Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

(Revision as of 05:18, 12 July 2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.186.123 (talk • contribs)

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).

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)

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)

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)

Preludue and Fugue in E-flat major

I miss the BWV number of the Prelude and Fugue in E-flat major and also the performer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.67.168 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


The omission of the BWV number was accidental, and I've added it. When I added it to the list, I was wary of adding the performer as a real name isn't listed and almost all classical music is released under a person's real name. However I've added the username with a link to the German Wikipedia user page. Graham87 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Media

Does anyone else think that all those miscellaneous listen templates clutter up the article? Don't they belong to articles for the works in question? A simple Commons link at the end of this article would work beautifully for anyone who wishes to listen to the music. Hmm? --Jashiin (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way would be best, but I admit the article is, well, huge at the moment. We used to have a whole article of Bach sound files at Gallery of works by Johann Sebastian bach, which was split off from the main Bach article. The gallery was proposed for deletion, and someone suggested to me that it should be merged with the Bach compositions list, which I did (see the page history of this list of compositions and this talk page thread). I would be most willing to cut out the sound files of works that already have articles - the WTC, the Sinfonias, the English suites, etc), first, as I don't like it when audio files are orphaned. I'm sorry if this doesn't make much sense - it's 2AM where I am and I probably should be in bed now. :-) Graham87 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC). Link and typo fixed. Graham87 15:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed all - well, hopefully all of them - media files that are already present in articles about individual works. The list lost some 30 kilobytes, yay! A further 6 kilobytes could be freed if we moved all Anh. works listed here to a separate article; I just don't know how to name it (BWV Anhang? BWV Appendix? List of... something?). --Jashiin (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a few more, re-added one from BWV 156, which doesn't yet have an article, and shuffled some links. A good title for the appendix list could be something like list of works in the BWV appendix. Graham87 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anchors

I have added some anchors for links from other pages to specfic sections of this list. Because of the problem of different types of hyphens causing the link to fail, I removed hyphens from the target text string. These anchors are so new, I suspect that this should not break very many links. (Once they are old, modifying this text string is a bad idea.) I am not doing links to the section headings themselves, so that the section heading text can be altered, plus these headings have special characters, which can make them trickier to link to.

The links are put at the bottom of the previous section because this results in the section heading being visible when the user arrives at the anchor by clicking a link. I did not put them in the Section heading, because they then always appear in the "Edit summary." (At least according to the help page I was reading. I did not test this myself.) So that editors are aware of the presence of a section link, I put a comment at the top of each linked section mentioning where the anchor is located. Since sections are very likely to remain in their current location on a page such as this, having the link at the bottom of the previous section should not be a problem. On other types of pages, it would be, since the "previous" section might be moved, and an editor might not be aware of the anchor at the bottom of the section. Of course, one could add a comment at the top of the section mentioning the presence of an anchor at the bottom of the section, but this starts to become very cumbersome. If anyone knows a better way to do these anchors so that the Section heading shows, I would sure like to know. Thanks.--Robert.Allen (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

BWV 1063 missing

BWV 1063, "Concerto for Three Harpsichords" a.k.a. "Concerto for Three Clavichords #1" is missing from the list. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not. Look under "Harpsichord concertos (1052–1065)", or simply search the page for "1063". --Jashiin (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

BWV 979 - original composer?

The sole edit by an anon acount [1] is to change the information regarding BWV 979 from it being probably based on a work of Torelli to it being identified as by Vivaldi. Anyone got evidence to support this. The websites I've googled tend to go with unknown or Torelli.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Williams

Earth to Wikipedia: Peter Williams is not God.

