Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent large number of edits have been dropping material from the biography and legacy section of the Bach article at Wikipedia making it unrealistic concerning Bach's legacy. The apparent desire of the recent editors is to present a prettified and Disneyland version of the biography of Bach which deletes the rough times of Bach's legacy immediately after his death and the irreparable losses of huge parts of his manuscripts and compositions. This material was present in the Bach article earlier this year as edited by User:Buxtehude from 27 March 2015 all the way up to the recent forced deletion of the material by two recent editors in preference for the prettified and Disneyland version of Bach's legacy in an idealized version of the Bach article in its current form. The material by Buxtehude should be restored to the article in the realist version of the article which accurately represents the rough times which Bach's legacy faced in its previous Wikipedia form given as:

Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach, including over 100 cantatas and his St Mark Passion, of which no copies are known to survive. At one point, the diary of one family member records the selling of the high quality parchment used for the hand-written transcriptions to be used for their stock value as packing paper at a local butcher shop due to harsh financial necessity, from Buxtehude on 27 March 2015.

The question for this RfC is: Whether to SUPPORT the restoration of the deleted material of the realistic representation of Bach's legacy from the time of his death 1750 to 1829, which was the year of the Mendelssohn revival of Bach's reputation as a composer? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the refined version of the Buxtehude edit with requested citations added as requested by the various participating editors during the thirty day rfc period (in nowiki format) (Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)):

Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach, including over 100 cantatas and his ''[[St Mark Passion (Bach)|St Mark Passion]]'', of which no copies are known to survive. At one point, the diary of one family member records the selling of the high quality parchment used for the hand-written transcriptions to be used for their stock value as packing paper at a local cheese shop due to harsh financial necessity. The legacy of the Matthew Passion, although surviving, also followed a complex historical path following Bach's death. In 1829, with the backing of Zelter and the assistance of actor [[Eduard Devrient]], Mendelssohn arranged and conducted a performance in Berlin of Bach's ''[[St Matthew Passion]]''. Four years previously his grandmother, [[Itzig family#Bella Itzig (1749–1824)|Bella Salomon]], had given him a copy of the manuscript of this (by then all-but-forgotten) masterpiece.<ref>Grove Music Online, ''Mendelssohn, Felix'', §2</ref> The orchestra and choir for the performance were provided by the Berlin Singakademie. The success of this performance was an important element in the revival of J. S. Bach's music in Germany and, eventually, throughout Europe.{{sfn|Mercer-Taylor|2000|pp=73–75}} It earned Mendelssohn widespread acclaim at the age of 20. It also led to one of the few references which Mendelssohn made to his origins: "To think that it took an actor and a Jew's son to revive the greatest Christian music for the world!"{{sfn|Todd|2003|pp=193–198}}{{sfn|Devrient|1869}}'''

