This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are far too many images and files in this article. Some ideas/thoughts:
We do not need the life summary before Childhood (1685–1703), it's already in the lead directly above. It's also worth noting that such a practice is extremely unusual for modern WP (if removed, the corresponding image can be removed as well)
The amount of sound files is extremely excessive, there are three harpsichord pieces for example
Some of the images should be on the left side (when appropriate) to create an ideal layout, otherwise we just have a long "stripe" of images/files that extends all the way to works cited on my screen
The amount of manuscripts is also extremely excessive
Other options would be converting some of the rows of manuscripts to galleries if they all fit in a particular section. Aza24 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Re.
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Since not much of a rationale is given, I didn't think it necessary to give much rationale either. Just this one: such things were possibly discussed in the past, e.g. the files/images of the first section were definitely discussed in the past, leading to the current consensus, so if you can pick up where such prior discussions left off, we might actually get started on something like a conversation. Anyhow, thanks for your opinions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately it looks like users don't agree with you and have attempted to address this—Michael Bednarek[1] & DocWatson42[2]—but have been immediately reverted for no valid reason Nah, doesn't work on my screen, and don't see a real problem for wider screens, uh really? I supposed that the blatancy of this issue was enough rationale, but fine:
MOS:LAYIM, "If "stacked" images in one section spill over into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, there may be too many images in that section"
we have way to many images, that do indeed spillover.
MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative"
what is the relevance of seeing an image of a church 100 years after Bach's death where his music had been performed, or seeing an image where "Bach had tested an organ"—even if include, why can't it put to the left or in a gallery format?
Your reversion history and immediate reluctance to accept clear issues with this article are veering on WP:OWN, and I suggest you take another look at the situation at hand. Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Re. "... gallery format ..." – tried something in this sense (i.e., putting the {{listen}} boxes in a table at the bottom of the section in a gallery-like arrangement) here – Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
That's the idea, but is creating a huge white space on my screen. To avoid such a white space, it might be better to focus on rows rather than columns. And surely the counterpoint video should be placed in the counterpoint section? The current location of files doesn't seem helpful to a reader, right after the "structure and lyrics" section, have a bunch of non-vocal pieces? What about putting the Sonata No. 3 in G minor for viola da gamba file near the section that discusses viola da gamba (Giving soloist roles to continuo instruments), or the Violin Partita near the section that discusses violin partitas (Instrumentation) etc.? Aza24 (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Already did the same for the "Compositions" section. Re. columns vs. rows: multiple columns are more problematic for small screens. Ideally for a hand-held device there would only be a single column, the rest would need left-right swiping (horizontal scrolling or I don't know the exact term) to see it. I think "whitespace" on a large screen is probably less problematic than "off-screen" on a hand-held device. Two columns as it is now (each column having a width equal to upright=1.35), tries to do best for both extremes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, a comparable layout of 48 sound files can be found here (three columns – I don't say that it is ideal on that page, just trying to illustrate variants that exist and might help us to some ideas as to how to handle it optimally for this page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we have too many images, and especially too many sound files. I suggest to repeat images and sound files that are used in composition articles only if really closely related to the biography. Debussy was "pruned" of excessive sound files on its way to FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this an article about churches? Why are there so many photos of them? oncamera (talk page) 22:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Oncamera: Most of Bach's compositions are church music of one type or another: if you oppose images of churches you're probably looking for another composer than Bach. But see also the Kunstreligion theme mentioned at the end of the Bach#20th century section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"Too many images" Even on my rather high resolution screen they extend to the reference section. And yeah this isn't an article about churches, nor about manuscripts. Agree. "Too many sound files": it's Bach, fwiw, but yeah, we better limit this to fewer examples. Keep most of it on the more relevant specific articles, and probably could do with some more organ music, or at least some better known one (since that is what Bach was known for in his life, and bias as an organist myself notwithstanding). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I admit that I am using a 5120 × 2880 display at full width, so my opinion can be partially discounted, but for me the images intrude halfway into the "Works cited" "Other" sub-subsection of the appendices. Also, I don't see the need for the images to be forced into 1.1× their thumbnail size (using the "upright" field). —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Goldberg Variations
We have two images (with audio) illustrating the Goldberg Variations:
"Aria" of the Goldberg Variations, showing Bach's use of ornaments – Audioⓘ In the Bach#Musical style section:
Yes dropping the second seems best. Though it seems undesirable to have the transcriber's name (and some messy engraving), I can make a cleaner transcription in Finale if it's any help. Aza24 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Such cleaner version would be much appreciated! --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, for the time being, I replaced it with a facsimile of the 1st edition, but a Finale version might be cleaner (more readable). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get on that tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd drop the first, which is Chinese to all who don't read music, and doesn't show the style of the period. I'd retain the Facsimile, for doing that even to those not reading music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Well it's also German to those who don't read music—are we sure it's more likely our reader will understand how to read German than music? Aza24 (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I wasn't clear. My favourite is the facsimile, now in place, File:Goldberg Variations - Aria - 1st edition (BnF).png. Second choice: the cover, not for German words but the style of cover pages. However, one of those is enough for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
#3 (→) is another variant of #1 (image from the 1853 BGA edition). I am looking for a version that shows the ornamentation as clear as possible on the relatively small scale of the image. The first edition (BnF), which I like a lot graphically, does not really deliver on that point, and the BGA version is not much better on that scale. Depends on what one is illustrating: in this case, a page charged with ornamentation symbols. Another possibility would be Bach's version of Marcello's oboe concerto: in this case the ornament-less version of the 18th-century edition of the original concerto could be compared with Bach's ornamentation of the same melody line. That would, however, probably be even more work to execute as images (... and audio). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
If you wish to include the score for the aria it needs to be in cleaner format. If you want to BGA you should take it from the version on IMSLP. Otherwise there's also the OpenGoldberg one (also on IMSLP with a compatible license). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Re. "If you want to BGA you should take it from the version on IMSLP." – IMSLP images are notoriously low-quality. I suppose OpenGoldberg is more or less the same as #1, so no improvement there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Eisenachisches Gesangbuch
Page from the Neues vollständiges Eisenachisches Gesangbuch, the Lutheran hymnal that was in use in the Eisenach of Bach's youth[1][2]
That's a start. Other ones probably need the same treatment (as do the editorial comments about the various different audio versions of different works...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Title pages
We have three title pages right now, but I'm not sure if any of them are relevant to the article. They seem more appropriate for articles on their respective pieces; what does the reader gain from their inclusion? Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
? I'm not sure what you try to imply. Not everybody reads notes, so what other means to illustrate what a first edition or original manuscript looks like? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Not everyone reads German either! And even so, illustrating what a first edition/original manuscript could look like is already done by the St Matthew Passion, Violin Sonata & Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach—the title page seems like something that should be reserved for the composition article, not the composer's article. If we want to keep one I would prefer the Well Tempered one, since the others are not Bach's handwriting. But even that one alone seems out of place. Aza24 (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Can't follow any of that rationale. Don't even understand what it means. We have some for everyone – i.e. for those who read notes (but no German), those who read German (but no notes), those who read neither German nor notes (most of the images), those who have no vision (audio examples), those who can't hear (all the text and visuals). I can't follow the reasoning of those who start from one averaging type of audience. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Even putting that rationale aside, my earlier point still stands, how does having three of these pictures assist the reader? One seems more than enough, if even. Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but I'm still not sure why we need two keyboard pieces left. Aza24 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Will be removing the cello suites image-with-audio then. Then I'll take some time to listen to the harpsichord music again (was many years ago I last heard them). Might take some time, and we'll see for concrete suggestion after that. But if you have a preference, please state clearly; please also no removals without talk page agreement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: re. "two keyboard pieces" – which ones do you mean? I find only one piece performed on harpsichord (the Italian Concerto) – all the other pieces are, afaics, either performed on solo organ, or performed by an ensemble including piano, or not involving any keyboard instrument at all.I suppose you mean the "Aria" of the Goldberg Variations embedded with the "Aria" image as the other "keyboard piece"? I'd keep both in that case: the Italian Concerto for broad recognisability, the "Aria" for the ornamentation illustration (and recognisability too). Solo harpsichord (or: keyboard) music is a substantial part of what Bach is known for, so two audio examples of that (some of the most recognisable no less) doesn't seem excessive imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC); updated 07:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm referring to, rather, the inclusion of two keyboard title pages; The Well-Tempered and Art of Fugue ones. Aza24 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to keeping the music for both of these, but it seems redundant to have two title pages in the first place, especially when they're both pieces for keyboard. Aza24 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Apart from BWV 71 and the BWV 439–507 collection the only extant contemporary prints are of instrumental music: note that neither of these publications was really remembered for more than a century after the composer's death (e.g., not listed among the published works in Bach's Nekrolog); Title pages for these works are top-to-bottom filled with German Gothic-script text (most of it of little relevance for these works in the 21st-century); BWV 71 is certainly not one of Bach's best known cantatas and the BWV 439–507 collection is still more or less Bach's "most forgotten" music (rarely performed; very few recordings of the entire set); The title pages of these works are the lead images at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach printed during his lifetime and at Georg Christian Schemelli respectively (the first also at the BWV 71 article). IMHO, neither of these is really eligible for this biographical article. Then, all other compositions printed during the composer's lifetime are "keyboard" compositions (organ/harpsichord) apart from:
some isolated canons, one of which is included in the lead image of the Bach article (see caption of the lead image of List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach for explanation). None of the canons printed during the composer's lifetime have a title page (or, when included in an anthology, like Telemann's, the title page does not refer to Bach's canon enclosed in the collection).
The Musical Offering (contains a trio sonata with flute) – no title page image at commons. The title page of the original print, scores:File:PMLP04550-bach1.pdf, is quite similar to that of the next work.
The Art of Fugue, published shortly after the composer's death. The published work has no indication by which instruments it is to be performed (recordings on harpsichord, on organ, by string quartet, and by ensembles of various instruments exist, none of them closer to the "original" than any other – although there are probably a few in poor taste) – well, so, that's the one we have in the article now. One of a very few options if one wants to have a non-keyboard work contemporary printed title page.
In sum, I think the current choice more than OK: one an autograph, one printed; one a harpsichord work, one not a "harpsichord only" work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Refresh browser to see higher resolution versions of some images
I've been updating a few commons images shown on this page to higher resolution versions: likely one would need to refresh the browser to see the result. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Mobile version
When I look at this article on my phone, I see like 5-10 images/audio files in a row before being able to read the paragraph under the headings. Should the images be moved to the subsections rather than stacked one on top of the other at the beginning of the main section to break that up on mobile? oncamera (talk page) 18:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an issue that extends beyond your point, there are still so many images that they appear in radically different places on different screens. The Cello suites for instance, appear next to the text on Organ works for me, the Well-Tempered Clavier next to secular cantatas! Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes. We very likely don't need much more than half a dozen audio or visual examples of music, so let's start cutting that away. Right now, there is (x times audio indicates the number of separate audio files included for reference):
First violin sonata, Bach autograph - audio
O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden (chorale from the SMP) - visual
BWV 903 - 2x audio
Ornaments table from the WFB Klavierbuchlein - visual
Goldberg aria - audio + visual
BWV 632 counterpoint - audio + visual
BWV 1029 - 3x audio
BWV 1052 - 3x audio
BWV 1043 - 3x audio
BWV 1007 (title page) - visual + 6x audio
SMP, Death of Christ - visual
BWV 140 - 7x audio
Agnus Dei from BWV 232 - audio
BWV 543 - 2x audio
Art of the Fugue (title page) - visual + 2x audio
BWV 846 - audio
BWV 971 - 3x audio
BWV 1049 - 3x audio
Air on the G string + Sheep may safely graze - (two different works in one box) 2x audio
For a total of 19 such examples (probably more than 2-3 hours worth of music, too). Some trimming required. And also, too many pictures of buildings and churches still. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
And since some were making the comparison with Debussy earlier (allegedly a composer whose music is less varied in musical genres covered, but nevermind), that article currently has 3 separate audio "boxes" containing a total of 6 files. Of course that probably isn't enough here, but it's an indication that some cutting probably needs to be done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I've tried moving some existing images and audio to their appropriate sections, but they still overwhelm the article. Because Bach was so prolific we need to be extremely selective; we can't include everything. We have four keyboard works in audio (even more if we count individual movements) which is way to many. We don't need every movement of every work either! I would agree there are still too many churches, St. Nicholas Church, Leipzig—a modern picture—is especially pointless. Aza24 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I rather take out more of the church photos and keep more of the manuscript photos that have an audio component to them. With limited room for photos and audio files, I rather highlight his music versus buildings. oncamera (talk page) 06:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
And what is that supposed to mean? "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."? In any case please stop adding all the images that there was agreement to exclude. There's rather many people telling that there are too many pictures of churches and other buildings, and that images are taking too much vertical space. Or at least raise your objection also in edit summaries instead of putting a vague "per talk" (where I do not see such objection about why the images should be kept). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've redistributed the files, for the issue mentioned by Oncamera. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Bach was NOT regarded as "equal" to Telemann, Handel et alii
The current article has a false sentence about Bach's reputation. The quote source does not support that, only that he was highly regarded by Telemann, and that many (uncertain - musical or not) contemporaries would have felt similarly. On the next page it then says that Bach's music was "high-flown" and "independent of fashionable trends"... (and that he was seen as his own memorial... i.e. old fashioned but using rather flowery language) I don't have time right now to go look through my sources, but looking at Britannica: [3]
For about 50 years after Bach’s death, his music was neglected. This was only natural; in the days of Haydn and Mozart, no one could be expected to take much interest in a composer who had been considered old-fashioned even in his lifetime—especially since his music was not readily available, and half of it (the church cantatas) was fast becoming useless as a result of changes in religious thought.
At the same time, musicians of the late 18th century were neither so ignorant of Bach’s music nor so insensitive to its influence as some modern authors have suggested. Emanuel Bach’s debt to his father was considerable, and Bach exercised a profound and acknowledged influence directly on Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.
This is in clear contrast to Handel (whose music already after his death was played by ensembles of very large proportions, publicly, with the attendance of royalty, ... - Handel Commemoration). And then we have a "revival" of his music: unlikely that a very popular composer would require such a thing...
The correct version is that Bach was popular, or at least not entirely forgotten, among his children, his students and in other learned circles (including such composers he influenced, i.e. the anecdote of Mozart hearing a motet by Bach; ...); and that outside of this he certainly had a reputation as a solid organist, and maybe for a few of his published works (WTK). But the rest seems like unambiguous exaggeration, at least until the beginning of the revival in the 19th century. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The other three great German composers of Bach's time ... Telemann ... Graun ... Handel. In the view ... of his contemporaries, Bach was the equal of any of them.
Can be you don't agree with Geck on this point. Geck is enough of a respected Bach-scholar to not normally need in-text attribution for what he says. Do you have a solid reference for an opposing view? For clarity, we're not speaking here about the period after Bach's death (that is, the Geck quote only speaks about Bach's contemporaries, not about anything happening after his death in 1750 – the Britannica quote doesn't really compare as it is mostly about the period after Bach's death, apart from the "... old-fashioned ... in his lifetime ..."). We're also not speaking here about individuals who preferred one over the other in Bach's time while still comparing them as being in the same league. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between that being the view of his contemporary musician colleagues is really not clear in the article as written. The Nekrolog, published shortly after his death, begins not with "the world famous musician" or "composer" but "The World-Famous Organist, ..." (Wolff, The Learned Musician, 2013; p. 4). See also Gardiner (p. 91-124) where he makes that case that at the beginning of the 18th century, Telemann, Handel, and others [who amongst other things were involved in the well publicised business that was opera] were far better known. That and of course the Leipzig anecdote which needs no retelling. Bach was certainly respected among his peers (along with some of the more formulaic honours he got from royalty), but outside of this circle, he was not "their equal", at least not as a composer: as an organist maybe, i.e. Mattheson who says (quoted in article) "From the famous organist in Weimar, Mr. Joh. Sebastian Bach, I saw works of such undeniable quality, both for performance in church and for keyboard, that the man should be held in high esteem.". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Also to quote Britannica again (from the very top of their article, this time), 'Although he was admired by his contemporaries primarily as an outstanding harpsichordist, organist, and expert on organ building,' - i.e. the point I was making: while today he is mostly known for his compositions, in his time he was better known for his instrumental prowess. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Am rather astonished to see such a misleading line. There's just no one Bach's reputation as a composer (that would be the implication when comparing him to other composers) was even close to Handel or Telemann's, besides the quotes above, from Grove (Wollf & Emery):
"It is of course significant, as regards both matters of technique and the quality of his music in general, that, as far as we know, he wrote almost exclusively for himself, his own ensembles and his own pupils, and never for a broader public (let alone a non-professional one). This partly explains why his music – unlike, say, Telemann’s or Handel’s – was disseminated within unusually narrow confines."
The lead actually explains the situation a lot better than this section, the latter which seems to be include WP:SYNTH (e.g. that his title of court composer means he was up to par with Handel/Telemann reputation-wise). Aza24 (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Not only that, but it conflicts with (what is a de-facto lead, since the section could stand as an article of its own) "Throughout the 18th century, the appreciation of Bach's music was mostly limited to distinguished connoisseurs."... I'll implement a temporary rewording until we can iron this out here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Geyersbach incident
If someone with more time and inclination than I desires, the "Geyersbach Incident" seems criminally undercovered here. Possible sources include [4], [5], and [6]. The article merely mentions the student drew a stick, but in brief reading, it appears Bach may have drawn his sword in response? Which seems pretty notable to me. Maybe I'll come back to this...if you see this in like a month and it hasn't been implemented, ping me. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
👀 Maybe Gerda knows something about this? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Could probably use a sentence or two more (it is a rather famous incident, after all) but I'm not sure that there's that much more to say besides Bach drawing a sword (which did happen, if I recall correctly). Aza24 (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Disagree that the incident would be underrepresented in this Wikipedia article. It currently gets more bandwidth than the visit to Lübeck (which certainly was more important to the composer). It gets about the same bandwidth as his incarceration in Weimar (in 1717), which was a somewhat more prominent incident. The opinions of the Arnstadt authorities about Bach's church music (written down in the same reports as those that spoke about the Geyersbach incident) are not even mentioned, and are surely no less important to paint a picture about Bach during his tenure in Arnstadt. If anything, the Geyersbach incident seems slightly over-represented in the current Wikipedia article. Note also that the interpretation that the Geyersbach incident shows Bach's "bad" character, an interpretation that ultimately goes back to Spitta, is no longer generally accepted (it is certainly not a 21st-century novelty, as Botwinick seems to imply). It is not as if every dubious interpretation in Spitta (and debated about in later scholarship) is usually mentioned in a biographical summary about the composer. Compare Grove's Bach biography by Wolff and Emery: Bach's tenure in Arnstadt gets more bandwidth than in the Wikipedia article, but still no value judgements about Bach's (or Geyersbach's, or the authorities') character, just a dispassionate account of the facts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The incident of the "Zippel Fagottist" (this second word meaning bassoonist in German) does not occupy too much space in the Bach bibliographies I have at home (Wolff, Gardiner). Agree that, especially if it gets more text than Luebeck; it might be "too much". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Phrase repeated in first paragraph under "Childhood"
This phrase is mistakenly repeated in the first paragraph under "Childhood." Should be removed.
"who likely taught him violin and basic music theory.[8]"
I recently became an auto-confirmed user, but I still don't have permission to link a translated page to a main page. The page does, however, say that auto-confirmed users can perform this activity. I was auto-confirmed about 40 minutes ago, so perhaps it takes some time? I would like to know more about this/when I'll have permission. I get this message: "This page is currently create-protected and can be created only be established registered users." There's a blue lock next to it.
If you could help me out with this, I would appreciate it! I translated part of the German article here to Chi-Chewa, but it's not letting me link the translation to the main page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pboboc (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pboboc! Please sign your messages with "~~~~". As for your question, I'm not sure why your auto-confirm isn't kicking in, but I'm also not exactly sure what you are trying to do; what do you mean by "link[ing] a translated page to a main page"? Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Problem solved; thank you for your answer! Pboboc (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Composition Bach holds in the painting
Recently I was reading "Bach's Musical Universe" by Christoph Wolff, and on the first chapter the author goes to great lengths to talk about the score Bach is holding in the painting of him. Thought it was pretty interesting and the author describes how this composition summarizes his life.
I understand the wikipedia article should remain neutral, but perhaps a note about this composition would be valuable? I certainly see that painting with different eyes now and have renewed understanding of Bach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.178.173.118 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not in scope (too much of a minor detail) for this article. Wolff wrote multiple books on Bach; we on the other hand must write a short summary (and there's far more writing on Bach than Wolff's books...). Suggest Goldberg_Variations#Canons_on_the_Goldberg_ground,_BWV_1087 if you want to put more detail on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Johann Sebastian Bach has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, I would suggest adding a picture of Bach in his younger years to his corresponding Wiki article in order to add detail and offer a wider variety of images useful to new readers. Thank you. Lvanbeethoven1216 (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please provide such an image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is this considered worth a whole subsection? Tony(talk) 11:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I am unsure, but I will try to add something here in the very unlikely event that I have anything useful to contribute. In the meantime, I wonder if its author, The Eternal Wayfarer, is watching this page and would like to pop in and talk it over, please? Best to all DBaK (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the new subsection is WP:UNDUE, especially with its title and essay-like speculative tone. In the article, the previous content on Forkel and Scheibe is well-written and is fine for the section on "Reception" (cf similar material on Clavier-Übung III). The sources used for the new subsection are in Italian, French and German (I have no idea why the word "querelle" was used). Certainly C. P. E. Bach and J. C. Bach were involved in opera; obviously Handel was, but he did not write cantatas (only English oratorios). At the moment it seems a bit like forked content. Is it even clear it deserves a footnote in this general article on the life and works of Bach? There are no substantial WP:RSs on this particular topic, only a few cherry-picked quotations. No corresponding wikipedia articles. There have been a few tangential discussions on bach-cantatas.com in the distant past, mostly remarks. The new section does not seem to be encyclopedic (cf Grove online). Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree that it is undue. Maybe in a stand alone article on Bach's music it could have a place, but trying to fit in a subject that Bach didn't write on into the main article is not worth the space or time. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Opera is not a "subject" but a genre, and the most prestigous in the period. That a composer whose main output is sung, with instruments, never attempted it is worth explaining. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I tagged the subsection. Meanwhile I downloaded Melamed's 2011 book "J.S. Bach and the Oratorio Tradition" with articles by Chr. Wolff ("Under the spell of Opera? Bach's Oratorio Trilogy") and Kerala Snyder ("Oratorio on Five Afternoons: From the Lübeck Abendmusiken to Bach’s Christmas Oratorio"). Snyder mentions Hamburg opera and operatic style in solo arias (and duets). There are other sources (see JSTOR). Not at all sure about a standalone article ... Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Well that's not really what I said (unless I misunderstand you)—in a stand alone article that was about Bach's music (e.g. an article like "Music of Johann Sebastian Bach") the section might have a place. Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
"Music of Johann Sebastian Bach" is a little vague: do you mean "Bach reception"? It's known that Bach made detailed copies of Handel's works, e.g. the Brockes Passion and Tamerlano, so was aware of Handel's musical output. There is a volume "About Bach" for Wolff's 65th Festschrift. One of the contributors, George Stauffer at Rutgers University, writes about "Music for “Cavaliers et Dames”: Bach and the Repertoire of His Collegium Musicum" on which Wolff researched. Stauffer discusses Handel Italian cantatas and operatic arias, including two arias from the 1735 opera Alcina — Di, cor mio, quanto t’amai (Alcina) and Mi lusinga il dolce affetto (Rugierro). The original Leipzig manuscript shows that these were performed by Bach's Collegium Musicum c. 1735; as Stauffer writes, the two arias "represented the very latest in fashionable opera music from the London stage." Mathsci (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Lots of music was written in "the very latest fashionable opera style" without being opera (Buxtehude's Abendmusiken were described as such, for example). I've restored some of the text as the fact he wrote no opera (the only contemporary genre which he did not contribute to) is noteworthy. The long Forkel quote might have been more of an issue than having a section about, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a reasonable question, & worth considering here. I wouldn't have objected to the section that's now been removed, & I think the slight bit put back is fine, but probably too short.
@RandomCanadian and Johnbod: The arias from Alcina have been mentioned above in connection with the Collegium Musicum and George Stauffer. The two books by Winton Dean and J. Merrill Knapp on the Operas of Handel mention explicitly mention that arias or duets by Handel were comparable to some from the sacred cantatas of Bach. The third volume of Dean, "Handel's Dramatic Oratorios and Masques", also has a lot of references to Bach. Although Handel never fell out of favour, the re-evaluation of Bach did change in the English Awakening; two pages in Dean III with quotations give details, that might be appropriate. As I wrote above, Melamed's 2011 book "J.S. Bach and the Oratorio Tradition" has articles by Christoph Wolff ("Under the spell of Opera? Bach's Oratorio Trilogy") and Kerala Snyder ("Oratorio on Five Afternoons: From the Lübeck Abendmusiken to Bach’s Christmas Oratorio") that are relevant (Hamburg opera and Bach's sometimes operatic style in solo arias and duets).
More space was given to speculation on "Bach and opera" than to the sections on Bach's Organ works or Church cantatas.
Perhaps a brief subsection with header "Oratorio tradition" might be good, given Melamed's multi-author book, the volume "About Bach" dedicated to Wolff, Dean & Knapp's books, Snyder's book and other references on JSTOR. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
"More space was given to speculation on "Bach and opera" than to the sections on Bach's Organ works or Church cantatas." - removing the excessive quote from Forkel might have solved that without needing to remove the whole section. There's certainly something that can and should be said about Bach and opera (Wolff's Bach: The Learned Musician has a few mentions - notably, he talks of the Leipzig Collegium Musicum in the same breath as the failed opera there (p. 240 in my edition; also see the index) - and the lack thereof (the fact that opera is the only major contemporary genre Bach did not compose is a good exam question for music history classes...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
"The Obituary makes no mention of the Hamburg opera or its conductor, Reinhard Keiser, suggesting that Bach at the time had no particular interest in opera" (page 65). "Not everything went according to plan: the Leipzig opera had failed in 1720, and its building served as a penitentiary facility until the second half of the eighteenth century, there being no interest in rescuing a bankrupt operation" (page 240). Nothing to do with Bach. On the other hand, "Leipzig audiences, deprived since 1720 of their own opera house, could experience in Bach's drammi per musica something of what was offered by the royal opera in Dresden. At the same time, Bach's pieces were by no means poor or makeshift substitutes for real opera. His compositions demonstrate, at every step, full mastery of the dramatic genre and the proper pacing of the dialogues" (page 363). And that's it. (Wolff's "J S Bach: The Learned Musician" is OCR searchable.) On the other hand Wolff already wrote a whole article entitled "Under the spell of Opera?" Please see the other WP:RSs mentioned above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
So, 1) Bach does not appear to have had much interest in opera; 2) Opera was not a success story in Leipzig shortly before, during, and until after Bach's time; and 3) Bach's music written for local performances, even if it was not "opera", was still written in an operatic style which could have pleased local audiences seeking such "opera"-style music [NB and apparently Bach's style of music also could displease the local church authorities when played during services - or so goes the anecdote - obviously he knew his opera stuff...]. So plenty of stuff with which to write a short paragraph. And if there are sources treating this particular aspect in more depth (and, well, if Forkel bothered to do so, it's likely more recent scholarship also has something to say about it), well, you know what to do :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There's also a section on p. 95 (in fact, nearly the whole page) which mentions Buxtehude's influence on Bach, notably the Abendmusiken, where [Buxtehude] leaned on both Hamburg opera conventions and the Carissimi oratorio tradition to create, around 1678, the prototype of the large-scale, multisectional German oratorio, whose librettos he regularly published.. So there's also something to be said about the influence of opera, directly or indirectly, on the oratorios. And Snyder, "Oratorio on Five Afternoons", does mention that Buxtehude’s contemporary Heinrich Elmenhorst, preacher at St. Catherine’s church in Hamburg and a librettist for the Hamburg Opera, wrote in 1688 that “Musicians understand the word operas to mean the compositions of poets and composers performed not only in theaters, but also in churches. . . . In this connection I must mention how the world-famousLübeck musician Diedericus Buxtehude has performed more than one such opera in public churches there in the Abendmusik customary at a certain time of year, whose poetry has been published.”16 Two years before Bach composed his Christmas Oratorio, Johann Gottfried Walther defined oratorio as “sacred opera.”17 [p. 75]. The rest of the paper is concerned with organisational similarities and the differences between Buxtehude's music and opera and on the differences between what Buxtehude did and what Bach did - either how it is different from what would have been theatrical practice: These varied attempts to identify voices in the Christmas Oratorio all underline the fact that Bach and his librettist refused to do so. Clearly, their model was not the same as that of the poets of the Lübeck Abendmusiken, who sought to construct the biblical story according to the rules of theatrical poetics., or how both works share some elements (the common and eerily similar texts of the love duets which appear in various works, which don't have much to do with opera, for example; or the symbolic use of the trumpet). Snyder concludes that Both the Lübeck Abendmusiken and the Dresden opera may have inspired Bach’s Christmas Oratorio, just as the Hamburg Opera had spawned Buxtehude’s dramatic Abendmusiken. Although Bach’s Christmas Oratorio lacks the named characters that populate Buxtehude’s Abendmusiken, and its venue lay in the liturgy of the church rather than in public concerts, it nonetheless displays drama in music of the very highest art. [p. 96]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I have the original pdf file for Melamed's book, so don't really need indiscriminate quotes. My problem is that I have the pdf file for the Italian 1979 book "Frau Musika: La vita e le opere di J. S. Bach. Vol. I." by Alberto Basso. On Page 493, there's no correlation between the Italian text and anything you've written in the article (the page is about BWV 565). Volume I (cited in the article) covers only 1685–1723. There is actually no mention of opera anywhere in the Italian text (apart from advertisements for other books). So WP:V fails at the moment. Please explain. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The given page is p. 213 (if a bid badly formatted, I'll admit). And I simply restored what was there before. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
That page concerns the period 1685–1708. The content you wrote in English bears no relation to anything on page 213. Just for reference, you wrote, However, Bach never wrote an opera. It may be that the city of Leipzig showed no particular interest for this genre (no operas were produced in Leipzig from 1720 to 1744), but the actual reason remains unknown. The content does not match up with the source. It was written by The Eaternal Wayfarer(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) as part of one long edit.[7] It seems to be unsourced WP:original research, so has been removed. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
