Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old comments

Do these articles from the 1911 encyclopaedia ever actually inspire anybody to clean them up and improve them? This one is so difficult to read and so pompous in tone it puts me right off doing anything to it (short of deleting the whole thing). I can't see how anybody will benefit from it to be honest - people who don't know Bach already will surely be put off him by this, and those who do know Bach and want to know more will give up after a couple of paras and search elsewhere. I know that something is better than nothing, but I think even quite a stubby NPOV piece in good modern English would be better than this. I almost think that just the non-1911 material on its own would be better. But I'm very reluctant to delete it because it is so long. Any views? --Camembert

Feel free to delete it and replace it with a legible stub; we can always reference the 1911 article through the magic of external links. --Brion VIBBER

[eight months later] - I've removed it. I don't think it was doing us any favours being there. If somebody disagrees with the removal, they can put it back, but they should note that the page was 32KB big, which is right on the cusp of what is editable for some browsers, so it would probably have to be broken off into its own page anyway, and then the value of it deceases even more. I'd like to replace it with an external link, but the text at 1911encylopedia.org is messed up, and I can't find it anywhere else. So it's gone. I'll try to work on the article over the next few weeks to pad it out a bit. --Camembert

I grabbed the old 1911 content from the history and put it up on a page with an external link -> http://www.bsdg.org/wiki/bach1911.html <-. That way someone can have it as a resource if they feel industrious later. --Jim McKeeth

---

This article used to mention that Bach is one of the all-time greats in the first sentence. The current entry only hints at Bach's pre-eminence. To people who know Bach it is unnecessary to say more than "Ah, Bach" but those new to him may not realise his importance based on this article.

I think the comment in the first paragraph that he has influenced virtually every subsequent composer makes his pre-eminence clear enough, but if you want to add a couple of words along the lines of "regarded as one of the greatest...", I for one will not object. --Camembert

---

I remember that the theme that Frederick II played for JSB was judgged not to be very simple, au contraire. Errasing "simple"? Hhc2 16:41 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done Hhc2 20:07, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I have a question about this Spitta bio. Does it pre-date Forkel (1808)? Noel 22:59, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Spitta was born in 1841, so I guess not. His bio was written in the 1870s, as far as I can make out. --Camembert

OK, I have fixed the bios to make clear that Forkel's is the first. Also, while I had the page open, I took the opportuniy to add your suggested text (above) about Bach's preiminence. Noel 13:26, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

This article as well as many others related to Bach, the BACH motif and fugues, all assert that the last fugue of the Kunst der Fuge remained unfinished, as Bach died before he could complete it. Though it's nearly established canon by now, Christopher Wolff and several other noted Bach researches contend that it's simply false: the KdF *was* finished, it just wasn't handed over to posterity correctly by keepers of the Bach estate -- the final editions were not incorporated. (See, notably, the book Johann Sebastian Bach by Christopher Wolff.)

This, together with the "Bach dictated the choral 'Vor deinem Thron tret' ich hiermit' at his death bed" canard (not present in the article, thankfully), is perhaps the most commonly cited Bach myth. I don't have direct access to original material about it, though, which is why I'm reluctant to alter the article too much. For now, I've eliminated the remark, as it adds too little to the main article to be sorely missed. Could somebody sort it out once and for all and present the different views (probably in The Art of Fugue)? We'll get around to updating the linking articles in the aftermath.

CPE Bach

I note the comment that CPE Bach 'earned the respect of Mozart'. This seems to rather understate his significance given the prime influence his work had on all the 'Classical' period composers and through them on the early development of 19th cent romanticism (esp. with relation to piano works). Does anyone object to a small emendation to include at least reference to Haydn and Beethoven? --Alistairnoble 01:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In fact when 18th-century music critics talked about the great Bach they meant CPE Bach, not JS.

I agree as well. I think it is safe to consider CPE Bach as one of the founders of the Classical period style. The main reason however why CPE Bach was better known than his father was that his father's music was still in the process of discovery in this period and it was too complex and underappreciated except to the ears of other composers (perhaps the definitive description of Bach would be that he was the "composers' composer". I read that Haydn spent a good deal of time searching for a copy of the full mass in B minor). Suffice to say the name JS Bach didn't become a household name until a series of composers brought his work to the eyes of the public (particularly Mendelssohn) more than 50 years after his death.