Support-Oppose section

RFS, IF a RS can be sited in this then yes Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as originating this RfC. The material in the 27 March 2015 edit shown above should be restored to the Bach article. The representation of the realistic version of Bach's legacy accurately is more important than the desire of some editors to present a prettified and inaccurate version of Bach's legacy after his death. Over 100 cantatas were lost or discarded after Bach's death out of 300 cantatas, and 3 out of 5 of Bach's Passions have been lost or discarded including the lost St Mark's Passion. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Question when was the quote above recently in the article? Couldn't find it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  It was fairly plainly identified: Buxtehude on 27 March 2015. If you still cannot find it, then I could provide the link for you. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • And how is 27 March 2015 "recently"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Because it is the version that was posted for weeks-and-weeks prior to you deleting it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Again, where does "recent" come in? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Again, the Buxtehude version is the one that has been there for most of the year until your deletion of it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Again, where does "recent" come in? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Again, if you do not know how to look up edits in the edit history, then all you need to do is ask for someone to help you. Here is the link to the version of the Buxtehude edit and its citation [1]. This is the version (version of User:Buxtehude) that has been in the Bach article for most of this year until your recent deletion of it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see this as having a chance whatsoever without decent references. Please provide these references ASAP, I'd support a WP:SNOW close otherwise. Without decent indication of which material this is supposed to replace (or was it intentional to double some material?) I don't see this as having a chance either, and would likewise support a snow close. Same if it isn't mentioned where this is supposed to go. For the record, the Butcher's story is anecdotal in a fashion not related to music, so I'd oppose it anyhow. The fact that Mendelssohn's father salvaged a lot of the scores at a sale (which is in the article now) is imho more pertinent to the reception history. Further, how many cantatas went lost is a matter of contention among scholars, so one would need very strong references to name a number in this respect in the biographical article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The citation is plainly given in the Buxtehude edit which I have plainly identified. If you cannot find it, here it is again: Buxtehude on 27 March 2015. If you need the link and you do not know how to look this up in the edit history then I can provide the link for you to the reference. Also since you appear to be the editor who has been deleting the important and pertinent information of the lost Bach compositions, then your position for defending a "prettified" version of the Bach material seems plain. One third of the cantatas are lost, and if you do not know this as documented in multiple sources and books then you might want to reconsider your position on Bach as not serving the needs of a realistic version of the Bach material. Let me know if you need the link to the previous editor: Buxtehude on 27 March 2015, who does give the citation. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll proceed with a snow close now, apparently no references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• No reason for any type of close prior to the normal 30-day RfC review period since the Greenberg reference and Buxtehude edit is plainly attributed by User:Buxtedhude. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• What "Greenberg reference"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the link [2]. If you still do not know how to locate edits in the edit history, then all you need to do is to ask for help. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the diff, but again, in what universe is an edit of 27 March 2015 "recent"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Because it is the version (the Buxtehude version of the edit) which has been there for most of this year as the more realistic version of the Bach legacy material until you recently deleted it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As I said I couldn't find the content you quoted above in the recent history of the article, so again, what is this about "recent"? All you can show is apparently when this came in months ago. Thus far the only merits you can name for that content is that it has been in the article for some indeterminate time until "recently". First that seems to be incorrect (old material, not falling into the category of something that was moved out recently). And frankly, if all you have showing for that content is that "it has been in the article for some time" I think this conversation is over before it began, as on the merits it's all about a time argument that seems quite far from an intelligent discussion that we could have instead over the article's content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Much as I detest Francis Schonken's editorial practices and manners, I have to say the current version of the relevant paragraphs of the article is more accurate, better sourced, and better written. As an example of accuracy, one may take the story of Bach's cello suites: published in 1826, that is before the events of 1829, and even after those events universally ignored for many decades. (For details, pretty much any book on the suites will provide information.) Another example would be the lost manuscript of Bach's 72 two-voice fugues: scholars knew about it in the 1850s, yet not one of them bothered to make any copies, and the manuscript was promptly lost even though Bach already had quite a reputation at the time. (For details, see Ledbetter's excellent book on the WTC, p. 186 and the relevant footnote.) Better sourcing should be obvious: instead of popular lectures by Greenberg, we now have Wolff et al., proper scholarship, although references still need work, and I'd much rather see something more Bach-centric than the Morris book on Beethoven supporting the whole "passé even in his own lifetime" thing. Finally, better written - probably just an opinion, but really, the short paragraph quoted here from Buxtehude's version contains 3 instances of "family member" - that, at least, does not look like good writing to me. On a final note, I'm very sorry, but if I had to choose a "Disneyland" version, I would have to choose the older one: the one that portrays Bach as a misunderstood martyr, complete with picturesque anecdotes on how his works were used as wrapping paper, playing into popular sensibilities. The reality is much more prosaic. --Jashiin (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Jashiin: My own agreement is with 90% of what you have written so I am adding a short comment. Also I agree with you that the User:Francis editorial practices and manners are likely without general merit. Importantly, I do want to ask if there is an easy way to incorporate the missing data from the Buxtehude edit shown above into the new outline format of the current Legacy section. I have provided the ISBN information for the Professor Robert Greenberg book on Bach and the High Baroque so the sources seem to be useful, reliable, and published. Over one third of the Bach cantatas are permanently lost and over 50% of the 5 Passions have been discarded or lost. That's something that current scholars on Bach need to know if they are to accurately reflect what has survived in his legacy. Can you offer a way of adapting the wording in the current section in order to preserve a full appreciation of the sense of loss which Bach scholars experience when they are faced with the loss of over 100 cantatas and the loss of the scores for 3 full Passions. Can you offer a possible enhancement to the wording in the current article? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• For wording, let's think about it, and wait for this RfC to yield some more results perhaps? For now, let me quote Wolff's article from Grove Online for you: "[Bach] composed five complete (or nearly complete) cycles of cantatas for the the Church year, with about 60 cantatas in each [...] The existence of the fourth and fifth cycles has been questioned, because of their fragmentary survival compared with the almost complete survival of the [three others] [...] until a positive argument for their non-existence can be put forward the number of five cycles, laid down in the obituary of 1754, must stand. [...] the disappearance of about 100 cantatas would not be exceptional." This explains (a) where the number "100" comes from, (b) where the information comes from, and (c) that some scholars doubt the existence of those cantatas. Wolff is, some would say, the leading Bach scholar today, certianly one of the leading ones, at any rate. Now, for the butcher shop story, I'm afriad I only know of one about a cheese shop using Bach scores as wrapping paper. This comes from A. B. Marx's memoirs, and is a story from Mendelssohn's teacher C. F. Zelter. See for example here, hopefully Google Books will show the relevant page to you. If not, the book's ISBN etc is here, and the page number is 31. This is just one of many references for this particular story, which I think would be better suited for the article on Matthäuspassion itself, rather than for this one. Finally, the Passions: frankly I have never researched this side of Bach's output, and can't give you a citation for quite so many of those lost. Any kind of wording alteration would have to rely on a good source like the one I gave above. --Jashiin (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Jashiin: My agreement is again with 90% of your comments and accuracy of research. I am also agreeing with you on the "cheese shop" version of the same reference instead of the butcher shop. My memory of reading this is the same as yours and this is the version that should enhance the Buxtehude version of the edit. There was a Bach article in the NYRB earlier this year, I think, which gave the exact numbers on the Cantatas which was 190 surviving out of just over 300 total written, again in agreement with your comments and accurate research. Its been over a week now for the RfC and if you are starting to see a version of the Buxtehude edit which looks better to you than the one that is there, then it would be nice to see your version with your citations posted here since it sounds like a good approach. I would support going to the "cheese shop" version of the narrative as my agreement with your reading of the reliable sources. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Some additional info:

• Re. "100 cantatas lost" – too vague a description: sources like Wolff and the Nekrolog only speak about the "five cycles" of church cantatas. For the secular cantatas other numbers could be given, with quite a few identified (e.g. quite a few with a libretto printed by the text author) and/or reconstructed (...while sharing music with known church cantatas and/or other extant music). Some of these mentioned in BWV Anh. I, others inserted in the BWV main catalogue typically with "a" or "b" added to the BWV number of the cantata or other composition they share material with (e.g. BWV 66a, secular cantata of which the libretto was in print and has thus survived without score, sharing musical material with BWV 66, an entirely surviving church cantata – so BWV 66a is not enirely "lost", even "music lost" does not entirely apply as its music partially survived in another cantata).
• As Wolff described, the numbers of the lost church cantatas are indeed a matter of contention. Sometimes Bach took a cantata of an older cycle, re-arranged it a bit, and put it up for performance again (even for the known ones where this happened there's not always a separate entry in the BWV, e.g. BWV 63). Also it is known Bach bought an entire cantata cycle for performance in Leipzig, which by the authors of the Nekrolog may have been mistaken for one of Bach's cycles. How much of this perspires in the "five cycles" mentioned in the Nekrolog is unknown. Also, it would be possible to give a host of names and references of individual biographers that doubt the 100 church cantatas lost figure.
• Re. "Five Passions" (again a number originating from the Nekrolog): the topic is covered at Passions (Bach). Apart from the two known surviving ones that were without doubt composed by Bach (St John, BWV 245 and St Matthew, BWV 244) and the known lost one (St Mark, BWV 247 – to a large extent reconstructable with the libretto and the "reuse" scheme in later extant compositions available) it is quite likely the others intended by the authors of the Nekrolog survived but were only adaptations by Bach of compositions by others. Scholars are quite in agreement the St Luke, BWV 246 is one of them. Another quite likely candidate, the first version of which the authors of the Nekrolog would only have known in Bach's handwriting, which was produced before these authors of the Nekrolog were born, is Bach's reworked Jesus Christus ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet. Another candidate, the Weimarer Passion, has a lot of material reused in later, still extant, compositions: so it is rather difficult to measure how much is lost, even if this would be the fifth one intended in the Nekrolog.

Currently the reception section in this biographical article on the composer has: "Bach's surviving family members, who inherited a large part of his manuscripts, were not all equally concerned with preserving them, leading to considerable losses." and a bit further down: "Wilhelm Friedemann, the eldest son, had taken the larger part of the church cantatas to Halle but that collection got dispersed." (note however that quite some of the autographs and manuscripts of church cantatas mentioned at the BachDigital website are certain to have survived from W. F. Bach's estate). I think this covers the ground with sufficient amount of detail for the biographical article, without going into the detail that might better be covered in subsidiary articles. So on this point I think I agree with Jashiin.

Re "sense of loss which Bach scholars experience" – I object to refocus a biographical article about the composer towards feelings and experiences of other people (whether they are scholar or not). That's outside the scope of this article. The topic of reception of the composer is about a certain amount of neglect in the second half of the 18th century. And a lot of recovering of previously inaccessible material in the 19th century, etc. Not about what W. F. Bach felt or experienced when he put some of his father's scores up for sale. Not about what scholars experienced when they could uncover part of it, or when they failed at uncovering other parts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Maybe support vs. oppose is not a good choice: I would like to call attention to the following, which implies that part of the "Buxtehude" passage bold-faced above was not simply deleted but in part reworded. So the issue is more complicated than simply restoring that passage. Marlindale (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

.

Discussion section

• Comment Actually, I didn't add that butcher shop story and edited the section on 30 March with the edit summary "No primary/reliable source found for anecdote": [3] Buxtehude (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Buxtehude: Though you did add the useful Professor Robert Greenberg citation to your edit. I looked up the full ISBN information which all appears to be the real thing in terms of importance and notable content. Is there a way to incorporate the information content of your edit into the current version of the legacy section in order to preserve the missing data facts which are of interest? Here is the full citation:

Bach and the High Baroque, by Professor Robert Greenberg

Publisher: The Teaching Company (1998)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 1565853733

ISBN-13: 978-1565853737, possibly there is a way to include this in the current Legacy section in order to preserve the missing facts. Could a suggestion be offered by someone? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would prefer to rely on the leading Bach scholars like Wolff and Geck as sources (see the helpful Geck reference that ‎Jashiin provided). Buxtehude (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Buxtehude: That sounds good, and User:Jashiin in suggesting that we also go with the Wolff and A.B. Marx references, as I read above with his comment. If you have an enhanced version of the edit in your own words, then maybe you could post it here for us, since I see User:Jashiin's references as reliable sources and in agreement with much of your original edit of them. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• At the moment the article contains the following sentence, supported by the Wolff reference: "Bach's surviving family members, who inherited a large part of his manuscripts, were not all equally concerned with preserving them, leading to considerable losses." Personally, I'm fine with this formulation. But, as always, feel free to edit the paragraph if you see room for improvement. Buxtehude (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, in and of itself it might stand but shouldn't it mention the size of these considerable losses. One third of the cantatas gone, 3 out of 5 Passions permanently lost. That's quite considerable and normally would be mentioned in a discussion of Bach's legacy. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think I'm on Francis Schonken's side here. I believe there are no reliable sources for what he removed. 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

• @Tony1: Yes, though I just located the full ISBN information to the Professor Robert Greenberg book on Bach and the High Baroque. Is there an easy way to incorporate the data in the Buxtehude edit into the current version of the article in order to preserve this useful information. Can you suggest a useful rewording which could be used to preserve the Buxtehude Greenberg information on Bach's legacy currently missing in the current version of the article? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Above I said somewhere that I don't think the biographical article needs to elaborate on feelings (of loss or whatever) of scholars etc. On the other hand, tenacious searches by scholars in view of uncovering lost scores, sometimes leading to important finds (like an extended library of Bachiana quarter of a millenium after the composer's death in Russia) are surely part of the reception history of the composer's work. But that's rather 19th century and later than 18th century.

What do editors think about extending that material in the reception section, of course with appropriate sourcing of such material? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

