; there's no rigorous assessment system. Take it away NOW, please. Tony 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yikes, and a time waster for experienced editors. Someone put an entire series of my articles up for GA (when I knew they weren't ready) - I solved that problem by removing them myself. Sandy (Talk) 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure your experience will help you notice that this article has almost no cites at all. Maybe I'm biased; I'm a PhD student in Linguistics. If I tried to push a paper off on my professor (or on a journal) with no cites on it, I'd have it handed back to me, smoking. Moreover, what about WP:V? Even Jimmy Wales is behind the push for better verification. Really, arguing in favor of better referencing is far far far from a time-waster. Worrying about infoboxes is a waste of time; work on the cites instead to do something actually and truly useful. --Ling.Nut 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The referencing does need to be improved, and I will concern myself with the infobox. Tony 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the referencing needs to be improved, but as far as WP:GA status goes, that is neither here nor there, since it means nothing. It's not helpful to tell a very busy and productive editor like Tony how to spend his time. Sandy (Talk) 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) What can I say? Y'all are huffing and puffing about, talking about "experienced" and "productive" editors (as though the editors were more important than the encyclopedia!), implicitly claiming to be a superior breed of editor. No, you don't merely suspect you are superior & you are convinced of it. You clearly have every right to hold others in contempt, and to display your contempt without measure. Good luck with your endeavors. I'm removing this page from my watch list. No one can argue with those who have no self-doubts and who hear no voice other than their own and that of their friends; it only causes pain. Again, best wishes. --Ling.Nut 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand - it's not about editors, it's about the lack merit of GA status. Since anyone can confer it, it means little, and anyone should be able to take it away without fuss. Sandy (Talk) 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
GA status has changed a lot since it was introduced, and it means a lot more than it used to. When it was first introduced, there was no formal review or nomination structure, and anyone could grant ot take away good article status at any time. Now there is a formal method and formal criteria, and the people at WP:GA take their check of the article against the criteria quite seriously, and usually help by identifying areas where improvement is necessary. If you don't like the peer review provided by this system, you are free to ignore it - it does not interfere with article editing at all. Kusma (討論) 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would support ignoring it and writing a good article. The review consists of a handful of editors complaining that there are only six footnotes; one of them hasn't read the article. (I except Homestarmy's criticism, which is substantive if misguided.) None of the rest of them is even addressing the article, or what needs to be cited in it. I fail to see how that means anything at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently the BACH motif is now considered original research by the luminaries over at GA. I agree w/Tony above; FA is the way to go (not there quite yet though by my reading). :) Eusebeus 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image question

This image is included in the article with the caption "Places in which Bach resided throughout his life". What do the lines between the towns represent, if anything? I can't make any sense of them, especially since the article states "At the age of 14, Johann Sebastian was awarded a choral scholarship, with his older school friend, Georg Erdmann, to study at the prestigious St Michael’s School in Lüneburg, not far from the largest city in Germany...", yet the town of Lüneburg on the diagram is shown with a question mark. Perhaps if the diagram adds useful content, it would be more useful if the towns were superimposed over a map of Germany, since people like me don't know where many of those towns are. Neil916 (Talk) 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil's comments

