Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johann Sebastian Bach article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Good article Johann Sebastian Bach was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Contents

[edit] Covers

I didn't want to go ahead and add it but, can we put a covers section here, and label musicians who were inspired by and/or covered his work. things like Andre Rieu and Skarred Vendetta and so on. --Coheed56 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pronunciation of "Johann"

In german, "Johann" is stressed on the first syllable. Nobody in Germany will call him jo'hann. Nobody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.235.165 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 84.56.235.165. As a German native, I can assure you that Johann is never pronounced [jo'han] but always ['johan]. Especially Johann Sebastian Bach! -- 213.211.235.7 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ironic wording

"a control of harmonic and motivic organisation from the smallest to the largest scales"

this sounds ridiculous. Can we alter the wording to be less ironic?

82.40.163.5 (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What is ironic about it? Tony (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely you jest, Tony? Scales? -DrSwiftus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.69.49 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, of course, my good doctor. But it can't possibly be unclear right at the big-picture opening, with no mention of music theory until way down in the style section (which needs revamping, BTW). TONY (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm changing it to something else, that itself probably needs editing. Smallest and largest 'scales' makes it sound like other composers can't cope with scalic progressions! CharlieRCD (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro...

Re: Birth date: This article does not mention Bach's N.S. Gregorian calendar birth date, as most all Wikipedia hitorical profiles do. His N.S. birth date would be April 1, 1685. I would insert it, but the page is locked. Also, I would sign in, but everytime I do, I am immeidately signed back out when I go to a page...I havn't figured out how to resolve this yet. For now, my user name is: sharpgal69.19.14.24 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the word "prolific" erased? Bach was very prolific compared to many others. I think we should bring the word back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.176.150 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early years of his childhood (1685–1703)

Beginning of the 4th paragraph: "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, the northern seaport of Hamburg." Currently, Berlin (A=891.82 km², Pop=3,405,300 (10/2006)) is the largest city in Germany. Hamburg (A=755 km², Pop=1,750,194 (31. Aug. 2006)) is the 2nd largest. If you have a citation for Hamburg being the largest city in Germany in 1699, then it needs to read: largest city in Germany at the time or similar. Feetonthedesk 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the change in wording would be necessary; it's obvious that it means the largest city at the time........ HOWEVER, I think there's substantial doubt about that claim. The Hamburg article says "Hamburg experienced its fastest growth during the second half of the 19th century", suggesting it wasn't so huge in the 1600s, although Berlin was apparently devastated by the Thirty Years' War earlier in the century. Neither article Hamburg nor Berlin provides historical demographic data, although one could infer that Berlin's population was around 30,000 in 1700. Of course Germany wasn't really a country the way it is now, so the comparisons may be meaningless. Maybe we should give it a {{citation}} tag or something. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I did a little bit of digging around too. The online Grove article on Hamburg gives a population of 70,000 by 1680. Leipzig was considerably smaller (around 30,000 in 1750); their article on Berlin gives no figures, but mentions the population and wealth grew rapidly after the Thirty Years' War. I think it's plausible that Hamburg was the largest city in "Germany", whatever that means in the context of the time, but there must still be a better cite out there. Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been digging around in German language articles and can't find anything to explicitly confirm or confute the claim. As Wahoofive states, there are implications that the Berlin population around 1700 was approx. 30,000. Germany in the context of the time was a "patchwork carpet" (Flickenteppich) loosely held together by the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation ("one of strangest political structures in the world") of which the Free Imperial and Hanseatic City of Hamburg was certainly a member. Given the adverbial mode and the context of the claim in an article about J.S. Bach I am inclined to ask whether the refutable claim would not better be replaced with something irrefutable like Free Imperial and/or Hanseatic? Feetonthedesk 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Didn't Johann Christoph Bach die in 1695? Could someone clear this for me? I need to know soon - Theclassicalman 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Much of the paragraphs in this section contain ambiguous assertions which cannot be or are not verified, such as "likely", "possibly", "may have", etc. This should be cut down to include only those things solidly verifiable. Speculation does not belong in WP.Civil Engineer III 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In the second paragraph the phrase "the eldest brother of Johann Sebastian Bach, " seems redundant. The sentence could be edited to read:

The 10-year-old orphan moved in with his oldest brother, Johann Christoph Bach(1671–1721), the organist at nearby Ohrdruf.Mark Pfannschmidt (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This "three Bs" thing

It weakens the impact of the previous clause, and raises the question among non-experts as to why the alphabet should be worth mentioning here in the lead. Who are the "three Cs"? And now we have "is regarded as" twice in two sentences. Most unsatisfactory. Tony 08:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose if anyone were asked "who are the 3 B's" they could come up with the answer, but I wouldn't say that it's a phrase which has achieved universal currency. I think Bach's achievements can stand as a sufficient justification of his eminence as a composer, without adding this tag. --Stephen Burnett 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Bach, Beethoven and the Beetles ... Jɪmp 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Jimp. They are Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Oda Mari (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Mistake

it's "Das Wohltemperierte Klavier". I don't have an account, so please correct that for me. Cheers, --217.233.212.148 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need an account to edit. Tony 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know which it should be. In modern German it's commonly referred to as "Das Wohltemperierte Klavier", the original title is "Das Wohltemperirte Clavier: oder Praeludia und Fugen durch alle Töne und Semitonia...", and the current version "Das Wohltemperierte Clavier" seems to be a hybrid, which is found often as well, though not as frequently as the version suggested by 217.233.212.148. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not just an organist

"Organist" has just been changed to include "harpsichordist". Can I make a plea that we just retain what he was most famous for ("organist"); otherwise, we tread into a multitude of other performing skills he had: violinist, singer, conductor, harpsichordist, clavichordist, etc. It's too complicated for the lead. Tony 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded; please retain the "organist". I find the (now) new term "keyboard virtuoso" misleading; it reminds me of the 19th century piano virtuosos (Alkan, Liszt), who were completely different animals... -- Cyprinius

I agree with you both: the organ was the instrument on which his immense fame as a performer, and to a large degree as a composer, principally rests, and it's sufficient for the lead, where too much elaboration would do the reader a disservice. Antandrus (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing Forms

"Although he introduced no new forms..."

