Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

Contents

[edit] German titles

... BWV244 - Matthäus-Passion BWV244b - Matthäus-Passion (the early version) BWV245 - Johannes-Passion BWV246 - Lukas-Passion BWV247 - Markus-Passion BWV248 - Weihnachts-Oratorium (Christmas Oratorio) BWV249 - Oster-Oratorium (Easter ...

In fact, in German you'd write all these words together: Matthäuspassion, Weihnachtsoratorium, etc.

Just thought you should know.

--anonymous

Ideally we'd have both the German and English on the page. Right now it's a mix, and not all of the German is correct, as you mention. Feel free to clean it up or add to it (St. Matthew Passion, St. John Passion, St. Luke and St. Mark which are lost ... ) Antandrus 18:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German or English titles?

Well, this is the English wikipedia, I think the specific titles (such as "BWV669 - Kyrie, Gott Vater in Ewigkeit") should be kept in German only (with popular engish titles paranthetically mentioned after where applicable, tho I can only think of this occuring for cantatas, which are on a different page), while generally descriptive titles like "BWV1068 - Orchestral Suite No. 3" should be kept in English. (To mention the "Air on the G-String" part of that work would require listing specific pieces of works as well, which is a LOT to do or even ask.) That is to say that titles only mentioning the kind of piece and the key should be in English. I think the passions should fall under this category also, listing "St. Matthew's Passion" rather than "Matthäuspassion." Now, section titles, I think should be in English only with parenthtical mention of the German when it is commonly used by English speakers, i.e. "Chorale preludes for organ (645-668)" is in English as it should be, but "Clavier Übung, III, bestehend in verschedenen Vorspielen über die Catechismus- und andere Gesaenge (per organo) (669-689)" could be in English first, with simply "('Clavier Übung, III')" listed after it, maybe; and it could say "'Little Organ Book' ('Orgel-Büchlein') (599-644)" rather than "Orgel-Büchlein ('Little Organ Book') (599-644)." I could do many of these changes but should wait for some kind of blessing here (ideally) as I'm by no means a Bach scholar. Also, I feel there should be an external link here to some online BWV catalogs. The best I've found is http://infopuq.uquebec.ca/~uss1010/catal/bacjs/bacjs.html, but it's in French when not in German, further confusing things. But it is much more in depth than this list. People could use the external link to expand the list here, too... - PJV 18 Feb 2005

I am not sure what the common practice is in english speaking countries, but in Germany the BWV numbers are written with a space, like "BWV 1", and not like "BWV1". --Mst 12:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the way we do it in English speaking countries, too. Funny, I never noticed that before. One day when I have a lot of time I'll go through and add the spaces. StradivariusTV 15:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the change. (I used a regular expression search and replace rather than doing it by hand.) —Caesura(t) 10:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional categories

I introduced a little more detail in the list, specified where Schübler Chorales and the "Great Eighteen" chorales are, and made the distinction between the partitas and the variations. I did this because I reckon people who aren't very experienced in the field will be confused when they see no mention of those titles in here.. It does clutter things up though so if you think it was uncalled for, feel free to revert to an earlier version. Jashiin 23:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Works for clavier and harpsichord

I suggest renaming this to "Works for harpsichord". I know that some of them were probably composed for clavichord, and that many are playable on an organ, but "clavier and harpsichord" just doesn't work - a harpsichord is also a clavier. "Works for clavier" is bad because clavier only has one sentence about the meaning of the word, and it will confuse the reader. "Works for keyboard"/"Other keyboard works" is also confusing: not only works playable on both organ and harpsichord are frequently referred to as works for keyboard, but also the reader shouldn't be tricked into thinking that French Suites are organ pieces, or that the Italian Concerto is meant for clavichord. Besides, there's enough confusion later in the list (where "clavier", "harpsichord", "keyboard instrument" and "basso continuo" all appear). I understand that "Works for harpsichord" isn't very accurate, but I reckon its the best way to avoid confusion. What do you think? Jashiin 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Works for harpsichord and other claviers"? ;) --Leo44 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure "claviers" is right, if you Google for it, you get lots of results in French! :) Anyway, wouldn't it be like saying "for harpsichord and other keyboard instruments"? Which includes organ and we're back where we started, people wondering why they don't see any CDs with French Suites performed on organ.. Jashiin 20:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Harpsichord it is then. --Leo44 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doubtful works / Anh. numbers

Should we maybe move these (along with reconstructed concertos) to a separate article? At least this article will be a little smaller. Jashiin 09:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to List of compositions BY Johann Sebastian Bach?