I think the following comments by Neil916 at the GA review are worth considering, not so much because they are valid (although some of them are; no article is perfect), but because articles should be as clear as the content will allow to someone who knows nothing of the content - and reviews by such a person are hard to come by. (Arabic numbers refer to WP:WIAGA; the Roman numerals will be explained afterwards) I shall be responding to them in detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • 1(a)/1(d): "Compelling prose, readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers." (like me), and "necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided". A partial list picked at random:
    • ...he enriched the prevailing German style with a robust contrapuntal technique, a control of harmonic and motivic organisation from the smallest to the largest scales, and the adaptation of rhythms and textures from abroad, particularly Italy and France. from the lead paragraph.
      • Misquotation: the sentence links to counterpoint.
      • A link to motif would be useful. III
    • Bach’s musical style arose from his extraordinary fluency in contrapuntal invention and motivic control, from the Style section.
      • See above; but can a style arise from a fluency? II
    • his output showed increasing skill in the large-scale organisation of musical ideas, and the enhancement of the Buxtehudian model of improvisatory preludes and counterpoint of limited complexity, from the Style section.
      • Two previous links to Buxtehude provided. IV
    • He invested the chorale prelude, already a standard set of Lutheran forms, 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 lattice against relatively slow-moving, overarching statements of the tune., from the Style section.
      • Chorale prelude links. Intervallic should be linked. Lattice is jargon. II.
    • A large number of run-on sentences like "Johann Sebastian Bach was born March 21, 1685 in Eisenach, Germany to an extraordinary musical family--for more than 200 years, the Bach family had produced dozens of worthy performers and composers during a period in which the church, local government and the aristocracy provided significant support for professional music making in the German-speaking world, particularly in the eastern electorates of Thuringia and Saxony.", the first sentence of the Early years (1685–1702) section.
      • Asyndeton. The use of a dash is defensible; colon would be better, but III.
    • Varying between referring to the subject as "Bach", or "Sebastian" (compare the Early years (1685–1702) section to the Arnstadt to Weimar (1703–08) section).
      • II, should be consistent, but is probably unavoidable.
  • 2(a): as mentioned in discussions above. Some participants have complained that it is unnecessary to cite "obvious" information. But here's a random sampling of text from the article that I feel needs citations in the interest of verifyability:
    • Five standard modern references are provided. Most of these are well-known and probably in all of them. In general IV:
    • during a period in which the church, local government and the aristocracy provided significant support for professional music making in the German-speaking world
      • IV. Glance at any of the references provided.
    • "Sebastian was proud of his family's musical achievements"
      • Should be in all the general references, next to the genealogy in the rest of the sentence. Pride in his children mentioned in Grove, II.
    • "Easy listening" realisations of Bach's music and its use in advertising also contributed greatly to Bach's popularisation in the second half of the twentieth century.
    • Jazz musicians have also adopted Bach's music, with Jacques Loussier and Uri Caine among those creating jazz versions of Bach works.
    • Thereafter Bach’s reputation has remained consistently high.
      • IV: Grove
    • Johann Sebastian Bach’s contributions to music, or, to borrow a term popularised by his student Lorenz Christoph Mizler, his "musical science", are frequently bracketed with those by William Shakespeare in English literature and Isaac Newton in physics.
    • Bach’s music was selected for inclusion on the Voyager Golden Records as an example of humanity's best achievements
    • Scientist and author Lewis Thomas once suggested how the people of Earth should communicate with the universe: "I would vote for Bach, all of Bach, streamed out into space, over and over again. We would be bragging of course, but it is surely excusable to put the best possible face on at the beginning of such an acquaintance. We can tell the harder truths later.".
      • II: Source listsd in [en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Thomas wikiquote]
  • 2(d): "it contains no elements of original research."
    • Pretty much the entire Performances section
    • "Another development has been the growth of the "authentic" or period performance movement, which as far as possible attempts to present the music as the composer intended it. Examples include the playing of keyboard works on the harpsichord rather than a modern grand piano and the use of small choirs or single voices instead of the larger forces favoured by nineteenth- and early twentieth-century performers."
    • Some composers have paid tribute to Bach by setting his name in musical notes (B-flat, A, C, B-natural; B-natural is notated as "H" in German musical texts) or using contrapuntal derivatives. Liszt, for example, wrote a praeludium and fugue on this BACH motif (existing in versions both for organ and piano). Bach himself set the precedent for this musical acronym, most notably in Contrapunctus XIV from the Art of Fugue. Whereas Bach conceived this cruciform melody as a compositional form of devotion to Christ and his cross, later composers have employed the BACH motif in homage to the composer himself.
      • Largely IV, although "cruciform" should have a specific source. It may not be in all five general references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I. Blemishes that are the difference between good articles and bad articles
  • II. Blemishes that are the difference between FA and good articles.
  • III< Spots that would be defensible even in a FA, but which require defense.
  • IV. Blemishes which exist only in the critic's perception.

[edit] oh no, it's back again

This Bach cross image: we removed it a while ago (twice). Why is it back? There's no historical justification for it. Sure, as Andrantus points out, if you read it clockwise, you get BACH, but ... so what? Bach didn't use it himself, or if he did, there's not record of this. Who did invent it?

I think it should be removed. Tony 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)