Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 4 January 2006

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Composers Unassessed

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:FAOL

Archive

Recommended recordings for laypersons

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

Recommended by whom? - Fredrik | talk 18:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That's why we'd discuss it here first isn't it? -- Alassius (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Fredrik's point is that the list couldn't be a reccomendation by Misplaced Pages. We aren't in the opinion business. Paul August ☎ 19:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. However, a section on the most critically acclaimed recordings, with references and citations, would be appropriate. Fredrik | talk 20:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, my thought wasn't on something good but rather something easy. Lay people who's not familar with but is interested in Bach could use this. If you think it will cause problems, that's ok, although I'd call it overcautious =( -- Alassius (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Many such recommendations have been published elsewhere. If some of those can be hunted down and cited, that'd be excellent. Fredrik | talk 22:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

At least these should be recommended in the article: jesujoy, BWV 208, 565, 578vfox, 1068, 1080/I/5/Bergel, especially the latter three are most important. These are easily accessible to any untrained ear.

I can see this becoming a time-wasting sinkhole of needless arguing about different POV's. It might be best to refer people to references to books, of which there are a number on the market, on how to build a classical music recordings collection etc. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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

"Further reading" section need cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation of "Bach"

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

How large is the readership that (a) doesn't know how to pronounce Bach but (b) knows IPA? —Wahoofive (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But because its pronunciation might not be known for all readers, there's should be an explanation on how to say it. A lot of foreign languages-related articles (like Arabic and Hebrew) have this kind of explanation right next to the title, why not this german name? CG 20:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

sound excerpts

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

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

The clip for Air (BWV1068) is OGG but was obviously transcoded from a plain MIDI, so the copyright attribution in bogus. It's also kinda lame to have a big OGG file with only MIDI quality.

Sounds great to me. Those links were added before the Works section even existed. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The files are in ogg format, which is easiest to listen to with Winamp. Unfortunately, the files are quite large; it would be nice to have brief excerpts in the body of the article so that people can quickly get an idea of what a Bach cantata sounds like, and maybe the whole works could stay at the end. Mark 02:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

How long an excerpt are you looking at? I put the Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring.ogg up and it's 4402KB for a 21/2 minute piece. However, I could cut the file size in half (or more) by using a different compression. Would that be better than a excerpt? Both could still be available. CambridgeBayWeather 07:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It took me about 10 minutes to download a 6 megabyte movement, and my connection's not that bad. It would be nice to get it down to one or two megabytes (ideally be compressing more, failing which by excerpting). Mark 07:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

New opening

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

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

• Nice work; it now has a color and flair that most WP articles lack. Although you didn't write this, "all the strands of the Baroque style" is a little hyperbolic. Opera was a key invention of the Baroque and Bach did nothing with that. Oratorio was also pretty important and his contributions there were insignificant. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with "nice work". I value your new opening and appreciate your taking the time to write it. However, I do have a critical comment. I believe that this view of Bach as primarily a consummator of Baroque music, which musicologists agree does characterize one aspect of his achievement, downplays his role as a radical innovator and downplays the radical discontinuity between his music and all earlier Baroque music, his role as in effect the first modern composer, ranging from his fundamentally launching the era of equal temperament to that in his formal structures which influenced composers from Beethoven to Schoenberg and Webern (who felt driven to orchestrate Bach but not Vivaldi, Scarlatti, or Handel). Adorno discusses this issue in his essay "Bach Defended Against His Admirers" in his book Prisms. So it's not that I think that what you say is wrong, it's just that the introduction is currently missing this aspect of Bach. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Adorno isn't my favorite guy (musical criticism from a Marxist perspective leaves a bad taste in my mouth), and maybe that's a little exaggerated (equal temperament would have come in anyway), but I agree that we shouldn't downplay Bach's innovative side. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Just to make you rest easier,Adorno's essay about Bach isn't particularly Marxist. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Assessment of the sound excerpts

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

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

• Cantata 140 (appears to be a live concert performance)
  • Modern orchestra, unfortunately. 1st movement: It's very fast, even rushed, but I guess you get used to the pace. A certain 'boxiness' to the sound, and the first violin(s) is a little strident. 2nd movement: Organ/cello continuo sound not smoothly integrated; the tenor strains to reach the upper notes. 3rd movt: The soloists are pretty bad, especially the male. Ahem .... this is not acceptable, IMHO.Tony

• Chorale from Cantata 'Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben' BWV 147 (Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring)
  • Appears to be an electronic keyboard; wheezy and not very good (wrong notes in a few places).Tony

• Suite in e minor, BWV 996
  • This is a reasonable professional performance, but on a very strange harpsichord—sounds as though the buff stop is on, right through in every movement. Not recommended.Tony