71.181.211.88 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lute Suites

The last movement of the 2nd lute suite (BWV 997) is called Gigue-Double ( Sometimes the double is separated from the gigue and considered as movement). The title of the file ,where you can listen to the piece , is called only Gigue . Please someone to remediate this error . Sorry for my almost grotesque English , I'[m just a romanaian teenager , who studies music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.140.135 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'll do it some time in the next few days ... I don't have the time now. The same thing probably needs to be done at File:Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Gavotte.ogg. Graham87 15:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. Graham87 05:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Chronological listing of Bach's works

hello,

i have tried many times to find a chronological listing of Bach's works. it doesn't seem to exist anywhere online or in literature.

i have been told that the BWV numbers are in somewhat date order, but i am not interested in "somewhat" and frankly i find such a remark ridiculous and annoying.

it is clear that exact dates are unknown for many if not most of Bach's works. however, i should think for many of his works the "period" (i.e., the city in which Bach lived at the time of composition) is known with great certainty.

i am baffled that a listing of Bach's works by period is not to be found. knowing the chronology of Bach's works is absolutely foundational to studying his artistic development.

i am particularly interested in ascertaining the BWV numbers of his earliest works - those at Ohrdruf, Luneberg, and Arnstadt. i have done many many searches to find this information with no luck.

any information along these lines will be much appreciated and i am hopeful that the authors and editors on Wikipedia who are interested in Bach's life and work will consider creating a chronological listing of his works.

thank you, Nicholas Stevens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.153.22 (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

  • It would seem a good idea. I see that the Harpsichord Concerto BWV 1056 is listed also as a reconstructed Violin Concerto. Should the list therefore also include the reconstructed Violin Concerto in D minor BWV 1052, which has been recorded in the UK by Kirstin Linder-Dewan and Fiori Musicali? Myopic Bookworm (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Move certain Appendix pieces up to relevant sections?

There are several pieces listed in the Anhang (appendix) section of this article under the heading "Falsely attributed works" which are (likely) authentic. These include

  • the motet BWV Anh. 159 (now attributed to Bach),
  • the pastiche motet BWV Anh. 160 (a likely arrangement by Bach of music by himself and Telemann), and
  • BWV Anh. 200 (a fragment from the Orgelbüchlein which I presume has never been considered inauthentic).

Does it make sense to move or copy these entries up to the sections for motets and the Orgelbüchlein ?? I'd like to do so if there are no objections.

A few other related issues:

  • I'd like to list pieces in the Anhang that come before Anh. 42 but I only know a few of them. Does anyone know where to find a complete list?
  • Organist James Kibbie has recorded several pieces attributed to Bach called the "Rudorff Chorales" which do not appear to have BWV numbers and for which I can find no other information online. Can we list these citing Kibbie's web site (from which the pieces can be downloaded) or should a better source be found?
    • BWV deest (Emans 19) Ach, was soll ich Sünder machen
    • BWV deest (Emans 53) Der Tag, der ist so freudenreich / Ein Kindelein so löbelich
    • BWV deest (Emans 69) Es spricht der Unweisen Mund’
    • BWV deest (Emans 100) Herr Jesu Christ, wahr' Mensch und Gott
    • BWV deest (Emans 101) Herr Jesu Christ, wahr' Mensch und Gott
  • The Hänssler edition recordings of the complete works of Bach include a number of four-part chorales without BWV numbers, refered to as "Wiemer 4" thru "Wiemer 11" and "Wiemer 14". Anyone know anything else about these chorales so that we can list them?

AThornyKoanz (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, it would be nice to know who wrote the work if the work was "falsely attributed" to Bach. And there should be a citation since the wording is so strong. Angry bee (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Header for 249a + b

BWV 249a and 249b are in the sequence because they are or have been believed to be related to the oratorio BWV 249. The "normal" secular cantatas are 200-224. I don't know how to reflect that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In this list any work should be at it's BWV place. The cantatas list has these two works too, and is sortable in several ways. This general list is however not sortable (nor will it ever be I suppose).
Anyway, I listed some cantatas that are "elsewhere" in the List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Cantatas (1–224) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't want them to be sorted elsewhere, - just the label "Secular cantatas" - true, it describes them - suggests they might be the only ones, while 200 - 224 are the bulk of the secular cantatas and these two the exception, because of their relation to the oratorio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha, OK, no problem I think, fixed it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

List

This article is a list, so links should be to other lists (or articles on individual compositions, or group articles if that's all there is for that group of compositions). In fact, summaries of lists don't work very well, because well, they aren't lists and don't help in navigation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BWV 598

Surely those pedal exercises need a stand-alone section (Miscellaneous?), rather than inclusion under concertos? Tony (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead, write it, best as an article, such as Motets, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
? Don't think BWV 598 would pass WP:GNG (or WP:NSONG for that matter). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
... although ... Pedal-Exercitium [it] --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Audio files

There are an awful lot. I'm going to audit them for performance quality and representativeness of his output. Why such a huge number of "Lute suites"? The article on the first so-called lute suite isn't clear about who did the transcription. I don't think this is a happy state of affairs. Tony (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If a piece is mentioned in the article, and we have a decent audio file for it, I don't see the problem with providing it. More can be provided as they become available. In fact, I have some more that I'd like to provide via this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Also see this discussion; in short, there used to be many, many more. Graham87 13:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
(1) I don't regard them as "decent". The performances are actually pretty good, but instrument and the audio engineering are just hideous. (2) They're not original works, but transcriptions, and there's absolutely no good evidence that he was the transcriber. (3) Having this cascading waterfall of "lute" transcriptions is very unbalanced. Tony (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
My message above explained why the lute files were there. The easiest way to get rid of them would be to create an article about the lute suite in question, preferably explaining what you've said above, then they can be at that article, not here. Graham87 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Or, as an intermediate solution, replace the lot of them by "See c:Category:BWV 997" on the list page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a separate list titled "List of transcriptions of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach". Perhaps that might serve as a home for these transcriptions?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Layout

Imagine a reader who just clicked on BWV and only wants to know what the abbreviation stands for, doesn't know why he arrives at a list article, gets a short intro and a lotof white space next to a riddle of an image with caption. If you really have to redirect from Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis to this (which takes a long time to load, at least for me): please write a concise lead to help this reader! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for better layout, - it still takes long to load. How about a brief article Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis,instead of a redirect. There are (last month) more than hundred hits per day, meaning more than hundred people now waiting each day for the simple clue that BWV is short for Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the last version of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis article before it was turned into a redirect: as you can see that page was problematic (no references, bad writing, going into topics unrelated to the BWV, to name only a few of its problems). A "brief article" would work for me, if someone has time to put it together – that is: we certainly should avoid returning to the problems of the last non-redirect version of that article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Illustrating what I mean by a brief article that could work: something that can compare to Schubert Thematic Catalogue should certainly be possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. New year's resolution ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

I just came across this link:

[[List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV531|BWV 531]]<!-- Links to section heading anchor --> (BWV 531),

It's one of many in the List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni. I don't know if it ever worked, but how would a feasable redirect work? BWV 531? Please don't tell me that it's

[[List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#In the form of a Prelude, Toccata, Fantasia, Passacaglia, middle movement and/or Fugue (BWV 531–582)|BWV 531]] (BWV 531) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The anchor was here, but was moved to List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach last month, so [[List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV531|BWV 531]]<!-- Links to section heading anchor --> (BWV 531) works fine.
The issue is that such piped deep links are better avoided altogether for pointing to these pages. BWV 531 should be made into a redirect (and that link should be used instead of a piped deep link), so that if anything changes w.r.t. intended destination it is possible to detect which incoming links should be handled, via http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=List_of_compositions_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach (the disfunctional piped deep links don't show up there).
I don't say piped deep links should be avoided altogether, I say it is better to avoid them when pointing to pages that potentially have a large number of incoming links, because of the difficulty in sorting out the cleanup if anything changes later on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions

In the table:

  • Why are hymns not in quotation marks, as for the rest of Wikipedia for songs and poems?
  • Text authors for cantatas: the most influential author for a given work is often anonymous, - how can that show?
  • Specifically: what has Nicolai to do with cantata BWV 143?