What about Brandenburg #5 mvt 1 as the first keyboard concerto with a cadenza? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.181.214 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Also, I find the phrase "new form" to be very subjective. Could Das Wohltemperierte Clavier be a "new form?" I believe that there were prior works by earlier composers which used a similar scheme of pieces in all 12 keys, but none of them is really worthy of comparison to Das Wohltemperierte Clavier. Perhaps "new forms" are those which many major composers adopted later. That would seem to be a strange qualification, since perhaps the reason the form has not been repeated is that very few composers, or even no composer, in history would have had the skill and inspiration to do so. User Sumthinelse "iter praemium est" 02:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This sentence just popped out at me as being inappropriate, and I suggest taking it out. I can't prove that he introduced new forms, but it just seems denigrating to one of the half-dozen greatest musicians who ever lived and who is referred to later in the article as arguably the "father of all music." -Larry Siegel

Nothing wrong with introducing no new forms. Which ones did Mozart introduce? Or Schubert? Or Brahms? The forms that define Bach's output were fugue, chorale prelude, cantata, concerto. Now, if you want to be very fine-grained about form, you could make a case, but the marvel of his phenomenon is his bringing together the prevailing forms and textures from several European traditions into the height of the Baroque. Bach's innovations occurred within these established macro-forms. TONY (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Graphic

Am I alone in finding this graphic a bit strange? Its placement on the page seems a bit odd as it is the second thing you see and I wonder if one of the autographed MS or something more illustrative of Bach's career might be more appropriate. Second, the lines connecting the cities imply a journey, not residences. Third, it is not very helpful since it does not contexualise these places wrt locations that readers might be more familiar with. A map showing the old boundaries of the HRE and principal cities with those where Bach lived I think would be more useful. Eusebeus 10:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this view. Tony 11:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fine really...while it's an odd graphic, at least you get to see where he went. Gautam Discuss 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera

I am very sure that Bach composed at least one opera, the one coming to my mind is Adam and Eve. How come there isn't any reference. Gautam Discuss 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he did not. Clavecin 12:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


You may be thinking of his youngest surviving son J.C. Bach who composed 14 operas (http://opera.stanford.edu/Bach/). Jzuzphreek

[edit] Adding and Article

To start an article on one of Bach's works, does it have to have some monumental value? For instance, If I were to start Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543, would it be deleted, for it is just one of Bach's many prelude and fugues, and nothing really to tell about it. I could tell about it's musical structure, and how Lizts copyed it, etc. Or little fugue in g minor. Can someone tell me, for I would like to start some of those articles. A.P. 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All of those deserve articles, if they do not have them already, so by all means go ahead and do it! Make sure the lead paragraph includes a concise statement of the work's significance, and make sure to cite your sources. Have fun! Antandrus (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone here—is it Jashiin or Sesquialtera II?—has a rather good recording of his own performance of this work, which he might allow to be used to illustrate the article. Tony 11:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] seinen Reichen

It's correct; my original goof—sorry. Tony 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for creation of articles on individual Bach compositions

Hello - for people who are thinking of creating articles on Bach's compositions (many, including major works, do not have an article as of yet) - here are a few suggestions.

Every Bach composition should have its own article, though it is sensible to begin with putting definite collections together in one article - e.g. French suites, English suites, well-tempered clavier, clavier-ubung 3, and so on. Every cantata should have its own article.

The title format for each article should be its name followed by BWV number in most cases - e.g. Prelude and Fugue in C major, BWV 531 - this makes it clear it is by Bach and also exactly which composition it refers to, in the commonly denoted way. In multiple-title names, it should be e.g. Partitas, BWV 825-830 - properly with a long-dash in the middle. For very well-known titles, such as 'well-tempered clavier' (and when Bach is clearly the only one to have written a piece with the title), the BWV numbers can be omitted. I've used (J. S. Bach) as a modifier for 'harpsichord concertos' because they are not continuous in BWV numbers and are not a unified set - so these naming rules can be modified where it is sensible to do so.

In each case, the BWV number should also be made as a redirect to the article in question: e.g. BWV 531 should redirect to Prelude and Fugue in C major, BWV 531. This makes linking to Bach compositions extremely easy - just use the BWV number - when otherwise confusion might arise about what the exact title was. It also makes it easier to find the article direct through a search.

In the case of multiple articles, each BWV number should be linked in a similar way to the title - so for Brandenburg Concertos, I've linked BWV 1046 and BWV 1047 and so on up to BWV 1051, all to the article. Only when the multiple articles get too long should there be an article about each piece in a unified set - and we are nowhere near this stage yet on any of the collections.