• Another suggestion is that the somewhat glancing mention in the current article here of two of Bach's composer sons should be mentioned more noticeably in the Legacy section here. The wording on the Wikipedia article for CPE Bach is that the reputation of Bach's 2 sons as composers initially surpassed that of their father in the decades immediately after Bach's death in 1750. The exact words in the CPE Bach article are: "Through the later half of the 18th century, the reputation of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach stood very high,{{sfnp|''EB''|1911}} surpassing that of his father.<ref name=Dammann/> Haydn and Beethoven admired him and collected his music.<ref name=Dammann/> Mozart said of him, "Bach is the father, we are the children."{{sfnp|''EB''|1911}}{{refn|[[Friedrich Rochlitz|Rochlitz]],{{sfn|Rochlitz|pp=308 ff}} quoted in [[Hans-Günter Ottenberg|Ottenberg]].{{sfnp|Ottenberg|1987|p=98 & 191}}}} The best part of Joseph Haydn's training was derived from a study of C. P. E.'s work." It seems worthy of notice. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Simple, this is the article about the father, not about the sons. See their respective articles. I see no use in making this an article about scholars, relatives, students of relatives (that were famous in their own right), etc. This is an article about this composer, and how he was received in the more than three centuries since he started composing. Not about the histories of other men and women that are described (with their respective reception histories) in their own articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • This is an article about Bach as well as the legacy of Bach. The mention of his sons is biographical as part of the family which he fathered, and also part of Bach's legacy since notable and reliable sources have compared his two sons as composers to Johann Sebastian Bach as a composer. The material is worthy of attention for inclusion. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
      • If that's a difference between reception history and legacy, then in each individual article we're rather doing reception history I suppose. The many links in the article take you to the detailed descriptions of the many legacies, each in their own right (compositions, later composers, scholars,...). The reason for this is entirely practical: no more doubling of material than necessary (e.g. popularity of CPE Bach in the CPE Bach article; what Mozart thought of CPE Bach in the Mozart article, etc.); and this also avoids that in a biographical article the actual biography gets overshadowed by detailed descriptions of later famous composers, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Being told by a reliable source like Dammann that Bach's sons had a higher reputation than their father as composers at the time of Bach's death in 1750 and for the decade after his death is relevant, notable, and should be included in the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
          • At the time of JS Bach's death, CPE Bach's godfather was even wore famous than all of JS Bach's sons taken together. And...? Again, this is not an article on CPE Bach, nor on his godfather. BTW, the Dammann-based content is taken from an article on CPE Bach ("CPE Bach: like father, like son"), and currently, in Wikipedia, that content is where it belongs: in the article on CPE Bach (Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach#Legacy and musical style opens with it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Comments which compare Bach as a composer to other composers at the time of his death are fully relevant to this Bach article and to his legacy. The direct comparison to Bach should be included here. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think I'd need something more convincing why, when there are thousands and thousands of sources about JS Bach, we would want to use one of the few that were written about his son CPE Bach, sources that BTW are used in that son's article. So, oppose for now. Here's an idea: the last chapter of Spitta's 2000 page biography on Bach may cover some "reception" aspects until now unmentioned in the Wikipedia Bach article (blame me, I never read that chapter entirely). There are many other more recent sources covering reception aspects of the composer and his music, many of which are available after a few clicks on the internet. When this is only about restoring content how it was some months ago, I think this is going nowhere: the balance of topics treated in the article is better now than it was some months ago. But there is still a lot of improvement possible, and finding eligible content doesn't seem all too difficult. There's no need to discuss the popularity of Bach in the second half of the 18th century by naming all the composers that were more popular then: all of the composers living in the second half of the 18th century were more popular than JS Bach during that half century, because in that period the reputation of a dead composer never exceeded that of a living composer. So the listing of all of these composers would be tedious and senseless, even if they were his sons, the godfathers of his sons, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion III

• The significant number of comments made during this RfC have indicated that an important improvement can be made to the Legacy section to move it closer to a peer reviewed article rather than lock in into the current "B" class article indefinitely. The comparisons to Bach's two composer sons is currently completely missing from the Legacy section even though their reputation exceeded Bach's at the time of his death in 1750. The comparison to the sons is important because they are recognized as notable composers in their own right, and, they were significantly brought up in the same household as Bach and were subject to his tutelage. If an edit could be presented by someone which revives the User:Buxtehude edit which was deleted by User:Francis, with the User:Jashiin correction with citation to "cheese shop" rather than "butcher shop", followed by mention of the Damman reference to CPE Bach's reputation, then the section would be significantly improved towards peer review status. The Friedemann Bach material is also significant and should be summarized as a one sentence addition to the mention of CPE Bach which should be added as well. This is the relevant material from the Wikipedia Friedemann Bach article which mentions his direct important to the Bach article here:

Relevant Wikipedia quotation for Bach from Friedemann Bach article: "Friedemann Bach's students included Johann Nikolaus Forkel, who in 1802 published the first biography of Johann Sebastian Bach; Friedemann, as well as his younger brother Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, were major informants for Forkel. Friedemann has in earlier biographies been called a poor custodian of his father's musical manuscripts, many of which he inherited; however, more recent scholars are uncertain how many were lost. It is known that Friedemann sold some of his father's collection to raise cash to pay debts (including a large sale in 1759 to Johann Georg Nacke). Also, his daughter took some of the Sebastian Bach manuscripts with her when she moved to America, and these were passed on to her descendants, who inadvertently destroyed many of them. Others were passed on through his only known Berlin pupil, Sarah Itzig Levy, the daughter of a prominent Jewish family in Berlin and great-aunt of Felix Mendelssohn; it was she who gave Mendelssohn the manuscript of the St. Matthew Passion, which she had received from Friedemann. Some of his scores were collected by Carl Friedrich Christian Fasch and his pupil Carl Friedrich Zelter, the teacher of Felix Mendelssohn and through them these materials were placed in the library of the Sing-Akademie zu Berlin, which Fasch founded in 1791 and of which Zelter took charge in 1800." This material should be summarized and included in the Bach article here. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per prior comments. Copy-pasting from other Wikipedia articles and suggesting others summarize it, find sources for it, etc. is just a little bit lazy, isn't it? Re ""B" class" – no offence taken, but would suggest avoiding such characterizations, that have received zero traction thus far, until a peer review of some sort has taken place. The article lost its "good article" status long before many updates over several months. Maybe it's ready for a peer review, and I'd gladly stop this RfC and take the article to WP:GAN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support as highly relevant to the Bach article as a whole. The current mention of a handful of Mozart and Hadyn variations on Bach in the current version of the article is not as significant as mentioning the direct comparison of Bach to his two composer sons as discussed in the comments above. The article should be improved from a "B" class article towards a peer reviewed quality article. Bach deserves an enhanced and improved article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Further, I'd like to remark the paragraph cited above from the W. F. Bach article is completely unsourced, and contains errors, e.g. "Sarah Itzig Levy ... gave Mendelssohn the manuscript of the St. Matthew Passion, which she had received from Friedemann" is complete bogus. Sarah Itzig Levy never owned a manuscript of the St. Matthew Passion. She never gave any manuscript score to Felix Mendelssohn. There is not a single known manuscript that was consecutively owned by a Bach, an Itzig and a Mendelssohn. The score of the St Matthew Passion Felix Mendelssohn received in 1823 was copied by Eduard Ritz, from a score never owned by W. F. Bach, and was given him by his grandmother, who never was a pupil of W. F. Bach. On the other hand, Wikipedia's article on J. S. Bach currently mentions Mendelssohn's great-aunt for what she did: perform the soloist part of BWV 1052 in a public concert many years before the Bach Revival.