All similar articles use the "List of compositions by" format, not "List of compositions of". I suggest moving this article to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach.. any objections? Jashiin 19:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

These two articles are more or less identical. It would probably be more useful to put this one up for deletion as an unnecessary duplication and concentrate on the one with "by" in the title. Microtonal 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a 'by' article: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach redirects you to this one. ;) Markyour words 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops. My bad. I wasn't paying close enough attention. :) In that case, yes, this article should be moved to that location. Microtonal 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur that this should be moved to "by", and not remain at of". —Sesquialtera II (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, since apparently noone objects to moving Anh. numbers and reconstructed concertos to a separate article, I guess I'll move them to List of doubtful works by Johann Sebastian Bach (or List of doubtful or reconstructed works by Johann Sebastian Bach?) tomorrow. Again, does anyone have any objections? This is a large and major article, this is why I thought I'd ask twice before moving anything anywhere. Jashiin 19:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to having a separate article listing doubtful and spurious works, but they should not, under any circumstances be removed from the main list. Microtonal 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the cantatas are already in a separate article, and are not in this one (though there is a link to their article), that seems an odd position. Markyour words 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think they should not be removed? As Mark has already mentioned, the cantatas already have a separate article, just like songs, arias and chorale harmonizations. This kind of thing makes the main list shorter and easier to edit: you don't have to think about the size of the article when you add details about compositions or provide additional material for the lead, etc. Jashiin 08:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. The cantatas, chorales, songs, etc. are easy to remove because they're all in the same BWV range and they're all the same type of work. It's convenient and not at all confusing to list them in a separate article. That is demonstrably not the case with the doubtful/spurious works, since they're scattered all over the catalogue and they're not all of the same genre. Skipping catalogue numbers without explanation is confusing, and if you're going to explain each gap or omission (and I think you'd have to, to keep people from adding them back in), you might as well just list the works themselves. Having a separate list of spurious/doubtful works is a matter of encyclopedic interest, but breaking the main list to create it (instead of just creating convenient sub-lists, as with the others) is going to cause undue stress in the long run for everyone watching this article. Microtonal 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
No no no, I meant removing Anh. numbers and reconstructed concertos ONLY. Jashiin 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeez. I'm really having reading problems, aren't I? :) No, I don't object to that at all. As you were. Microtonal 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help Finding A Piece

Does anyone know what piece of music it is that starts off very soft, and right around the middle becomes very loud, surprising the audience with its unexpected-ness? I've been trying to find it for a while. I think that it is played on the keyboard, although I could be wrong. Artic fox1029384756 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

It may seem like a huge job and a visual burden, but I think red links are appropriate here for every single piece. For one, red links inspire editors to write an article on that subject, and secondly it provides peace-of-mind, knowing that there isn't an article on that subject, and no updates have occurred. Any objections before I begin this daunting task? AdamBiswanger1 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally definitely do not recommend this.
  1. Most of the titles are not unique. It is not reasonable to write an article about Bach's Prelude and Fugue in C major or Jesu, meine Freude.
  2. Despite this, there would be a tremendously huge number of articles to write. At least a product of the numbers of genres and tonalities Bach composed in.
  3. It is a Wikipedia editing principle that duplicate links should be avoided in an article.

--ThSoft 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, one may write articles about famous works, but always identified by their BWV #. These pages should have a redirect page, for example BWV 565 contains

#redirect Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565
Many, if not most, of Bach's works do not merit their own articles; see Wikipedia:Notability (songs) and Wikipedia:Notability (music); generally, pieces are only notable if they have been the subject of treatises, or are unusually popular, such as the major works listed in the Bach lead. Therefore, before creating redlinks, first determine if the piece in question is notable for a reason other than "it's by Bach." —Sesquialtera II (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BWV 578 — Fugue in G minor spurious? why? is there any evidence?

[edit] "Secular Cantatas" Category

I was confused, looking for the Coffee Cantata, to find only 249a and 249b under the category "secular cantatas" with Coffee and others lumped in under "cantatas" in general. Why was this done? Thanks. Dybryd 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minuet in D Minor

There are a few compositions missing... Minuet in D Minor, for one (or at least my Find tool can't find it). Would anybody happen to know where I should put it? My computer is identifying it as BWV Anh. 132, but it doesn't appear to be a Chorus piece.--Dreyfus 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This piece is actually there, if you scroll down to "Anna Magdalena's Notebooks". It's only listed as "Minuet" on this page, although it is called "Minuet in D minor" at Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BWV 543a and 543b

On the catalogue for Bach: The Complete Works, there's a BWV 543a and 543b (Praludium und Fuge a Moll)—a totally different piece to BWV 543 Prelude and Fugue in C Major, Fugue. I don't know much about the BWV system (or Bach, for that matter) but I just thought I should point it out. It might be important, it might not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.62.212.69 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Works in chronological order

I'm looking for a "complete" list of Bach's works in chronological order. Can anyone help? JackofOz 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Works

There are works of Bach we know existed (from various sources), but are now lost. Can we compile a list of these works? Gautam Discuss 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Every Bach composition should have its own article, though it is sensible to begin with that collections go 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 would 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 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 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BWV 566 Toccata and Fugue in E major "Spurious"?

Shouldn't "spurious" attributions require some justification or a reference? The article dedicated to BWV 566 makes no mention of spuriosity.--Septuagent 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)