In writing articles on individual compositions, the use of pictures of musical examples, especially of important themes, etc., should ideally be included - see Sonata on the 94th Psalm for an example of how I've done this. As the music is public domain in most editions, this can be easy to capture with picture editing software or a camera. A good source of imformation for writing articles on the cantatas will be http://www.bach-cantatas.com/ Clavecin 12:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Two issues. (1) I don't think all of his works deserve separate articles. There are junenilia such as those tedious little preludes and fugues for organ that would be hard to write useful articles about, individually. (2) Scanning modern editions of notational examples may infringe copyright. Older copyrigh-expired editions will be infused with unacceptable romantic editorial practices. Tony 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections of detail

I am sorry to enter the argy-bargy on this page at a late stage, having followed it sporadically over the years. The net effect of it all has not been to improve the article in any notable way, even if minor details have been corrected. However, it all pales in comparison with the discussions on the equivalent German page, where, however, one or two sensible contributors have pointed out the immense difficulty of reaching agreement on practically anything concerning great cultural icons that raise passionate feelings in both the knowledgeable and those less so. Overall, I think the article in its present form is not misleading and serves perfectly well as an introduction to JSB, especially as there are references to a number of major biographies. However, I have my own little list of details that continue to irritate me:

Johann Christoph's forbidding the copying of a book of keyboard pieces: Yes, this must have happened, and the source can only be Bach himself, as related to his son CPE. But it cannot have been a general embargo on copying, as the text seems to suggest. This would have been quite inconsistent with Bach's educational progress and with the very good relations he maintained with his brother until the latter's death. The contents of the Müller ms. and the Andreas Bach Buch, compiled by Johann Christoph, shows that Bach must have supplied him with numerous ms. works, this being quite inconsistent with any huffy attitude extending over a prolonged period. My own guess is that Johann Christoph got temporarily annoyed because his very much younger and excessively brilliant brother was on to his new ms. before he himself, with all his official duties and financial worries, could get down to studying it.

Bach's journey to Lüneburg with Erdmann just about coincided with his his 15th birthday, and there is all the difficulty with the Julian and Gregorian calendars, Ohrdruf and Eisenach using the one and Lüneburg the other, etc., etc. As Bach was 15 by the time he started at St. Michael's, I find it strange to see the age of 14 mentioned - even if the scholarship could be regarded as having been awarded beforehand.

"Visited ... Nicolaus Bruhns ... in Hamburg": the text implies that Bach actually met Bruhns. This could not be so, as Bruhns had already been dead for some years, and Bach could not have met Bruhns as a child, as there is no record of their ever having travelled to the same place at the same time. However, while Bach was at Lüneburg, he is very likely to have met both Reinken and Buxtehude during his trips to Hamburg, and I believe that Bach's acquaintance with, and no doubt ms. copies of their works, including works by Bruhns, stem from this period, not from his later visit to Lübeck. Some of the ms. copies of works by Buxtehude were then transmitted to Johann Christoph in Ohrdruf.

"Serious composition of organ preludes" at Arnstadt: Obviously Bach must have done serious composition of organ preludes at Arnstadt, but it is very difficult to determine which ones, be they chorale preludes or free compositions. The dating of his early works is very difficult. His development from the age of 15 to 23 must have been explosive. The Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor appears in the Andreas Bach Buch: it may have been written in Arnstadt. But if we look at the early chorale preludes, those most definitely attributable to Arnstadt are NOT characterized by tight motivic control; they are the ones with the highly chromatic harmonies and rapid interpolations between lines, thought to be the source of a complaint against Bach. The others are a mystery - perhaps including some of the chorale preludes in the Neumeister collection. This collection contains chorale preludes that could have been written in Ohrdruf (e.g. those modelled on Pachelbel or Johann Michael Bach), Lüneburg (modelled on Böhm and Buxtehude) and Arnstadt (with more use of pedal). Tight motivic control is not a notable feature except in the bicinia - rather, the works are characterized by an imaginative and creative force that far exceeds the compositional technique.

The text says that Böhm passed on a decidedly North German influence to Bach, but I would dispute the accuracy and usefulness of such a statement. It assumes that the major organists in that part of Germany all formed a cohesive artistic school, writing similar works in similar forms and in a similar style. This may apply to some, but not to Böhm. He was the odd one out, coming from Thuringia like Bach, and adopting very different styles and forms from, say, Buxtehude and Reinken. Böhm is in fact notable for his chorale variations, his very sparing use of pedal (his organ not having independent pedals until a much later rebuild), and a style that is decidedly more tuneful and populist than Buxtehude or Reinken ever were in their organ music. The style that Böhm passed on to Bach was not "North German", but his own. If there is a "North German" style, it would have to include, among other things, the virtuosic use of pedal, stylus phantasticus interludes, the occasional use of the sharpened subdominant in "Lydian" cadences, and so on. Even here, the individual members usually included in the "school" differ quite sharply from each other, Weckman, for example, being massive and angular, Buxtehude refined by comparison and hardly ever using double pedal. By the way, Weckman's influence on Bach has been ignored. He certainly had Bach's later interest in Zarlino canons, something that the other North German organists on the whole ignored, and Bach's occasional massive pleno effects seem to owe more to Weckman than to anyone else. Could Bach have had access to the Weckman mss. at Lüneburg? However, this is speculative and obviously unsuited for inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

Visiting Buxtehude in Lübeck: the text gives two different dates for this visit, 1704 and 1705-6. I think the latter is closer. The purpose of the visit? That is now debated. Bach's answers at the court hearings in Arnstadt tended to be sullen, if not to say insolent. What did he mean by "To learn one or two things about my art"? To visit Buxtehude as a "father-figure of German organists"? Perhaps not: Bach already knew all about Buxtehude's organ music and it seems more probable that he visited him as a "father-figure" of the independent musical entrepreneur, organizing and raising money for major public concerts. This is what the much admired Handel and Johann Christian Bach later achieved in London (and the reason for CPE's comment on the contrast between his younger half-brother and the "honest old Veit" i.e. the humble amateur son of the soil).