  So instead of inviting us into a WP:CIRCULAR entrapment, maybe go looking for external sources, like I suggested above, at the end of suggestion 2? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion between two editors. I'm afraid this discussion may have put off some other editors who had previously made very positive contributions to the article. I'm not concerned at least for now with 'B class" or peer review. What I hope to do is to edit the article on factual points. Marlindale (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Transpositiion of paragraphs and edit conduct of User:Francis Schonken

Francis Schonken's most recent action transposes paragraphs in a way that seems to me not to make sense. I was tempted to undo that edit, but resisted the temptation because I don't recall ever seeing an undo in a Talk page. What do others think? Marlindale (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Editors may generally place their own edits where they prefer their own edits to be placed. Editing behavior by other editors needs to follow the same rules on the Talk page as anywhere else in Wikipedia. You may place your own edits where you believe they belong and you will be supported by other editors in doing so. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Other users such as User:Jashin have also pointed out edit problems with User:Francis Schoncken editing conduct in the discussion above. See his comments above. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Established policy for closing RfC is plainly stated: 'Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.' Please follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fresh start on Talk?

It seems to me that this Talk page has got into a tangle, partly by my own fault, in that some paragraphs are out of order. There is material worth rescuing and using. Suggestions? Marlindale (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the RfC is still active, this could only be done when there's an agreement to prematurely close the RfC. In that case I'd recommend a listing at WP:ANRFC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• See note in section immediately below. The useful comments of the other editors participating in this RfC can be used productively and constructively here. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"March 27 2015" paragraph lacks any citations

So, one would rather not agree to (re)inserting it as it is (was)? Now, the issue has changed to inserting something else, not yet exactly specified, but whether to mention butcher shop, cheese shop, or neither? For reference to cite, Wolff seems favored as Jashiin suggested 10 December. Marlindale (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Marlindale: I am in agreement with ninety percent of your comments which I see as constructive to make the best use of this RfC. If an edit could be presented by someone which revives the User:Buxtehude edit which was deleted by User:Francis, with the User:Jashiin correction with citation to "cheese shop" rather than "butcher shop", followed by mention of the Damman reference to CPE Bach's reputation, then the section would be significantly improved towards peer review status. The Friedemann Bach material is also significant and should be summarized as a one sentence addition if a reliable source can be added from the Bibliography on the Friedemann Bach wikipedia page. Jashiin's statements I have found to be reliable and useful, and he also appears to be open to improving the Legacy section provided that the reliable Dammann citation appears in the edit. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC began on December 7 and as I understand, its default length is 30 days. If it were to be ended early, I suppose the decision would to be not to carry out the insertion of the March 27 paragraph. If anyone thinks the RfC should not end early, please say so. Marlindale (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

About further changes in the article, I don't for the next few days have access to anything by Wolff. and so I don't have any specific proposal. Marlindale (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• That does not seem consistent with all the other editors many of whom have indicated that changes are good as long as they are documented, in which case they are welcome. Still two weeks on this RfC and if you can offer an improved edit then please show it to us. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, about "diary of a family member", which family member, how documented? I still have not seen any Wolff source but hope to soon. Marlindale (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably it's Wilhelm Friedemann Bach? But we need more detail. Marlindale (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Marlindale: Yes it is the Friedemann link which you provided. You have also placed another section on this Talk page below which I find relevant. By the way, it is the "cheese shop" and not the "butcher shop" according to the Dammann citation which User:Jashiin has previously provided above. The new version for this RfC edit may be constructed as four sentences: (1) Return the Buxtehude edit; (2) Insert the Dammann correction to "cheese shop" as presented by User:Jashiin and his citation; (3) Add your fine citation and comment about the Friedemann materials as you cite them in your new section below. (4) Add some comments on the two Bach brothers who exceeded Bach's own reputation as composers during the 1750s using one of the 7 references already in the See Also section of the Freiedemann Bach article at Wikipedia. This should be a significant improvement. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have competing stories about the fate of Friedemann's materials, (butcher) cheese shop, but now according to Wolff, put up for auction and fate thereafter "completely unknown." . Also about whether WF kept a diary, I don't know, but if he kept no record of which compositions he had put up for auction, it seems he was not very careful.

From what I've read, it seems that Wolff is an excellent source. Someone said so during the discussion. For the time being it seems we don't have agreement, and so I'm not going to edit the article until we have better agreement. Sorry about that. Marlindale (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (reposted from below section by Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

• @Marlindale: Your research and Wolff are on target as I read this. It is a "butcher shop" according to Dammann and User:Jashiin. As to the fate of the material from Friedemann's inheritance, it seems quite possible that both sources are still correct: That part was auctioned, and part was lost, and part ended up as packing paper in the butcher shop before Mendelssohn was able to recover it. It doesn't have to be the one or the other, and the new edit could state that one source (Wolff) says this, while Professor Robert Greenberg states that (citation given above). Your research in Wolff remains accurate. Cheers. (Could we post in one section here for clarity?) Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jashiin wrote Dec. 10 that "Wolff is, some would say, the leading Bach scholar today, certainly one of the leading ones." User:Jashiin also wrote about a `wrapping paper' story involving C. F. Zelter, second director of the Berlin Sing-Akademie, but it seems the story had been passed on through a few people. That story is not how various Bach mss got lost, but how supposedly Felix Mendelssohn `found' a MS of the Matthew Passion being used as wrapping paper in a shop. But about the St. Matthew Passion story, its MS was never lost. It passed from JSB to his son CPE, who carefully kept MSS he inherited. He gave a copy to his student Carl Friedrich Christian Fasch, first director of the Sing-Akademie, and from there it got to Zelter and Mendelssohn. I realize that shops (butcher or cheese) have somehow come to be important in a debate here, but I would rather not consider these hypothetical, anecdotal shops further myself. Marlindale (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For Bach mss to be lost, then found, through a shop, another difficulty it seems to me is that the shop(s) should be the same, and therefore in the same city, as opposed to lost in Leipzig or Halle (where WF was, for a while) and then found in Berlin (where Zelter and Mendelssohn were). Also it seems unlikely for a Matthew Passion to be lost, as JSB himself "prepared fair, or archival copies of his principal works ... and made or arranged for duplicate copies of his works" (Wolff 2013, p. 457) and CPEB, who inherited a MS, was "the most careful curator of his father's mateirials" (Wolff 2013, p. 459). About diaries, the closest I can see is that CPE wrote an autobiography (not a diary?). Marlindale (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)hat