No time for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. #1 – I don't understand the question. The hymns in the section on the songs and arias are all in quotation marks.
Re. #2 – I think it best not to burden the table with content of the "information not available" type, just takes space and bytes without providing actual information. E.g. in the section on the doubtful works: if no "other composer" is suggested in relevant literature nothing is mentioned, instead of writing "possible alternative composer not known" or "by ?" or something of that kind.
Re. #3 – probably an error, removed --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
#1: In the table, section 5, BWV 250 and up
#2: you are right, of course, but "mixed authorship" is a notable feature of many motets, cantatas, passions, oratorios, and dropping one author (just because their name is not known) shifts proportions. To say that BWV 130 is by "Eber (reworked)" doesn't quite get it (that two stanzas by Eber are retained, the others paraphrased by anon.). Even more misleading: BWV 140 by "Nicolai (reworked)", - no, Nicolai's text is retained unchanged, anon. added four movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Re. #1: Section 5 is about four-part chorales (not the hymns these are based on). Compare the table at List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach#Chorale harmonisations, no quotation marks for the chorale harmonizations BWV 250 and up. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Quotation marks doesn't give a clear answer on the issue afaics. There are also chorale settings for organ, some of these "short" and/or part of a larger work such as Orgelbüchlein or Clavier-Übung III, yet usually not written in quotation marks. So, don't know what would work best. In a table extra characters such as quotation marks can of course best be missed (if they aren't always used in other contexts).
  • Re. #2, I understand, but that's the kind of detailed information you'd need to click to the dedicated article for (or the BDW in the next column). Sortability on text author (with a uniform format for indicating that that author isn't the only one responsible for the text) rather seems an asset. For BWV 130: "paraphrasing" part of a text is of course a type of reworking so the general indicator "(reworked)" covers many bases (from "loosely based on" to "slighty modified to fit the music"). Even "expanding" a text is a kind of reworking. In sum, where to start looking for the authorship of the text is rendered appropriately, and in sortable format (except for compositions not by Bach: the "by <Other Composer>" information precedes the text author information in that column), without giving detail that can't be summarized appropriately in a table. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • #1 I would have guessed that as long the hymn stands alone, as in the list of harmonisations, it doesn't need anything (keep simple). However, if a hymn would be in quotation marks, why not a harmonisation of it also, Chorale "Komm, Gott Schöpfer, Heiliger Geist", consistent with the songs from Schemellis Gesangbuch, a section below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The Schemelli "songs"/"arias" have a single vocal part afaik (with a figured bass accompaniment if I remember correctly). That's somewhat different from a SATB setting. BWV 299 is a cross-over (the only one if I remember correctly): it appears as a melody+Bc in the second AMB notebook, and as four-part chorale in other manuscript sources — in BWV2a it appears both in section 5 and section 6 (as in the table here). So, as said, what would work best for the list, with or without quotation marks for the SATB settings, I don't know. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Page length

At 702,038 bytes, this page is too long; how should it be split up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

See somewhat related prior discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202#Lists need individual sources to avoid list-copyright.
Do you have any proposal for a split?
I started a separate BWV article again at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bach_Werke_Verzeichnis&redirect=no – In the end I wasn't too sure it would allow to make the introduction to the list much shorter.
Anyway, technically it isn't too long, and topics that can't be elucidated very well by the sort function of the table (e.g. cantata cycles) are kept out of the list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Note also WP:SPLITLIST – which means that other general considerations regarding article size don't always apply to lists. Did I miss anything regarding "a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Splitlist, which is about lists and tables used as part of prose articles, does not apply here, and the page most definitely is too long per WP:TOOBIG, which says that anything over 100K (one seventh the length of this page) should "almost certainly" be split. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Nah, "Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope" is about all that applies here from the page size guideline. Specifically, WP:TOOBIG is about prose (literally: "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose"), not sortable tables. So, please indicate where the list falls short of "a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope" if you think it does. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's cut the crap. Any page that is 702,038 bytes, be it an article, a list article, a talk page or whatever else, is too long. It will be uneditable for many people and cause loading issues for many others. You can choose to contribute to deciding how the page is divided, or not, but maintaining anything like the current length in untenable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
(removed my reply, not replying to a WP:PA) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no personal attack here (nor indeed elsewhere). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I object to "Let's cut the crap" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Whether you object to that, cherry blossom, or cute kittens, it doesn't make them a personal attack. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I see no logical reason the list of compositions table couldn't be a separate article from the meta-info prose on the BWV. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to develop https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bach_Werke_Verzeichnis&redirect=no into a stand-alone article again. As said it may reduce the introduction to the table a bit (but wouldn't put my hopes too high on that). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Francis Schonken. WP:TOOBIG/WP:SIZERULE was invoked, but its last, and possibly most relevant, sentence was selectively ignored for the sake of the argument to split: They [(these rules of thumb)] also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table.. Expansion of the article should be avoided, however, unless necessary (to help complete an incomplete list, for example), since it is "large". However, there are 1,137 articles > 200,000 bytes and 16 articles > 500,000 bytes, per Special:LongPages, and nary a complaint is heard (to my knowledge anyway); I've only heard size complaints from editors "standing up for" an unknown number of others having potential problems, and never from anyone having said problems. So I say that if an easy, non-controversial way to split a list article exists, go for it (like (maybe) splitting 1918 New Year Honours list into 2 articles either alphabetically or chronologically, since there's no sortable table to break, or by moving non-list text of this Bach list into a separate article). Failing those options, though, keep the articles as long as they adhere to guidelines, which should also be taken with a grain of salt, given the accepted proliferation of "large" articles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no "accepted proliferation" of articles this large; this is the third largest article on Wikipedia; and discussions on splitting the two larger articles are already in hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, there will always be a 3rd largest article on Wikipedia, so this is an irrelevant argument.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The only reason I mentioned that this is the third-longest article was to refute your claim that there is precedence for articles of such length. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It boggles me how the VERY OBVIOUS solution of making BWV its own article isn't hitting you over the head with a sledgehammer. That info doesn't even really belong on this page. Yes of course the BWV is a how Bach's works are known but it's not inherently connected to a list of his compositions to the point that info on the BWV itself should be on the same page. Then there's the redundant info at the bottom. And the color coding. Also incidently calling "Let's cut the crap" a personal attack is really really stretching it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, feel free to develop https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bach_Werke_Verzeichnis&redirect=no into a stand-alone article again. A large part of the work is already done. I started it, I think it a good solution. I don't see why that should give me the feeling you're hitting me "over the head with a sledgehammer", as that was a direction I was thinking of, was preparing, and fully approve of. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Melodia, I agree, per my comment.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work that must have gone into the table, the page is actually considerably harder to read in that format. I just came to look at the page for the first time in a few months and was rather startled by it. It needs white space.Orfeocookie (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lists of
Compositions by
Johann Sebastian Bach
Not sure what you mean by "needs white space" — Maybe a sidebar connecting to the subsidiary articles in "bullet list" format (which naturally have more whitespace) may help out? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Navigation of articles relating to Bach's compositions

Proposing this "tree" of templates for the navigation of articles relating to Bach's compositions:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

For the navboxes: see Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Subgroups 2016. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Three-article proposal

This article is too long to be loaded, regardless of where in the list of too long article it stands. I suggest to split it in three articles: 1) Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, explaining the abbreviation for readers who simply want to understand an acronym, 2) List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach which explains further the grouping and has a list of all numbers, but without details, just title and perhaps a year of composition. 3) Bach works: The table with the details, cross-linked from the easy-table for those who want more than title and time, - useful especially for works without an article. The complex table could serve many other articles, with a link for example [[Bach works#4]].--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "too long to be loaded", lets make some comparisons:
  • This page now loads at around 2200 kB (containing a table with over 1600 entries, one or two external links for every row, and over 300 footnoted references)
  • Early october 2015 (before the table, without introduction, with minimal references, and containing only half of Bach's compositions) it loaded at around 1000kB
  • As already said multiple times I'd be OK with splitting off the general BWV introduction again.
  • List of cantatas by Christoph Graupner (a bullet list with over 1400 entries, no footnotes and limited external links) loads at around 650kB
  • List of Bach cantatas (around 290 entries in a table, with each row having an external link) loads at 750 kB
  • Church cantata (Bach) (same cantatas minus secular cantatas, with cantata cycle information halfway completed and a few footnoted references): also around 750kB
  • The Johann Sebastian Bach bio page currently loads at around 2100kB
  • The Clavier-Übung III page currently loads at around 6500kB (almost three times this page)
  • The Leonardo da Vinci page currently loads at around 1700kB
etc... Please keep some perspective on the loading issue.
Per WP:LISTNAME a page with a full list in table format should be at a name starting with "List of..."
We have bullet list pages covering all compositions by Bach, see category:Lists of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. For those wanting to skip the table (simple: click on the "By Genre" section header in the TOC) the links to these dedicated lists are given, with some explanations, a condensed list, and links to several overview articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Being somewhat more specific:
  • There are still two types of Bach compositions not fully available in "bullet list" format: the four-part chorales and the secular cantatas, so that might be something to work on in the future.
  • The 1000kB table-less version of this page mentioned above covered only about half of the works by Bach (almost all vocal works and all keyboard works were not included in that version of the list), so a complete bullet list of all works by Bach, appropriately referenced, would not necessarily "load" much faster than the current list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (updated 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC))