"Lower keyboard ... fuller, louder tone ... upper keyboard with aa more delicate tone": This is not precise enough, and needs to be more technical. It also depends on how the organ concerned is arranged. The lower keyboard may be the Rückpositiv, in which case it is not fuller and louder, but more likely sharper and closer; the upper keyboard may then be the Hauptwerk or Oberwerk, fuller but more distant. Designations in the ms. sources vary: often the contrast is between Positiv and Oberwerk.

The text implies that all 48 preludes and fugues were written at Weimar. I do not think this is correct. The first collection of 24 was, but the second was composed later and written or at least finalized in Leipzig.

I do not like the numerological speculations in the text. You can do anything with numbers, numbers of notes, numbers of entries, numbers of movements, until you find something that seems significant. While Bach had the skill to do anything of that nature if he had wanted to, there is no evidence that he had that type of interest. His interest in canons and ingenious counterpoint is of course a fact, and his works show that he is a master of Figurenlehre and Affektenlehre. He also liked to sign his name with the notes BACH at the end of a few of his later keyboard works. But numerology - no. Sei gegrüsset is a composition that stretches over a long period, from beginnings under Böhm's influence in Lüneburg to additions decades later. The total number of variations cannot signify a master and 11 disciples, because there had to be 12 disciples, and Judas was immediately replaced. It is just a great set of chorale variations, every number being a hit.

"Vor deinen Thron' is not Bach's final work, but a revision in minor detail of a chorale prelude that was composed decades earlier at Weimar. Numerological speculations are inappropriate. See Christoph Wolff's cogent article on the chorale prelude. Wolff also argues that the final fugue of the Art of Fugue is only incomplete because Bach had already composed the ending and his heirs failed to find the right piece of paper.

Equally, it is wrong to say that the "Great 18" chorale preludes were composed at Leipzig. They were composed at Weimar and revised at Leipzig.

A box at the top of this page mentions articles on Bach in Wikipedias in Astur-Leonés (a Spanish language cultivated by a small number of local linguists), what one might call mainstream Spanish (Castilian), and various other languages, as possible sources of information for inclusion in the present text. Unfortunately, these Spanish versions are chiefly summaries derived from the present English text, right down to some of the errors I have pointed out (e.g. Bach meeting Bruhns). The box does not mention the long article in the German Wikipedia, which is independent of the present text, and does provide some additional information. It has given rise to endless controversy over minor details and in its present form has been denied status as a good article, though it started out as a reasonably cohesive text.

In the present state of Wikipedia writing and argumentation, I do not consider myself qualified to enter my proposed corrections in the present text, but offer them for the consideration of experienced editors for possible use. Uttenthal, Salamanca.87.49.96.9 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where Are Your Sources???

"his Art of Fugue, which is considered by many to be the greatest theoretical piece of music of all time,"

First of all, what sources do you (whoever added the above line) have to support this line? Second, there are many works by many composers that "many" (how many is "many"?) people would consider to be the greatest of all time, so I don't think the above line really tells us much, in addition to it being totally unsupported. Thus, I don't think this above line is needed. Spartan1


[edit] Legacy

There are a lot of citations that don't have references...shouldn't they be there in the text????Worlfel2007 05:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Worlfel2007

[edit] Size of Keyboard Concerto

Is there any particular reason why this concerto is of such inordinate size? Both of the fast movements surpass 11 megabytes, and the slow movement is more than nine. The file size may be of no great concern to broadband users, but don't forget about dial-up users. I was under the impression that ogg files are smaller than others such as mp3, wma, and aac , but my recording is smaller by quite a bit. The other files are rather large, also. Am I missing something?? Vlmastra 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But what we're missing is the identity of the concerto. Can you oblige? JackofOz 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much the identity of the concerto that bothers me, but the fact that it's played on 19th/20th-century instruments, including the use of piano solo rather than harpsichord. While I don't feel strongly enough to remove it, if a better equivalent came along that was free of copyright issues, I'd vote to replace the current recording.Tony 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The current recording of which concerto? What is the "this concerto" that Vlmastra is asking about? JackofOz 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to revive this discussion, but I only just found it again. The recording in question is that of Harpsichord Concerto No. 1 in D minor, BWV 1052, listed under the Media section, played by the Fulda Symphonic Orchestra under Simon Schindler.
Mvt. 1, 11.1 MB.
Mvt. 2, 9.49 MB.
Mvt. 3, 11.42 MB.
I also agree with the comment about the historicity. Not that I have a problem with modern strings, winds, and so forth, but replacing a harpsichord with a piano is a bit of a stretch compared to replacing a baroque violin with a modern one, since they don't sound similar at all. However, I am sure that the scarcity of free recordings would make finding a better representation of the original concerto difficult.--Vlmastra 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to cause trouble, here are the three movements of BWV 1052 on piano & YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-KyL2gMxV8 1. Allegro -- 09:09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5vQO1Uw90k 2. Adagio -- 07:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP03KUAauWU 3. Allegro -- 09:02
in an early performance by Glenn Gould. I expect these are pretty big, I've not tried to save them, but I do have a high-speed connection. I'm obviously not a stickler for authenticity, but I think Old Bach might have enjoyed them, and have always regarded the D minor as the first great romantic piano concerto (does anyone know if the cadenza in the 1st movement was actually written by Bach? It could be Busoni for all I know) -- even though the piano was hardly invented at the time. Wonder if he might have thought better of the piano-forte that he played for Frederick II if he had known what it would develop into? BTW, there is a treasure trove of stuff accumulating on YouTube that I had not known about until lately; note especially Pablo Casals' 1st Cello suite. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J. S. vs. JS