I looked up all references to WFBach in the index of Spitta. I found no mention of shops (butcher or cheese). To me the most interesting statement was, Spitta vol. 3 p. 292 wrote that WF was "not unfrequently deficient in reverence toward his father's great works." Wolff has more specific information about WF putting mss up for auction. Marlindale (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marlindale: That's all fine on the Bach sons though in fact its important that it only gets things up to 1784 and 1788 when the two composer sons themselves died. That leaves the substantial period up to 1829 still unaccounted for. The Mendelssohn material is therefore still of high importance to the Legacy section of Bach. This is the passage from the Mendelssohn article at Wikipedia which has the pertinent references which should still be brought into the Bach article here as relevant to Bach:

'In 1829, with the backing of Zelter and the assistance of actor [[Eduard Devrient]], Mendelssohn arranged and conducted a performance in Berlin of Bach's ''[[St Matthew Passion]]''. Four years previously his grandmother, [[Itzig family#Bella Itzig (1749–1824)|Bella Salomon]], had given him a copy of the manuscript of this (by then all-but-forgotten) masterpiece.<ref>Grove Music Online, ''Mendelssohn, Felix'', §2</ref> The orchestra and choir for the performance were provided by the Berlin Singakademie. The success of this performance – the first since Bach's death in 1750 – was an important element in the revival of J. S. Bach's music in Germany and, eventually, throughout Europe.{{sfn|Mercer-Taylor|2000|pp=73–75}} It earned Mendelssohn widespread acclaim at the age of 20. It also led to one of the few references which Mendelssohn made to his origins: "To think that it took an actor and a Jew's son to revive the greatest Christian music for the world!"'{{sfn|Todd|2003|pp=193–198}}{{sfn|Devrient|1869|p

The improved edit here at the Bach article could be enhanced by accounting for both periods: *(a) The inheritance of the Bach sons up to the 1780s, and then (b) the composition's "lost status" until being re-discovered and revived by Mendelssohn. Both parts can be added to the original Buxtehude edit to repair and improve the Bach article here. Can you suggest the easiest edit for doing this? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I believe it's not correct to say, (as you quote the Mendelssohn article as saying), that the Mendelssohn performance of the Matthew Passion was the first since Bach's death in 1750. Bach's successors as Cantor had performed it a few times in Leipzig between 1750 and 1800, in particular, Doles in 1780. I thought that the Bach article already said so. Marlindale (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The St. Matthew Passion article says "The Passion was performed under the Cantor of St. Thomas until about 1800. It says that the Mendelssohn performance in 1829 was the first outside of Leipzig, without giving a reference. Wolff (2013) has an index with only one listing for Mendelssohn, a drawing by Felix of the Thomasschule buildings. Marlindale (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My own wording was just given as "re-discovered and revived by Mendelssohn" referring to the 1829 revival, which is accurate wording. Please note that Wolff is a Bach authority and not a Mendelssohn authority, and it is the Mendelssohn biographers who should be followed on this count. Much as we may like Wolff and Gardiner's biographies of Bach, in this case the biographers of Mendelssohn should be the authorities for the 1829 Mendelssohn revival of Bach along with its incident research (dropping the erroneous reference to it being the "first" one as edited by another editor at the Wikipedia Mendelssohn page). The new version of the edit is justified by the Mendelssohn biographers. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No time for a full answer, very busy. Realize RfC period is ending, but can't help it. Marlindale (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC has ended (timed out) without consensus, or with consensus for referenced version

• Therefore I suggest we proceed as if it had not taken place, Marlindale (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• For SUPPORT there appear to be 4-5 editors who have said they would accept the edit with references added to it. Two editors OPPOSE the edit (Marlindale and User:Francis). The edit with the references added has been posted in the subsection directly below this one as boldface text. Posting for neutral admin closure today. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Several needed references have not yet been added as far as I can see. Also I don't think that User:Jashiin's opinion is correctly summarized, it was Oppose 8 December 13:53 Marlindale (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC).

• The several needed references were provided in the subsection immediately below this one where anyone may read them. User:Jashiin, quite the contrary, was Supportive of the changes with references added as shown in the discussion above. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• My opinions have not changed. I forgive User:Fountains-of-Paris for changing my words to insert "or with consensus for referenced version". With regard to User:Jashiin, I gave an exact time and date for the oppose, what is it for another opinion? I will presently tire of answering repeated claims, sorry.Marlindale (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• The edit by User:Jashiin was qualified by him on 10 Dec which you appear to have missed. The "referenced version" you mention is presented in the subsection directly below this one in boldface font. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Refined version of Buxtehude edit with requested citations added

This is the refined version of the Buxtehude edit with requested citations added as requested by the various participating editors:

Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach, including over 100 cantatas and his ''[[St Mark Passion (Bach)|St Mark Passion]]'', of which no copies are known to survive. At one point, the diary of one family member records the selling of the high quality parchment used for the hand-written transcriptions to be used for their stock value as packing paper at a local cheese shop due to harsh financial necessity. The legacy of the Matthew Passion, although surviving, also followed a complex historical path following Bach's death. In 1829, with the backing of Zelter and the assistance of actor [[Eduard Devrient]], Mendelssohn arranged and conducted a performance in Berlin of Bach's ''[[St Matthew Passion]]''. Four years previously his grandmother, [[Itzig family#Bella Itzig (1749–1824)|Bella Salomon]], had given him a copy of the manuscript of this (by then all-but-forgotten) masterpiece.<ref>Grove Music Online, ''Mendelssohn, Felix'', §2</ref> The orchestra and choir for the performance were provided by the Berlin Singakademie. The success of this performance was an important element in the revival of J. S. Bach's music in Germany and, eventually, throughout Europe.{{sfn|Mercer-Taylor|2000|pp=73–75}} It earned Mendelssohn widespread acclaim at the age of 20. It also led to one of the few references which Mendelssohn made to his origins: "To think that it took an actor and a Jew's son to revive the greatest Christian music for the world!"{{sfn|Todd|2003|pp=193–198}}{{sfn|Devrient|1869|p

@Marlindale: You are free to add that Bach's two composer sons took care of the manuscript up to the times of their own deaths in 1784 and 1788 using your Wolff citations, as to your preferred format for them. It would also be of interest to know if Bach himself ever expressed an opinion of his sons as composers, for example, did Bach think that CPE was equal to FB as a composer, or otherwise, but this is optional for this edit. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Buxtehude framework is awkward and inconvenient. Family member still unspecified. Cheese shop not well documented. CPE for sure, maybe also WF, got copies of Matthew Passion. If WF got one he may have sold or lost it before death. CPE gave copies to student(s) before his death. Performance history of Passion 1750 to late 1700's in Leipziig documented by Bach biographer Spitta. Borrowed passage from Mendelssohn bio may be too long. Such info might belong instead in St. Matthew Passion.. Marlindale (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marlindale: Your edit at Mendelssohn to make the above correction was fully adequate and why not present something comparable here at the Bach page. It seems perfectly reasonable to keep the cited "grandmother" Bella Itzig passage and then to elide the specific mention of the cheese shop if you prefer it that way. Getting a responsible perspective on the slow reception of Bach as an exceptional composer between 1750 and 1829 is missing in the current article. From your edit at Mendelssohn it seems clear that you understand this material and why Mendelssohn was so important: why not show us what you think the edit should look like here (using Buxtehude or not) as representing your preferred version of it. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How to bring the discussion to a close?

Of the editors involved in the discussion, only User:Fountains-of-Paris and I have been in since User:Francis Schonken on 24 December, meanwhile the deadline for the RfC has passed. We two are not agreeing.. On 7 January User: Fountains-of Paris raised the possibility of "administrative closure". How in fact do we get closure? Marlindale (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The close was requested on the RfC admin close board several days ago which has a backlog. Please do not alter my edits as you have done here [4]. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The characters on my screen are pretty small, and sometimes while I'm typing the cursor jumps. Sorry I didn't notice, I should have checked for diff between new and old when I thought I was finished. Marlindale (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I gather the RfC is still open, but I think I've participated in it enough or more than enough here on the Talk page. Marlindale (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are done with your edits on the Bach Legacy and Bach death then it would suggest that you would not have started editing the article page prior to the completion of the discussion here. You are welcome to post your proposed edits here for everyone to discuss and assess in order for consensus to be reached on the Talk page concerning the Bach Legacy and Bach death. I have already invited you previously to post your version of either the related Mendelssohn items or the issues related to Bach's sons to be posted here for discussion so that consensus can be reached. What are you proposing with your most recent edits and your Talk page discussion in the sections which you have initiated below concerning the Bach Legacy? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wolff (2013) and information from it

I put a reference to the 2013 second edition of Wolff (2000) into 'Biographies" in the article. In the book, there is a section ESTATE AND MUSICAL LEGACY, pp. 454-463, of which pp. 456-463 are on Bach's compositions and the fate of their manuscripts. A brief summary on p. 459 says

'Most everything that went to Bach's second son CPE Bach has survived, while Friedemann's share has come down to us in incomplete and scattered form, because after resigning his post ... in Halle and never again taking up employment, he invariably found himself in economic trouble sand gradually sold off his inheritance."

He tried to sell manuscripts at auction, not getting prices he hoped for, and "The fate of these materials apparently sold on Friedemann's behalf remains completely unknown." Friedemann had not kept a list of just what manuscripts he had given to the auctioneer.

This account seems inconsistent with those about a butcher or cheese shop.

"What happened to Johann Christoph Friedrich's inheritance is another sad story" -- when he died, his son Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst [Bach] (kapellmeister in Berlin) received little or nothing.Marlindale (talk)her 01:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

There is much more in the Legacy section and in the book as a whole, which I hope to use as appropriate later. I'm interested in others' reaction to the above. Marlindale (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have competing stories about the fate of Friedemann's materials, (butcher) cheese shop, but now according to Wolff, put up for auction and fate thereafter "completely unknown." . Also about whether WF kept a diary, I don't know, but if he kept no record of which compositions he had put up for auction, it seems he was not very careful.

From what I've read, it seems that Wolff is an excellent source. Someone said so during the discussion. For the time being it seems we don't have agreement, and so I'm not going to edit the article until we have better agreement. Sorry about that. Marlindale (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If the material in this section concerning the quality of Wolff's biography, and the discussion of "parchment" are part of the Mendelssohn discussion in the edit of the RfC above, then this subsection should be added to the RfC above as a separate subsection. Wolff is not the only competent biographer of Bach, Gardiner and Robert Greenberg are competent authors on Bach; and use of the word "parchment" has a formal and informal aspect, often depicting the heavier weight of paper used for musical transcripts to keep them from buckling when placed on a musical stand. Biographers of Mendelssohn, not only Wolff, are pertinent reliable sources of the 1829 revival. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no "informal" use of the term parchment in this sense, it is not a type of "paper". Where do you get that stuff? Inventing it as you go along? If an author uses the term "parchment" for a Bach manuscript, name the book and page number, thank you: your vaguish "some author said something somewhere" doesn't cut it for the type of quality we're aiming at here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with User:Buxtehude's use of 'parchment.' If English is not your native language then ask someone at Wikipedia to help you. The dictionary says you are wrong which states parchment is a:

noun

1. the skin of sheep, goats, etc., prepared for use as a material on which to write.