How come would it be unsourced original research when you have yourself earlier quoted a (more detailed, more recent, better) source (which I have before my own eyes as well) which, surprise surprise, tells us exactly the same thing? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Your editing is borderline disruptive. If there is a problem with part of the text, that is not grounds to remove the whole of it, and it is even less of a good reason to replace it with an overly long quote. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The sentences "However, Bach never wrote an opera. It may be that the city of Leipzig showed no particular interest for this genre (no operas were produced in Leipzig from 1720 to 1744), but the actual reason remains unknown" cannot be sourced either to Alberto Basso or to Christoph Wolff. On wikipedia, content is created by finding high class reliable sources and then summarising them so that that they can be verified by others. In your case, you've found an editor The Eaternal Wayfarer who's created content that fails WP:V and, as such, seems to be original research. You have wikilawyered that a page by Basso supports that content; but it is manifestly unrelated to that material (1685–1708). Now you have also wiklawyered that the same unsourced passage can still be included, despite the fact that it again fails to meet WP:V; it is completely unrelated to the passage of Wolff. In the article, it is explained several times that Bach did not use opera as genre; the sources are easy to find. Mathsci (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
If you are able to read the same version of the article as me, you will see it now reads However, Bach never wrote an opera. The exact reason remains unknown (both of these are uncontroversial facts which can easily be verified). And if, as you say, In the article, it is explained several times that Bach did not use opera as genre; the sources are easy to find., then your objection that this fails WP:V is entirely nonsensical. If the sources are also used elsewhere in the article and easy to find, you can just add them (you know how to do so, no need for a tutorial) instead of removing the whole of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we can know what you mean by the single word Fugue, @49.146.40.88. But you did see that it is mentioned at "Counterpoint", under "Musical style", did you? Hope this helps. Do come back here if you need to discuss article content. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Western?
Why is he only one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music? If you include non-Western, does he slip to beta plus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:5602:2301:951B:E05:4748:A583 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The musical traditions of different continents are not really comparable, e.g. japanese music has 5 tones (pentatonic) while arab-muslim tradition has 24 and western tradition is based on the octave. Mongolians sing from their throats rather than their mouths. What sounds pleasant is also quite different among the various human races, caucasians, jewish, asian, afro, polynese, etc. peoples, due to anatomic differences in hearing (e.g. japanese Oricon Top40 sounds like meeting the chipmunks to the western ear). When the Habsburg empire established diplomatic relations with Japan circa 1867, they sent a Bosendorfer grand piano as a present for the Mikado. When Beethoven and Mozart was demonstrated on it the japanese court was entirely disinterested, but started playing attention when just the musical scale was played. (Curiously Bosendorfer is now owned by the japanese Yamaha company, which shows that western music has conquered almost the whole world.) 188.143.7.177 (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Global outlook missing from article?
I wonder if J. S. Bach was aware of non-european musical traditions, like japanese or arab-muslim? This Wikipedia aricle doesn't address that question. The ottoman turkish empire wasn't entirely pushed out of the Habsburg imperial lands until he was 14, for example. He also seems to have had connections to dutch organist Jan Adams Reincken and at that time Netherlands were the only nation able to trade with shogunate Japan. 188.143.7.177 (talk) 188.143.7.177 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
If you can find reliable secondary sources that (somehow) establish a connection (and establish it as a notable connection), by all means present them. It's not really the job of volunteer editors to go out and look for tenuous connections like this upon request. Bach lived deep in Germany his entire life, and I would find it very unlikely that he was at all familiar with non-Western musical traditions. Even composers who used the so-called "Turkish style" were in the later classical period. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Eugen Cicero needs to be added to the 20th century Bach/jazz section
Please someone add this hyperlink after the Jacques Loussier hyperlink:
Unlike Loussier's article, which talks about his extensive Bach work, the only mention of Bach in Cicero's article is the bare listing of one work in the Discography section. If Cicero's Bach work was truly as significant as you say, then his article should reflect it and there should be a reliable source for it. Until then, there's no reason to include it in this article. Indyguy (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is the current image of Bach preferred to the higher resolution one?
Probably because the "higher resolution one" is a png file instead of a jpeg, and takes up over 3 Mb vs. 130k. Also, the current one appears to have been cleaned up and color-adjusted. Indyguy (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you!! Learning so much about this website :~) Dipthong01 (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@Indyguy, I don't think that's a good rationale. The current picture looks overbrightened and oversaturated and the higher resolution pic looks better in terms of color. But the high res pic also have a ton of wrinkles and bad contrast which couldn't be easily fixed by software. Should we call in a professional image restorer to do the job for us? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please provide such an image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