Looking through the archives, there has been a minor amount of discussion on this topic, but I have found a Wikipedia guideline on the subject here. I realize, of course, that things like NATO, BBC, NASA, and so on, are not spelled using dots, however in names the rules are very different. For example, see such articles as C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkein, or J. K. Rowling (the examples that come to mind quickly). Who would write it "JK Rowling" or "JRR Tolkein" (excluding internet shorthand, mind you)? I believe the use of dots for the initialization of names is quite established, and quite separate from acronyms. --Vlmastra 00:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, not to drive it in the ground (since grammar is enjoyed by a surprising few), but see the article on Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach for more initialism. :) --Vlmastra 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You're American, are you? Some Americans still seem to be keen to dot everything, including the initials for their country's name. This article is in not written in AmEng; although some non-US writers still use dots after initials, and indeed some scholarly journals still insist on it, many don't. Here, the practice of not doing so is established. And I'm unsure why you'd prefer JRR Tolkein to jay dot space ar dot space r dot space Tolkein. Makes it look like code, and is slightly harder to read, I'd say (I did my PhD in the psychology of reading). Tony 00:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you not see the style page? Are we not supposed to follow those? Oh, and the intialism J. S. Bach with dots is far more common in all forms of formal written English. You will never see "JS Bach" in a dictionary or encyclopedia or book. (PS- I believe our edits collided in time, sorry about that) --Vlmastra 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe (in fact I know) that there are many other examples on WP of no dots. I'm unsure that you're correct that dotting is far more common in formal registers, although in the US, that may be true. This is not American text. Or should I have written W.P.? And your preference for the space as well is not at all agreed on in formal text. Tony 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
A few things: In all my edits, there was no space in J.S. (unless I missed something by accident). Two, please don't confuse acronyms with name abbreviation; they are quite separate. Examples like NATO, BBC, and NASA are obviously correct, but in name abbreviation the use of dots is well established. Let me again point out examples like C. P. E. Bach and J. K. Rowling (who is English, yet always uses those dots on her books!). Third, citing Wikipedia for use of dots (or for anything else) is the wrong thing to do, since it is that very use on Wikipedia that we are debating. You can't cite one article on Wikipedia as evidence for another. Fourth, I'm not sure why my nationality keeps reappearing in this discussion. --Vlmastra 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to establish the use of dots in the specific case of Bach, therefore I am appealing to a non-US source. This is a quotation from Grove encyclopedia at [1]:

It is conceivable, on the other hand, that after publication the count received a copy of the work for the use of his young resident harpsichord player Johann Gottlieb Goldberg, who was a pupil of both J.S. and W.F. Bach.

The preference is clear in that source: in addition to this occurrence of J.S. Bach, there are tons of other initialisms following the very same format. And in addition to being well respected in the field, that is an English publication, is it not? Well? Still not convinced? *sigh...* :( --Vlmastra 00:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just my two-penn'orth: I am not American, but still receive a slight jolt when I read "JS Bach", and have a personal preference for "J. S." (with space). Was he known as "JS" in his lifetime? Or is "JS" a modern retrospective shorthand designation? If we have a naming convention (like the one Vlmastra points to), oughtn't it be followed? (By the way, I get the same jolt if I see "WG Grace", and, pace Tony, I think that "J. R. R. Tolkein" is easier to read than "JRR Tolkein".)--RobertG ♬ talk 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do what you will, then; but you'll have to put in about 30 dots through the article, to be consistent. They make it look so ugly; I hate them; I can't see the point (no pun). But if that's what people want ...Tony 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
For general edification, this is a much fuller list of people referred to this way. -- JackofOz 08:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
For a start, it's not even consistent: some have spaces, some don't. I can't take much store by such a list. Tony 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've given all the initials dots. I decided to add a space between first and middle initial just so they are all alike, but that part is still unresolved, so if anyone feels strongly either way they can discuss it here. I personally think they are more or less visually equivalent, but we had better choose one or the other for the sake of consistency. --Vlmastra 12:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If we have to have the dots, can they please be unspaced? Tony 12:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
However, guidelines are once again at odds with this. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions. Quote: H. G. Wells and not H.G. Wells or HG Wells --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks: I'll be paying them a visit soon to work through that one. Enforcing spaces is bizarre. Tony (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Having looked further into this matter, I see that H. G. Wells" is recommended WRT article titles in the example linked to. At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) I see no rule about dotting and spacing in general. I note that in some varieties of English, the dots have been dropping out of name initials over the past two decades, and that some house styles, including that of OUP, insist on no dots and no internal spaces (e.g., JS Bach"). Tony (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How many children survived to adulthood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.77.101 (talk)

[edit] Minuets?