Bach's date of birth

Is March 21, 1685 correct? One contributor has been changing it to March 31. Is there any uncertainty? Verifiable references only, please. JRM 12:20, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Johann Sebastian's birthdate is March 21, 1685. There are three reliable primary sources: Johann Gottfried Walther in his Musicalisches Lexicon, J.S.Bach's son CPE who was author of his obituary, and J.S. himself in his carefully prepared family genealogy. The Georgenkirche baptismal register gives his date of baptism as March 23, two days after his birth. Walther was an uncommonly reliable historian for the period, and in addition he was a close friend of Bach. Antandrus 16:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course, in the register it was March 21. But before 1700, the Julian calendar was used in the Protestant parts of Germany! According to the Gregorian calendar (which we use in Wikipedia) this date is March 31. Therefore I think the correction was right if there is no evidence that March 21 is Gregorian. Andres 07:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His birthdate doesn't change because we've switched to a Gregorian calendar! He was born 21 March 1685, which is a Julian date. It may be appropriate to indicate that it's Julian (e.g. 21 March 1685 (O.S.), but changing it to another date would not be a correction. - Nunh-huh 08:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it should be indicated that it is Julian, otherwise it is natural to assume that it is Gregorian. It seems to me that Gregorian dates should be indicated anyway, for all dates, whereas dates according to all other dates are optional. In this case, of course, we should indicate both dates. Further, we have articles about Gregorian dates, not about Julian dates, therefore we should link 31 March, not 21 March. Wikipedia uses the Gregorian calendar. Andres 08:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, well, George Washington was born on February 11, but when the Gregorian calendar kicked in, he started saying his birthday was February 22, and that's the recognized date today. We can just say March 21 (Old Style). But then, doesn't that mean that the year is wrong, too? RickK 08:56, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, the year is fine. In protestant Germany, the year had begun on January 1 since 1600. The peculiarities of England (with a historical year starting 1 January, a liturgical year starting on the first Sunday in advent, and a civil year which (from the 7th to the 12th century) started on 25 December, (from the 12th century until 1751) started on 25 May and (from 1752) started on 1 January weren't practised in Germany, so there's no need for double year dating in German areas. - Nunh-huh 09:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. The year is not wrong as it is 1685 both according the Old Style and the New Style.

Do you mean that we should recognize the date the person in question would mention? Andres 09:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The correct date is the one on his birth and baptismal documentation, marked according to the calender used. - Nunh-huh 09:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The manner the date of birth is mentioned here is not entirely correct. It should be mentioned that it is according to the Julian calendar. Moreover, the date of death is according to Gregorian calendar. The way of indicating the dates should be unified within one article. Therefore IMHO the dates before 1700 should be indicated according to both calendars. Further, we should use the same criteria for George Washington and Johann Sebastian Bach; currently, this is not the case. I have reservations about the rules but this does not pertain to this page. Andres 10:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it is all in Gregorian than it must be the 31st.

Who gives it won't kill you to be 10 days off of each other

Teaching and cantatas

A couple of questions:

1. There was hardly any period in his life when he did not have a full-time apprentice studying with him, and there were always numerous private students studying in Bach's house Is this remarkable? I would have thought that a craftsman having apprentices was the norm.
2. This post required him not only to instruct the students of the St. Thomas school in singing but also to provide weekly music at the two main churches in Leipzig. Bach endeavored to compose a new church piece, or cantata, every week. This challenging schedule, which basically amounted to writing an hour's worth of music every week Given that an average cantata is a little under half an hour, where does the extra half hour come from? Was he composing one cantata for each church, or a cantata plus other pieces? Mark¹ 08:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Final work

I took this addition by an anon out of the article: "However, opinions differ on this, with some scholars believing that the Mass in B Minor was, in fact, his final work." The B minor mass was assembled between 1747 and 1749 from pieces which were composed previously. Even though the process of assembly was a late one, it is misleading at best to state that "some scholars believe it to be his final work" since it was entirely composed long before. The Crucifixus, for example, comes from 1714; the Kyrie and Gloria were originally composed and dedicated to the Elector of Saxony in 1733; the Sanctus was first performed on Christmas Day in 1724; etc. At the very least I'd like to see a source on who these "some scholars" are. Thanks, Antandrus 15:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who made that edit -- the reason this is suspected is that parts of the Mass, parcticularly the Hosanna and Benedictus sections, are written in very shaky handwriting that identifies it with the final phase of his life when his eyesight had gone bad. In contrast, the Art of Fugue is written in his normal, "confident" writing. Of course most parts of the Mass were composed earlier, but the selection and arrangment was probably his final work.

