Talk:Fugue in G minor, BWV 578

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not 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.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Pipe Organ Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe Organ, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pipe Organ on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pipe OrganWikipedia:WikiProject Pipe OrganTemplate:WikiProject Pipe OrganPipe organ articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Subtitle[edit]

It's my understanding, and there may be a consensus (for example, most of the scholarly editions such as Bärenreiter or Breitkopf & Härtel) that Bach didn't provide subtitles to any of his Praeludia or Fugues, including this one; the designation "Little" was probably added later. 71.243.80.99 13:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subtitle is certainly not by Bach. --81.173.169.121 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I am removing the word Little from the title and other references to it, and adding it as "Little" after the title.RGB2 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical?[edit]

What does this sentence mean: This piece is mathematical and precise. --81.173.169.121 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake?[edit]

Hebrew wikipedia's page about bach's works http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%90%D7%9A_(%D7%A8%D7%99%22%D7%91) claims that this piece is fake. anyone knows about that by chance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.112.247 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in media[edit]

Yes the section on media is not necessary, as in many other Wikipedia articles. But many people hear pieces like this one in media and wonder what they are, and probably never hear them in the way they were meant to be heard. Better would be to include analysis and historical context for this piece, but few people can write about such matters, and few can understand them. Countersubjects? Stretto? Exposition? Imitation? Episodes? Counterpoint? Polyphony? What should be added to this article, and many other musical ones like it?RGB2 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]