In the Suzuki method volume 1 for violin, there are a series of three minuets by Bach entitled, "Minuet 1", "Minuet 2" and "Minuet 3". I can't seem to find any pieces by these names in this article. Can anyone give me a pointer? Much appreciated. Ronnotel 13:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that they are arrangements of keyboard minuets in the Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach. Strad 17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
MIDI files are widely available online, and sheet music can also be found for most of Bach's works. I would recommend comparing these sources against the book. It is worth noting that many of the minuets in that book (or those two, as it were) are by other members of the Bach family including Anna Magdalena, J. C. and C. P. E., and sometimes family friends. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
For reference, ere's a full list with sources of the works in volume 1 of the Violin Suzuki method, which contains the Bach minuets. Also, here's a full list of all the works in the Suzuki piano method - volume 2 contains five minuets either written by Bach or collected in the Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach, some of which were arranged for violin by Suzuki. I got quite far in Suzuki piano - as far as I remember, most of the early violin works in the Suzuki method also have piano accompaniment. Graham87 09:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QUESTION . . .

I am sorry for such a stupid question ... J.S.Bach did not write any symphonies?--Lycantrophe 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't. The orchestral "symphony" as we now understand it was an invention of the Classical era. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha. And did he do some works for an orchestra?--Lycantrophe 10:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please restrict postings here to discussions on how to improve the article. It's not a general talkfest on Bach. Tony (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have no intention of contributing to this discussion, please stay out of it.

Can somebody tell me, please, some Bach's works for orchestra, if he did some?--Lycantrophe 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is here in the article. Please read the article before you ask a question. Oda Mari (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.--Lycantrophe 08:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy correction

Although Bach had twenty children, only seven survived infancy. This is not what is stated earlier in the article (10 children). I know it is a small thing, but it is inconsistent within the article itself. I did not change it because I wanted to run it by those that have some investment in this page. 71.103.14.90 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bach is Back

There's an aniBOOM video on youtube, it's a music video called Bach is Back. I don't know the second song that was played in the piano but i think it's a piece by Johann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy2k7 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It definitely isn't. I'd say it's Schubert or later. Strad 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Influential" vs "Great"

The lead concludes with: "Nevertheless, Bach is now considered one of the most famous and influential composers of all time." I understand there's an effort being made to be neutral, but it doesn't seem like "fame" and "influence" are something that can be "considered". One either is or isn't famous and influential; J.S. is most certainly both, and he remains so whether or not some outlier can be found that "considers" him obscure and forgotten. Would it be so wrong to state: "Nevertheless, Bach is widely considered one of the greatest composers of all time..."? While arguably subjective, a claim like that is possibly even verifiable (e.g. via polling of musicians, composers, critics, general population, whomever). It certainly reflects accurately one of the major associations people have with the name and music of Bach. In fact, considering the distinctly non-contrapuntal direction music took in the 18th and 19th centuries, "one of the greatest" is possibly an even more appropriate characterization than "one of the most influential" (not that his influence is limited to the use of counterpoint, of course). An alternative option might be to remove "is considered," though the logical sequence of the last paragraph is then compromised. I hesitate to make any changes myself without discussion. Best - Eliezg 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, it once read "one of the greatest". Don't remember why it was removed, though. Strad 04:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The previous text was better. Tony (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I revised the last paragraph of the lead somewhat. Hope it meets approval. Best, Eliezg 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] distance Arnstadt-Weimar is just about 35 km

The distance Arnstadt-Weimar is just about 35 km.

59.166.55.156 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bach Festivals

I wonder why Festivals of Leipsic (http://www.bach-leipzig.de), Ansbach (http://www.bachwocheansbach.de) and the youngest: Montreal (http://www.bach-academie-montreal.com) are not mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.7.115 (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Correction (Leipzig)

In the fifth paragraph on Leipzig, the article mentions Bach's compositions of the 1750's. Am I the only one who is under the impression that Bach spend the 1750's being quite dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iotium (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected this, thanks for noticing. Funny, its already the second after-death experience :) in this article (the first one was a mention of Bach meeting Nicolaus Bruhns in early 1700s, whereas Bruhns died in 1697). Jashiin (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That must explain the Art of the Fugue. I always thought the dating was suspicious. Eusebeus (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Er, where? The Art of the Fugue is from 1749; first published in 1751, posthumously. Or was it a joke on your part that I didn't get :( Jashiin (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was just a joke. Tough crowd. Eusebeus (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three things I hate about academics

1) They're pedantic. 2) They're inflexible. 3) They can't see the forest for the trees.

I think the indvidual to whom this rant is directed will immediately recognize himself upon reading it.