2. a manuscript or document on such material.

3. a stiff, off-white paper resembling this material.

You may ask for help from others at Wikipedia in English, since English does not appear to be your native language in your misunderstanding of the various uses of 'parchment' in English usage. Your personal attacks and denigration on User:Buxtehude's proper use of 'parchment' must stop. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Butterladen

Georg Pölchau wrote on a manuscript, now known as D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 267:

Dieses von Joh. Sebast. Bach eigenhändig geschriebene
treffliche Werk fand ich unter altem, für den Butterladen
bestimmten Papier in dem Nachlasse des Clavierspielers Palschau
zu St: Petersburg 1814. Georg Pölchau.

Which translates something like:

This by Joh. Sebast. Bach himself written
eminent work I found between old, for the butter shop
destined papers, in the heritage of the keyboard player Palschau
at Saint Petersburg 1814. Georg Pölchau.

Some remarks:

1. Pölchau was wrong, it was not an autograph by Bach, but a copy from the second half of the 18th century of the Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (see D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 267 at www.bachdigital.de). Who produced the copy is unknown.
2. If "butter shop" is the same as "cheese shop" (is it?) – is there any other origin of the "cheese shop" story? If there is not, this should certainly not be included in Wikipedia's biographical article on J. S. Bach. That Pölchau published the E♭ major version of the Magnificat in 1811 (as currently mentioned in the article) is surely more important than that he couldn't distinguish Bach's handwriting from that of an unknown copyist.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Further to Francis's post, we must be careful to vet apparent anectdotes about Bach and his life. We're rather short of them, which is why people are keen to hear them; but they're not appropriate in a WP article unless given strong scholastic verification. Tony (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree there would be a shortage of anecdotes vetted by scholars, for instance the prefect incident, in Spitta and other biographies (afaics not yet mentioned in the article). But I of course agree that Wikipedia editors should approach such reliably sourced biographical data responsibly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Parchment?

I have no knowledge of any reliable source mentioning that Bach manuscripts ever existed on parchment. Don't know who ever contended that here on Wikipedia, but about time to show a reliable source that says so, don't you think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked for "paper" and "parchment" in the indices of Spitta and of Wolff (2013) and found neither word in either book. Wolff p. 458 mentions "wrapper to parts of the cantata BWV 76" where I think "parts" may mean instrumental and/or vocal parts as opposed to "portions". "Parts" are contrasted with "scores" of the same piece. The word "wrapper" is not indexed either. Marlindale (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

An important aspect of research on Bach's manuscripts regards the watermarks of the paper on which they were written (e.g. [5]). Occasionally the watermark is unclear and so on, but none of that research would make any sense on parchment, while by the nature of that material it does not carry any watermark. So I don't know who proposes that part of Bach's manuscripts would ever have been written on parchment: I've never read anything of the kind in any Bach research. So whoever launched that idea should be able to give a clear reference to a scholarly source. I suspect that even if some parchment would be mentioned in some specialized source (probably even unlikely such source exists) the info would be so marginal so as not to warrant inclusion in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Re. "parts" vs "score" (*not* "parts" vs "portions" which makes no sense in this context): when Bach composed he wrote a "score", all instruments and voices on the same page one under the other, then, when the music was to be performed, the "parts" were extracted from the score: violin parts, the part for the soprano singer and so, so that every musician had only their performance "part". Has nothing to do with the nature of the sheet the music was written on: afaik always paper, never parchment.

"Wrapper" may refer to the cover page and/or any later (paper) container for the score or parts. Many "wrappers" or covers were provided many years after the score and/or parts were written/copied. For instance Pölchau started collecting music in the late 18th century, and organised his collection over many years in the 19th century: then he often added a "wrapper", and he did that almost always for music that got in his posession lacking a title page: then on that wrapper he indicated for instance where he got the score, what was the name and type of the composition, for which instruments it was scored, who was the composer, whether it was complete or not, whether it was a "score", and/or separate parts, and so on (example of a "wrapper" written by Pölchau). Also here "wrapper" does not indicate a type of sheet: afaik always paper, never parchment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Inheritance of manuscripts of Bach's compositions

Today I made considerable edits about this, and User:Francis Schonken did also, in some cases requesting clarification which I agree was needed. But, it seems to me that he has dropped some topics in my edits, e.g. Poelchau-Singakademie, as can be seen by reviewing his edits of today, and I wonder if others have opinions about whether such topics should be reinserted? I'm willing to do it, but not of course it there is majority opposition. Marlindale (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't drop Poelchau/Sing-Akademie, was moved to the section where it belongs: Johann Sebastian Bach#Reception. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC still open on the Bach Legacy section and the form of the edit to best address this. Please follow the RfC policies and guidelines and wait for the RfC close prior to making related edits. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is now further evidence that Bach's reputation in Leipzig was then considered inferior as well to that of Telemann from the British Museum here [6]. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Please replace:

---

Wilhelm Friedemann, the eldest son, had taken the larger part of the church cantatas to Halle but that collection got dispersed.

---

(in third paragraph of Johann Sebastian Bach#18th century), by:

---

Wilhelm Friedemann had some of his father's cantatas performed, but his collection of his father's church music got dispersed.

---

References

Rationale: his brother's performances of their father's work is mentioned, makes sense to also mention the performances by the elder brother.

Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done @Francis Schonken: - this page is no longer protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

→ Re-activated request as the page is again fully protected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment on edit request

I think I've mentioned before, I think "got dispersed" would be better clarified by saying WF gradually put mss inherited from his father up for auction (Wolff 2013, p. 459). But I won't insist on that now, I agree to the edit request, but reserving the possibility later to make a separate edit regarding auctions. Marlindale (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Works for me – I think it'd be best to get to standard Wikipedia editing proceedings anyhow. Please improve the article in whatever way possible, I'll do the same when I see improvement possibilities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)