Colors in the table???

They are very distracting and have no obvious meaning, at least overall -- maybe they are incomplete/inconsistent? They still need explanation. Thanks! "alyosha" (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

See header of table, it includes:
... ——— Background colors ——— (green:) partial or complete manuscript (copy) by Bach and/or first edition under Bach's supervision (yellow:) manuscript (copy) in whole or in part by close relative,
i.e. brother (J. Christoph), wife (A. M.), son (W. F. / C. P. E. / J. C. F. / J. Christian) or son-in-law (Altnickol) (orange-brown:) manuscript (copy) by close friend and/or pupil (Kellner, Krebs, Kirnberger, Walther, ...), or distant family member ...
--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response -- and your work on the article!
1] Unfortunately what you shared is invisible unless one goes into edit mode -- both here and in the article. I thought you had made a mistake in copy-pasting until i started to compose this reply. It's safe to say about WP norms that if information is worth displaying it's worth displaying in a way that's visible to readers who aren't editors.
2] Before i saw your response i looked up these for helpful reference, and they also somewhat address the issue as i now understand it: MOS/color coding ; MOS/accessibility § color -- See for instance that color differences should generally not be the only way that information is conveyed, but text should also be used.
3] I assume white means that manuscript status is unknown to you? This should be legible as well, and might be a reason to wait until the classification is complete. As it is, white could look like another classification -- that was one part of my confusion glancing at the list.
Thanks again for all your good work -- "alyosha" (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Re.
  1. ? I checked table-related guidance (as well the technical manual of the table syntax as the Manual of Style on the matter) – nowhere could I find that the table's caption wouldn't be visible to all. If there is a technical issue that makes the table's caption unvisible in certain circumstances that should be noted in the manual: current guidance states that it is a "high priority" that all tables should have a table caption, and that would seem odd to me if it is invisible for some readers.
  2. I know the issue, and solved it for instance for the tables at Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Score and Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Recordings. For this table I'd agree to any method that doesn't make the table larger than it already is (as well "visual" size as "bite" size, see discussion above)
  3. No, "white" background means that none of the other background colors apply. The last column gives a link to the webpage about the work at the Bach Digital website. For each work all known relevant manuscripts are listed, each manuscript being linked to a page that contains information about the manuscript's scribe. Indeed some manuscripts have unidentified scribes, others have known scribes that were neither a relative or pupil or close friend of the composer (e.g. a 19th-century copy by Felix Mendelssohn or whatever). The "proximity" of the scribe to Bach (preferably, of course, Bach himself) plays a role in authenticity deliberations of some of the incerta. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Well!, my...um...half-apologies ;^) It seems to be a Firefox issue. That's what i typically use (in fedora linux), and puzzled by your response i checked Chrome and found that everything shows up clearly -- i never would have written if i had seen it like that. To quickly check if it was my WP/Firefox settings, i used a friend's computer. With Edge in Windows 10 it displayed fine; then i installed Firefox on that computer and without touching any settings the color and some other headers again did not display. So the only remaining issue is making things compatible with Firefox (which is still hanging on as a reasonably popular browser :^)
This is amazing and concerning to me; i have no idea how often this happens. I also have no idea about the header markup you're using. It might be less than best/latest practice in some way that could be fixed, or it could be perfect and we've found a WP bug. Please be so kind as to respond here if you find out anything more. If not, when i get more time i'll look for a place to report the issue.
Thanks once more for the helpful replies to my confusing feedback, and for your service to Bach! :^D "alyosha" (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No apologies needed, the technical issue regarding the table caption was a surprise to me. Until a general solution is found the unavailability of the caption on some devices should be mentioned in table-related guidance. As for workarounds (pending/failing a general technical solution), such as what is suggested by Erutuon below: feel free to experiment on this talk page (I would, but then I don't know what would show/not show on the devices you mention). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious/concerned enough to bring this to the attention of the right people, but i don't have the time or familiarity to work on the syntax myself. Since you express some interest, i'd encourage you to install firefox on your computer (quick&easy, free) and see how potential fixes display. I assume the site will auto-detect your OS, but here's a couple different places to see options:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/products/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/
Best, "alyosha" (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
(e.c.) well I worked out a little experiment below – would that work? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the problem could be that there are multiple captions layered on top of each other. Perhaps Firefox only supports one caption per table? Just a thought, probably wrong. (But if so, this could easily be fixed by merging the captions into one, separating them with <br> tags, and setting background color with {{background color}}.) — Eru·tuon 00:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I posted an Editor Assistance request here and suggested they reply to this thread. "alyosha" (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Experiment I