BTW, venerable is not an "attitudinal epithet," at least not where I call home. The word signifies longevity and (usually) wisdom in the case of old-timers. Only a stuffed-shirt would think otherwise.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bigdumbdinosaur, please be sure your comments are directed at the contribution, not the contributors. You can visit WP:NPA - an official policy of Wikipedia - for guidelines. Unless it was meant to be ironic of funny, your response to the edit here certainly appears extreme, especially since another editor might have questioned the extent to which the information provided in your contribution at all informs an article about Bach. Please consider mollifying your tone in the future. By the way, even if "venerable" weren't considered an unsourced opinion, conferring wisdom and longevity to an obsolete sound board chip is not the sort of anthropomorphism Wikipedia typically deals in.
That said, I am curious as to how one is to know whether the spelling on a page is supposed to be British or American. My own attitude is not to worry too much about it, since most articles (this one included) have much more serious problems. The nature of the admonition in the comment "do NOT use US zeds" seems a bit overemphatic, considering that where I'm from we're taught that NOT to use ZEE's is simply wrong. Both are obviously accepted variants, and there's no way a casual contributor can be expected to know what the local standard is. In the future it might be better to just quietly change them, if one is really concerned about consistency, without the EMPHATIC CAPS. Best, Eliezg (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I expect casual editors to read the note at the top: it's quite clear. I suppose I've become tired of correcting the zedding, which makes the article inconsistent and is in breach of the rules concerning varieties of English at MOS. As for the personal attack, well, I won't dignify it with a response. Tony (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm something less than a casual editor, but I have no idea what note you're talking about. Can you point it out please? thanks, - Eliezg (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
2)This article is written in British English, including maximised use of "-ise" and its variants, as opposed to "-ize". —Sesquialtera II (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
WHERE is this note? Am I blind? I've scoured this page and the main page, executed multiple searches for "British" and "English" and "-ise" on so one and so forth and aside from a British opthamologist and the English Suites, do not see a note anywhere. Is this a browser thing? A random Wikipedia bug? I have a creepy twilight-zoney feeling that everyone knows something that I don't. Help! - Eliezg (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Click "edit" on the article; it's on line 6 (on my browser). Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I had never come across commented-out guidelines leading articles before. It's quite a handy system ... but they're not much help when you edit a section separately - which is presumably much more likely in an article of this size/scope. - Eliezg (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed: I think you just pointed out the reason most people don't see the guideline. Usually it's an innocent mistake, inadvertently using the "wrong" flavour of English. Antandrus (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not an academic. Tony (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m a professional editor and research consultant. My doctoral dissertation was in the psychology of music reading, including the roles of working memory and eye movement. I work with researchers and academics in their preparation of grant applications for competitive research funding. Sounds like an academic to me. <Smile>

Nope. Never published a jot. I don't teach; I don't research. Doesn't sound like it to me. <not smile> Tony (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style section

Much of the "Style" section in this article is unsourced and some of the material seems a little bit speculative or reflecting one of several possible interpretations. For example the following:

“ Bach’s apparently devout, personal relationship with the Christian God in the Lutheran tradition and the high demand for religious music of his times inevitably placed sacred music at the centre of his repertory. ”

While I have no doubt in Bach's personal relationship with the Lutheran God, I would question the "inevitability" of the "central role" of sacred music. My impression has always been that the genres that he composed in were primarily dependent on his professional obligations at any given time. He appears to have been perfectly content at Weimar and Cöthen composing secular music, and the enormous output of cantatas and motets were primarily a function of his inescapable duties at Leipzig. Also:

1) Use of terms like "is evident" (used three times) are borderline weasely.
2) "according to most critics and historians" would be more believable if any were cited.
3) terms like "cherished role as teacher" (I was under the impression teaching at the Tomaskirche was a bit of a burden) and "inner personal drive" are speculative

The passage is well-written and informative, but it feels like it came from a single source with a particular point of view. It is possible that the section represents a canonical interpretation - I'm not really in a position to contest anything specific - but sources are absolutely necessary in any case. Anyways, that's why I slapped that tag on. Best, Eliezg (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be revised—rewritten, even—with references to a few authoritative sources. However, it's not an easy topic to summarise from other sources. 11:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Tony (talk)

[edit] Unworthy article intro is a shame!

The current lead part of the article very much belittles JSB. He is undoubtedly one of the most important artists in human history and probably the single greatest one, owing to three factors:

1., Genetics. This one sounds nasty, but JSB fact he had at least 250 years of music-performing ancestry, several hundred people of the greater Bach family. (The first-ever identified Bach owned a river floor-mill in Hungary during King Matthias Corvinus' reign and played instruments as an additional source of income.) You cannot become a great musician without supporting genetics, because musical talent is known to inherit via the man-little-gene process.

2., Long life and diligence. Bach lived relatively long compared to the period's averge and composed tirelessly between ages 15 to 65. That is hard to match, since most artists are moody and whimsical, rather than industrious. In fact "normality" is generally considered XOR with outstanding artistic talent.

3., Peace. Bach never heard a gun fire in anger and the peaceful, calm period he lived in allowed the spending of money on arts and culture instead of military. There has never been a similar lenght total peace period since Bach's time. War and general unrest greatly hinder an artist's work, e.g. Beethoven had to feed on dead horses when he was in Wien, besieged by Napoleon's troops.

These factors are unlikely to combine ever again, therefore making JSB the greates ever musician (and possibly any kind of artist) for the past and future of mankind.

The article relates on none of these and makes JSB appear as non-outstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.12.110 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are examples of great musicians and composers who did not have any musicians or composers among their ancestors. Johann Pachelbel and Samuel Scheidt, for instance (and so you can become a great musician without "supporting genetics"). And the vast majority of great composers had only a few musician/composer ancestors (usually their father and, sometimes, their grandfather). Similarly, there were many composers who lived longer than Bach did. Johann Adam Reincken is a famous example. There's no connection between how long a person lives and how good their music is. Diligence was something required of any church organist; at the time, composers were frequently required to compose chorale preludes literally every day, cantatas for every weekend, etc. Bach was lucky; much of his music survived. Others were not so lucky, with roughly 25% of what Buxtehude wrote surviving, some 50% of Pachelbel's oeuvre, some 50 pieces out of a thosand that Buttstett wrote, etc. Finally, war and general unrest did not greatly hinder Pablo Picasso's work, or Johann Froberger's. I might be mistaken, but Dieterich Buxtehude also "never heard a gun fire in anger" (and lived longer than Bach.) You may think that Bach was "undoubtedly one of the most important artists in human history", but an encyclopedia presents facts, not opinions. The fact is that Bach is currently considered by many to be one of the most important composers of the Western tradition, and this is noted in the lead.

And if you want my opinion, JSB was undoubtedly oustanding. So were Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Froberger, Sweelinck, Cornet, Orlando di Lasso, Josquin, Ockeghem, de Machaut, as well as Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Cage, Xenakis and Stockhausen. --Jashiin (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


I agree that the introduction does not do any justice to Bach, but not for the same reasons mentioned above. The first para has a defensive 'although' and the 'one of the most important composers...' does not come in until the end of the third. If we assume a reader knows nothing about Bach while reading this, he or she does not know that he is one of the greatest until well into the article. Cribananda (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have slightly mixed feelings. Greatness in music or other art is not quite a "fact" in the sense of, say, facts of history or science. It lives in human hearts. Thus it cannot be objectively established, except in some dreary tabulation of opinions of experts. I recall reading a book, I think the title was "Men of Music", perhaps by Newman?, of short bios and oeuvres of the major composers, that flatly called the B minor mass "the greatest work of art in human history" (if I recall the wording), which is almost embarrassing; though I would agree based on my own limited view of culture. Albert Schweitzer, great in his own right, in his "J.S. Bach", Volume 1, Chapter XV, wrote of WTC,

The Well-tempered Clavichord is one of those works by which we can measure the progress of artistic culture from one generation to another. When Rochlitz met with these preludes and fugues at the beginning of the nineteenth century, only a few of them really appealed to him. He placed a tick against these, and was astonished to find how the number of these ticks increased as he played the works. If some one had told this first of Bach prophets that in another hundred years every musically-minded man would have regarded each piece in the collection as perfectly easy to comprehend, he would hardly have believed it.

The fact that the work today has become common property may console us for the other fact that an analysis of it is almost as impossible as it is to depict a wood by enumerating the trees and describing their appearance. We can only repeat again and again -- take them and play them and penetrate into this world for yourself. Aesthetic elucidation of any kind must necessarily be superficial here. What so fascinates us in the work is not the form or the build of the piece, but the world-view that is mirrored in it. It is not so much that we enjoy the Well-tempered Clavichord as that we are edified by it. Joy, sorrow, tears, lamentation, laughter -- to all these it gives voice, but in such a way that we are transported from the world of unrest to a world of peace, and see reality in a new way, as if we were sitting by a mountain lake and contemplating hills and woods and clouds in the tranquil and fathomless water.

Nowhere so well as in the Well-tempered Clavichord are we made to realize that art was Bach's religion. He does not depict natural soul-states, like Beethoven in his sonatas, no striving and struggling towards a goal, but the reality of life felt by a spirit always conscious of being superior to life, a spirit in which the most contradictory emotions, wildest grief and exuberant cheerfulness, are simply phases of a fundamental superiority of soul. It is this that gives the same transfigured air to the sorrow-laden E flat minor prelude of the First Part and the care-free, volatile prelude in G major in the Second Part. Whoever has once felt this wonderful tranquility has comprehended the mysterious spirit that has here expressed all it knew and felt of life in the secret language of tone, and will render Bach the thanks we render only to the the great souls to whom it is given to reconcile men with life and bring them peace.

Also embarrassing to my degraded modern ear! Yet true enough to my spirit. It seems somehow fitting that the claims made for Bach in the intro are modest, for he was rather modest himself. I recall also a quote of his, from long ago that I also cannot source, that "anyone who worked as hard as he" would have done as well. And so his legacy lay fallow for the better part of a century before being rediscovered. The only way to appreciate Bach's true greatness is to listen to it, play it if you can, and take it into your own heart, as Schweitzer suggests. No report of any expert can substitute for this experience. Wwheaton (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Clavier", not "clavichord"—quite different. TONY (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I think that is how it was translated in the edition of Schweitzer I have. Wwheaton (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few proposed corrections

In the Leipzig section it is mentioned that Bach improvised a fugue on Frederick's pianoforte. However, if my history lessons serve me, at that period it would have been a fortepiano, an earlier, but still quite different incarnation of the modern piano.

Later, in the same section, it mentions Bach's surgery by John Taylor. Specifically, it mentions how Taylor operated unsuccessfully on Handel. I had though Handel's surgery was successful.

I didnt make any of these corrections, as I am unsure of their correctness, so if someone in the know would verify any of these, the corrections could be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.39.188 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make a change regarding Taylor myself but noticed the page is locked. Why is it locked, by the way??? Anyway, Taylor was a charlatan. A self-aggrandizing fraud. One will never know for sure, but it is generally agreed that his surgery on Handel was not successful and it is even possible that complications arising out of his surgery on Bach caused the latter's death.

So there's something to fix.

And again - why in heaven's name is this page locked?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.222.236 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is semiprotected because anons were continually vandalising it, over years, with obscene language. Clearly teenage boys doing music class assignments. We all became very fed up with it. Are you going to register and log in; sounds as though you could make valuable contributions. TONY (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New reconstruction of Bach's face

Shouldn't we pay attention to the recent reconstruction of Bach's face, which is now added in the Bach museum in Eisenach?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3157170,00.html

[edit] Suggested Addition to "External Links"

There's an external link at the end of the "Counterpoint" article that strikes me as appropriate for listing in the "Johann Sebastian Bach" article as well. It's a link to the "Bach as Contrapuntist" chapter of a web book called Why Bach?. I found the chapter informative, and thought a link to it would be a useful addition to the "External Links/General Reference" list in the "Bach" article. Bald99 (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)