I've seen the claim (not that the B minor mass was his last work, but that the Art of the Fugue and Vor deinem Thron were not) made elsewhere also. Will look into this... Schissel : bowl listen 05:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't we place the remark that there is only one painting of which it is sure that it is Bach? The first one showed. Of all the other paintings it isn't sure wether or not it's Bach! Lucas

St. Mathew Passion

At some point Bach referred to the St.Mathew Passion as his best work. Does anyone have a reference that supports this?

• There's no reference to it in The Bach Reader, where I'd expect to find something like this. I don't think he wrote much about the SMP, which is why the date of first performance is in doubt. —Wahoofive | Talk 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Works and compositional style

I'd venture to guess this article is going to fail Featured Article due to lack of information on Bach's music. It might be wise to start planning an outline on works, something like this:

1. Organ works
2. Other keyboard works (inventions, suites, well-tempered clavier)
3. Chamber music (solo sonatas)
4. Orchestral works (Brandenburgs, Orchestral Suites, concertos)
5. Vocal and choral works
   1. Cantatas
   2. Motets
   3. Large works (Passions, B minor mass, Magnificat, Christmas oratorio)

If this gets too long we can spin it off into a separate article, but let's wait and see. The content of each of these sections must be not just a list, rather a description of what he composed, how typical or atypical it was for Baroque compositions, and how often they're performed today. The secular cantatas, for example, are rarely done (except the Coffee Cantata, perhaps), and same for the solo cantatas and many of the solo sonatas.

Wonder if it's realistic to have a section on "Compositional style" as well? —Wahoofive | Talk 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also

This section is maybe not as important as the rest of the article, but.. why is Andras_Schiff listed? It links to a small article which states that Schiff's "one of the best known living interpreters of J.S. Bach", which is POV I reckon - moreover, I don't think I've ever met any musician or performer who would consider Schiff's interpretations as something outstanding. I'd rather see Rosalyn_Tureck listed here (not only because she "specialized" in Bach, but also because players like Gould admitted her influence), or Wanda_Landowska. Is there really something special in Schiff's playing?

Also, the article Sir_Colin_Davis from the "See also" list has no mention of Bach. I know nothing about Sir Colin Davis, so either he shouldn't be mentioned in the "See also" list, or the article on him lacks something important that would be connected with Bach somehow.

I'd make changes (Tureck, Landowska..) myself, but I really am no expert, so I figured I'd ask first :) Jashiin 11:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with you in re: Andras Schiff and Sir Colin Davis. Go ahead and kill 'em. I'd also advocate removing C.P.E. Bach and Johann Christian Bach because they're mentioned in the article, and anyway would be easily accessible via Bach family. I don't see much point in trying to make a list of noted performers of Bach's music, but perhaps others will disagree with me there. (If you do decide to do that, Helmuth Rilling would be a candidate.) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, since there were no objections, I did the edit. Added Helmut Walcha as well, since his recordings of Bach's complete organ works seem to be considered classic. I think a small list of noted performers of Bach's pieces wouldn't hurt; if it grows too big then we'll just move it to a separate article. Also, I removed the link to the Gödel, Escher, Bach book (its mentioned just above the "see also" header), and added List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach - it was mentioned in the middle of the article, kind of hard to find for such a useful link I think? Jashiin 16:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Bach family

I've already asked about this in Talk:Bach family, but since there was no response there, I figured maybe I would ask here as well. Would a template listing famed composers of the Bach family look good on Bach-related pages? I could start working on one, but, seeing how for instance Johann Sebastian Bach is already so big, I'm not sure if its a good idea. Jashiin 09:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to discourage it. Very few of the readers of Johann Sebastian Bach (or even C.P.E. Bach for that matter) are going to be interested in exploring insignificant members of the Bach family. It's not as if they're subjects of roughly equivalent importance. As long as there's a link to the the Bach family article from each one, I think that's sufficient. (I know you said "famed members" but this kind of thing tends to expand over time since there's no real way to determine where to draw the line.) —Wahoofive (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Aw. Allright, I got your point. Jashiin 17:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This article was on opensource

The creators of opensource edited this article. Listen to it at http://www.radioopensource.org/wp-content/os_pilot_3.mp3. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is "best known" keyboard work?

In the subsection "Other keyboard works", it says:

"His best known keyboard works are the Two-part inventions and Three-part inventions ... His best-known work is The Well-Tempered Clavier ..."

Which is it? Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably the D-minor Toccata and Fugue (organ) which some academics argue may not even be by Bach, but it seems that to get it right we'd have to ask a cross section of the world's population what they think, and even then we wouldn't have learnt anything encyclopedic. --RobertG ♬ talk 5 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Oh, you mean harpsichord. Sorry. But the tenor of my comment above stands. I suggest removing any reference to "best known" as opinion unless someone can produce a reference. --RobertG ♬ talk 5 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Sorry that was a rhetorical question. I was just trying to point out the article contradicts itself. Paul August ☎ July 6, 2005 00:36 (UTC)

I've fixed those two. Mark¹ 6 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

Intro changes

Friday, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Is there anyone who says otherwise about Bach? I doubt it, so there's no research representing the other POV to report. So it's not just my opinion, but the statement of all research on Bach. Cognition 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me you're kidding. And while I'm asking for favors, please stop edit warring also. It is appropriate to say someone like Bach is "regarded" as a great composer. I hesitate to point this out in fear that you'll run off and start more edit wars, but you'll find that other articles about famous composers use neutral language quite similiar to what you've been removing here. Friday 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is no big deal to me, so I won't revert back. But I don't see how it's not neutral, since there's really no other opinion on this matter. Bach was great, great, great. Cognition 16:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

While many consider Bach great I suspect a far greater number (sadly) think he and all classical music is a load of rubbish, SqueakBox 16:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sadly, but that's the people who ignore him. The people who research him all appreciate him. Cognition 16:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The people who research him do not say that everyone thinks he is great. The people who research the Beatles and Bob Marley also appreciate them, etc, SqueakBox 16:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bach greatness

I'm copying the following discussion from my talk page. Paul August ☎ 14:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

(start of copied text)

Hello. Don't get me wrong, I find Johann Sebastian Bach to be among the most significant, intellectually stimulating and influential too. But what does "great" mean, exactly, in that first sentence? If it means what I've just said in my previous sentence, then the article already says that - it's the next sentence! If it has other meanings, let's add them. Also, I really do think "of all time" is redundant. Please would you look at a discussion over at the composers project? Best. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Robert. "One of the greatest" (the article doesn't use the word "great") is an abbreviation (more or less) for "one of the two or three (or four? or five?) most significant, intellectually stimulating, influential, popular and enjoyed". And the next sentence: "His works, noted for their intellectual depth, technical command, and artistic beauty, have provided inspiration to nearly every composer in the European tradition, from Mozart to Schoenberg", doesn't say that — it is a much weaker statement. We could say something like that explicitly, but at the cost of brevity and conciseness and besides, everyone knows what "one of the greatest" means. They and everyone else use the expression all the time. Saying he was the "one of the greatest" represents an attempt at ranking, in this case, composers. While our modern bias is that such attempts are somewhat dubious, this is nevertheless, something that people (scholars as well as everyday folk) have continually done. And there is considerable consensus as to which composers rank highest: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart (among perhaps a couple of others). Such statements are ubiquitous. Our article should reflect that, just like Briatannica, which uses almost the exact phrase we do. Paul August ☎ 17:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, yes I suppose technically "of all time" is redundant. But stylistically, it or something like it (e.g. "who ever lived") is required. When reading "one of the greatest ..." one expects a qualification (e.g. "of the nineteenth century"). Paul August ☎ 17:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some indication of Bach's significance stronger than that second sentence, as it is encyclopedic. I'm still not happy with the word "greatest", because it's vague - and as you say it's an abbreviation, I'd really much rather include a modification of your expansion of the abbreviation above (I may try one day when I've more time). I don't accept that "everyone knows what it means" - "greatest" means different things to different people, and there's too much of the peacock and the "top ten" about it. And Britannica doing something is by itself no reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. For now I modified the page according to this bit of NPOV policy. Hope it's acceptable. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your modification, and I especially like that you were able to find a reasonable source. Yes "greatest" does mean (slightly) different things to different people, but in this case, that is part of its virtue. Nearly everyone agrees that "Bach was one of the greatest" but they won't all agree on why. Trying to replace it with some more precise statement will lead to problems. Sometimes (like in diplomacy) a bit of ambiguity is a good thing. And yes it doesn't behoove us to blindly follow Britannica, but of course we should pay close attention to what they do, they are still the gold standard. (I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and point to it in the discussion going on at composers project) Paul August ☎ 14:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

(End of copied text)

I think this works. While we can't write colorful adulatatory prose such as that by Nicolas Slonimsky in Baker's Biographical Dictionary ("Johann Sebastian Bach, is considered the supreme arbiter and lawgiver of music, a master whose greatness of stature is comparable to that of Aristotle in philosophy and Leonardo da Vinci in art") it's probably just as well (even though I personally agree with Slonimsky, and his POV is one of the things that makes him so fun to read). I think the current version conforms to both Bach's commonly understood greatness and the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Good. Antandrus (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I find this troubleful: "Johann Sebastian Bach was a German composer and organist of the baroque period, and is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest composers in the Western tonal tradition." Lets state that JSB was the ever greatest, period. Musical talent is overwhelmingly genetically determined via the many-little-gene process, so you cannot be a great composer without many generations of splendid muscians among your ancestors. No one can match JSB's 250-something strong "die Bache" extended musical family background, well traced since the 1450s. He's an ubermensch composer, a genetically superior german genius. Plus JSB lived in a time of absolute peace, never heard a gun fire in anger, so he could work undisturbed. Plus he was very diligent and lived quite long by 1700s standards. You can't match or exceed all these criteria, thus noone can be greater than him by musical works. And he was best keyboard player of all times, composing and performing. Just admit he is the greatest. You can't beat BWV1080/I/5.

To make a restrictive note about "western tradition" is also silly, because any intrument music is deeply maths based, thus eastern and western can be objectively compared and are not separete worlds. There was nobody in Japan or China to match him. Bach is the evil genius who made all musical efforts after 1750 meaningless, as Neefe said. No wonder BWV565 is associated with horror movies.

Arnstadt in wrong section?

Anyone object if I move the information on his post in Arnstadt from 'Formative years' to the next section ('Professional life')?

This article needs a LOT of intensive editing; in my view, it should be put up again for feature article status by the end of the year.

Tony 03:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. What "formative years" are exactly is rather vague, and Arnstadt was definitely a professional post. Antandrus (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

New section: style

I've added a subtitle and brief notes for this section, in response to a comment in relation to the failed attempt to promote this to a featured article. I will attempt to write this section soon.

Tony 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Is anyone actually in the process of writing this section? If they are, then I'll back off and let them do it; but if it's being neglected then I'll try to contribute to or write it myself. --Berserk798 03:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've been editing the first couple of sections for a while, but on and off. I'm a way for 10 days (until 22 August) and will try to put more time into it then. I'm afraid I think that the text in the style section needs to be rewritten—I created the section a couple of weeks ago, but didn't write more than suggestions for points to be covered. POV needs to be removed, and I'd like it to be more technically descriptive, without putting off non-specialists, of course.

I think that we need to ration the information that goes into the account of his life—it's only a summary, and daughter articles are required for areas that people feel need a greater level of detail. There may be a good case for articles on the canatas, the keyboard works, and other major genres. Have you read Wolff's wonderful biography?

Tony 02:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes you're right, it needs to be rewritten--the current section is basically a bunch of notes and keypoints I jotted down. No I'm afraid I haven't read Wolff's biography; maybe I'll try to find it at the local library sometime. --Berserk798 03:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

anecdotes

I wonder whether anyone agrees that the anecdote concerning Sebastian's copying music at this elder brother's place should be either removed or relocated? Currently, it appears to be a distraction from the account of his development, and, in any case, is conjectural.

What about removing it for the moment, and relocating it, and similar anecdotes, in a separate, linked article 'The life of JS Bach: anecdotes', if people are keen to include it?

It appears to me that we need to save text wherever possible, so that currently weak sections, on matters such as musical style, can be beefed up to address the complaints that quashed the attempt to promote the article.

Any comments?

By the way, is JFC Bach worth listing at the top as an important son? I'd have though he could be removed.

Tony 05:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

While I do realize space is needed, I also believe anecdotes to be essntial for any biography, because anecdotes are what most people remember from biographies they've read. And a separate article for anecdotes would mean that the main article is going to look bland and boring for a layperson.

If you're planning to do some massive edits, my suggestion is to move stuff to the talk page. When you're finished with a particular section, you can look at the talk page and see if you can fit some of the stuff you removed back.

Also, I suggest we make several articles for JSB like they did for Ludwig van Beethoven. It'd save HEAPS of space. While jumping from article to article isn't too comfortable, its still better than a 20 page article where you have to try to save space every time you make a little edit.

As for JFC - err, whom exactly do you mean? Johann Christian (JC) is listed at the top, and I reckon he's important. Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach (JCF - was it him you were talking about?) is listed in 'Family life', quite a place for that. No idea if he should or should not be removed, though. Jashiin 12:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The usual practice is to do everything in one article until it gets too long. Obviously there will eventually be enough info on JSB to split into dozens of articles, but it's easier to build it all in one place while it's still modest-sized. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with Wahoofive, that we should work on the text as a whole (at least for a while) before deciding to create daughter articles. Jashin, I take your point about the anecdotes, but the 'copying by moonlight' one just didn't fit where it was. I wonder whether we might consider inserting anecdotes at a later stage, when everyone's reasonably happy with a bird's eye account of his life and works. There are many anecdotes, some of which may have come down us in embellished form, so perhaps we need to be circumspect in our choice.

How many people are involved in improving this very important article? For a while, I got the impression that no one cares about it.

Tony 04:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death at the top

It's very messy at the moment; I know that there was calendar slippage in the early 1700s, but surely the footnote is good enough. I'm going to remove the links to Julian and Gregorian calendars, and relocate them in the footnote. Tony 14:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

footnotes

May I put in a request that we minimise the number of footnotes. An 'Ibid' has crept in as footnote 3, against Germany. I'm unsure how that will help the reader, and might even put some people off. Footnote symbols may have a place, but they don't make the text any easier to read. Tony 14:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove image?

The image captioned 'Morning prayers ...' is surely not authentic. It doesn't appear to depict the Bach family, and no one is praying. Tony 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be removed. I also think that the third portrait of him entitled "Johann Sebastian Bach" should be removed because it's an inauthentic line-drawing that's almost identical to the first and authentic portrait in our article. There's just no reason to have it. --Berserk798 02:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove both. Tony 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

External links

An anon addition prompted me to look over the External Links section - it needed trimming! I was bold, and removed several external links not primarily about Bach. Apart from obviously promotional links, I also removed: the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig (the site is about the Bach Archiv organisation, not about Bach); pianoparadise.com (the small biography doesn't add anything, and the rest of the site is mostly links to Amazon); the Geocities (/imyfujita) link (on grounds of quality, "Richter and Gould created Bach's music through the piano" and garbled, confused account of "pure temperament" (sic) and equal temperament); the Mutopia link (commented out because it's broken, I will try it again in a few days, but I can't find Bach anywhere on the Mutopia home page); the ELCA link (it was phrased as a commercial promotion for a video, and the link took me to the home page of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).

I also replaced some double entries with a single entry for the site's home page. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, Robert, thanks. Tony 22:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

J. A. Bach, was (not) the town piper in Eisenach

The trouble with the term "piper" is that in American English anyway it conjures up the famous childhood "Pied Piper of Hamlin" story, and images of that silly guy tripping along playing on his flute. Bagpipes, too, come into it. But not the manifold / multifold civic responsibilities which J.A. Bach performed, all of which combined to influence his son J.S. so greatly. I see online one site which describes JA as having been "Hausmann", which the site translates as "director of music for the town".

C. Wolff also goes on at length in his opus to show how broad-ranging and sophisticated JA's position was: part of Wolff's "learned musician" thesis but perhaps accurate whether or not one accepts that. JA's household, in any event, was well-equipped with music, various instruments, talent, tradition: far more than "piper" might suggest -- "beer fiddler", for instance, was a pejorative term in Bach's time, and "piper" sounds similar.

So I suggest the following change be made: "Johann Ambrosius Bach, was the town musician in Eisenach..."

--Kessler 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Tony 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)