Would this work on all browsers?

Table sections (collated as in BWV2a for BWV 1–1126 and Anhang)
BWV (original ranges in parentheses)
1. Cantatas (1–224) • 2. Motets (225–231) • 3. Masses, Mass movements, Magnificat (232–243) • 4. Passions, Oratorios (244–249) • 5. Four-part chorales (250–438) • 6. Songs, Arias and Quodlibet (439–524) • 7. Works for organ (525–771) • 8. Keyboard compositions (772–994) • 9. Lute compositions (995–1000) • 10. Chamber music (1001–1040) • 11. Works for orchestra (1041–1071) • 12. Canons (1072–1078) • 13. Musical Offering, The Art of Fugue (1079–1080) • Later additions (1081–...) • Reconstructions
BWV Anhang (Appendix)
I: Lost/fragmentary (1–23) • II: Doubtful (24–155) • III: Spurious (156–189) • N: Nachträge (New additions, 190–213)
Not in BWV (BWV deest)
Sorted by BC, BGA, BNB, NBA, etc.
Background colors
color meaning...
green partial or complete manuscript (copy) by Bach and/or first edition under Bach's supervision
yellow manuscript (copy) in whole or in part by close relative, i.e. brother (J. Christoph), wife (A. M.), son (W. F. / C. P. E. / J. C. F. / J. Christian) or son-in-law (Altnickol)
orange-brown manuscript (copy) by close friend and/or pupil (Kellner, Krebs, Kirnberger, Walther, ...), or distant family member
Collections
Without resorting the table (i.e. collection kept together in BWV2a)
Cello Suites BWV 1007–1012 • Christmas Oratorio, BWV 248 • Clavier-Übung IV = Goldberg Variations BWV 988 • Inventions BWV 772–786 • Sinfonias BWV 787–801 • Sonatas and partitas for solo violin BWV 1001–1006
Using the sort function (not available in all browsers)
See also Legend to the table below
Works in Bach's catalogues and collections
BWV 2a Date Name Key Scoring BG NBA Additional info BD
1. Cantatas (see also: List of Bach cantatas) Up ↑
1 1. 1725-03-25 Cantata Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern (Annunciation) F major stbSATB 2Hn 2Odc 2Vl Str Bc 1: 1 I/28.2: 3 00001
... etc ...

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)-

Brilliant! It shows up in firefox exactly the same as in chrome -- well done! As i've said i'm not at all familiar with this table header markup, but i'm curious for a summary of what you changed? "alyosha" (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I split the large multi-cell header (which was anyhow too large according to the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Caption: "Captions should be concise") in three separate tables, each with a single line header.
I'll implement this now. I have been looking at the table via my Android phone: although –considering its enormous size– it didn't behave too bad, I think the new pre-table arrangement would improve navigation there too, and am curious to see it in action. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_compositions_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive_1&oldid=1101532308"