• Keyboard Concerto No. 1 in d minor, BWV 1052
  • It's a quite a good, professional performance, but the solo part is played on a piano rather than a harpsichord, and there's little regard for performance practice. I could live with this recording if a more authentic one couldn't be found without copyright problems. Rather large files—first movement over 11 Mb. Tony

• Italian Concerto BWV 996
  • I listened to the first movement. At least it's on a harpsichord; pretty good performance, but the recording quality is wanting—rather closely miked, and almost no reverb. All a bit dry. Oh, and the harpsichord isn't wonderfully in tune. Tony

Partita No. 1 BWV 1013

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

new sound excerpts

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

footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sebastian as the preferred given name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For every reference you can provide that calls him "Sebastian", I can give you two others that call him "Johann Sebastian". When was the last time you went to a symphony concert where they played, eg. a Brandenburg Concerto by "Sebastian Bach"? When was the last time you bought a CD or sheet music containing works by "Sebastian Bach"? When was the last time ABC Classic FM referred to him as "Sebastian Bach"? The answer to all 3 questions is, never. It is always either "J S Bach", or the full "Johann Sebastian Bach", never just "Sebastian Bach". Neither Grove nor Slonimsky would agree with you (although they would probably acknowledge that he was called "Sebastian" in his own lifetime - I'd have to check). Cheers JackofOz 00:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with you 99%, Jack -- the only quibble is that Slonimsky, too, uses "Sebastian Bach" within the article (though not as the article title). But you're right about concert programs, sheet music, recordings, etc. —Wahoofive (talk)

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

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

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

vandalism

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

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

Dates of birth and death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony 07:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

First Paragraph

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

First, "arguably" is a weasel word. I've never heard the term "Master of the Fugue", although certainly his mastery of the craft is generally recognized. We'd need a citation for that. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your edits, now that I loook again. I don't really like the phrase "Master of the Fugue," to begin with. I think we're better without it. By the way, I meant no offense changing organisation to organization. Just personal preference and I am neutral about it.—Gaff 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Prison?

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

Use of translated work titles

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

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

Tony 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Cantatas at least should be in the original language- that seems to be the norm for titles of recordings. Mark 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the German titles are used so much in English-speaking countries-- e.g. when the cantatas being played on the radio, on CD's, in concert programs when they're being performed -- that the German titles should be preserved in the article for both their identifying function as well as for their educational function with regard to Bach. Someone who doesn't know German and to whom, on first reading the Bach article, "Wachet auf" means nothing, may find that it takes on meaning for them if they discover and come to love and know Bach. So I'm in favor of keeping the German titles. Many of the radio stations I've ever heard them on in the U.S. use the German titles in announcing them (even though they sometimes mispronounce them). A related question, which I find harder to answer, is whether the translations into English should be real or conventional. What I mean is that there are some conventions in English about the English titles that are inaccurate but that are used because, for example, they're taken from poetically rendered texts used for singing the cantatas in English. So, for example, "Wachet auf" really means "Wake up" or "Awaken", but the cantata is sometimes described as "Sleepers Wake", I think because it goes better with the first three notes of the chorale melody. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's important to make a distinction between a translation and an English version which must necessarily depart from the literal meaning in order to fit the poetic form. I'd vote to stay with the German in most cases; Mass in B minor is an exception, as is St. Matthew Passion. Remember, though, that Bach didn't really give his pieces titles the way an author titles his books; they were attached to the pieces at a later time. In the case of the cantatas, it's just the first line, the same way we title Renaissance motets. So there's no real argument for authenticity, but I agree with Jeremy that the German names of the cantatas are equally well-known, at least in America, and (unlike the English versions) the German titles are standardized. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

sound files

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

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

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

pruning of sound excerpts under 'Media'

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

Wendy Carlos etc.

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

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

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

Other keyboard works

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

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

I have always expected that eventually the sections on Bach's works would outgrow this article and be moved into separate articles, so the more, the merrier. Not paper. Good work, by the way. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The addition is good. However, my concern is that when it goes to the FAC page, there'll be criticism of the overall length—see the current complaints about Apple Macintosh. (I say this while acknowledging that my own contibutions over the last few weeks have increased the size). It's 52 Kb now, so perhaps we could be as concise as possible in accounting for the works. I have a mind to conflate a few of the shorter subsections: possibly 'Organ works' and 'Other keyboard works' (don't like relegating hpschd to 'other'), 'Chamber music' and 'Orchestral works', and 'Cantatas' and 'Large works' (not happy with that categorisation).

I plan to rewrite the 'Style' section soon; I think that this can be done without an increase in size. Tony 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I move we plan to complete the repertoire sections AND move them into separate articles, leaving only summaries, BEFORE re-applying for FA. There's substantial room for expansion in the Style area; really it should be a level-2 header with subheads for harmonic language, contrapuntal techniques, form, orchestration, etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Agreed and fixed. Tony 13:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Unassessed Composers articles
• WikiProject Composers articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists