Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Oldest few children of JSB and Maria Barbara

The section 'Return to Weimar" after mentioning the year 1708 says "Later the same year" [1708] "their first child was born", oddly, not named in the article. The oldest surviving sons, Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Philipp Emanuel, who are rather well known, were born in (about 1710) and 1714 respectively. Was the first child the daughter Catharina Dorothea, or a non-surviving child, or ? Marlindale (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It was Catharina Dorothea Bach (1708-1774) according to Bach Family Marlindale (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A possible viewpoint is that Catharina Dorothea Bach was not notable enough to be mentioned. But then I would suggest deleting from the article "Later the same year their first child was born." I will wait a few days to see if anyone else finds their way to this section and has an opinion. Marlindale (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Wahoofive and other editors, I hope to have here an informal discussion. Marlindale (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the biography of Johann Sebastian Bach: the birth of his first child is significant enough for inclusion in this article AFAICS. FYI, she is mentioned in his first biographical sketch (the Nekrolog) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I put in Catharina Dorothea Bach (1709-1774), just the name and dates. Marlindale (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Beginning of Leipzig section

Someone has put in not too long ago a "clarification needed" and three "citation needed". I propose we have a go at resolving these. I will first take on myself the topic of "political machinations" of the town council. It seems to me there were differences of opinion between JSB and the council, which Wolff sums up by saying he thought they were "penny pinching". Marlindale (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I made the change re "penny pinching". Regarding "prestigious position" of Thomaskantor, it seems that JSB's own prestige increased while in the position, for example the honorary Dresden court composer appointment? Marlindale (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-church music for the city

Can someone suggest maybe a secular cantata from the Leipzig period? There was one for renovation of he St. Thomas School itself, but that doesn't seem to me to be the best occasion to refer to. Marlindale (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The problematic phrase, currently in the article is "... musical director of public functions such as city council elections and homages." Problems with that phrase:

1. Bach was director musices, yes (see for instance Nekrolog), but that is not the same as "musical director of public functions such as city council elections and homages"
2. Bach composed church cantatas for council elections, but that is as unrelated to being a "musical director of public functions" (which he was not) as any other church cantata he composed.
3. Homages to university professors, e.g. Die Freude reget sich, BWV 36b (secular cantata) were probably rather private commissions, than something he automatically had to produce as "musical director of public functions" (which he was not).
4. Homages to royals, such as Preise dein Glücke, gesegnetes Sachsen, BWV 215 (secular cantata for the king) or Trauer-Ode (memorial for the deceased queen) were also rather private commissions (from the University or from people connected with it) than being part of any sort of "musical director of public functions".
5. Bach's job as Thomaskantor (for which he was hired by the City Council) was largely incompatible with working for the University in any official capacity (if I remember well his job contract with the City Council even forbade it); for the City Council he had no "musical director of public functions" in his job description, and because of the City Council's tensions with Bach (and with the University...) they'd usually avoid to ask him for anything of the kind on an ad hoc base.
6. Bach was musical director in four churches, only for church music, not for "public functions" in general. AFAIK Bach never composed any "non-church music for the city".
7. Re. "secular cantata ... for renovation of the St. Thomas School": that would be Froher Tag, verlangte Stunden, BWV Anh. 18, but don't see how this would relate to being a director musices and/or being a director of public functions (the "renovation" was of the place where he lived, and the school where he taught, so it basicly meant he could move back to his own appartment with his family, instead of living elsewhere during reconstruction – it was a fairly private matter, don't even know whether he was comissioned for it, wrote it on his own initiative, and/or (less likely) it would be something that he had to do according to his job description).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I also couldn't find a source for the questioned phrase, so I'm going to delete it. Marlindale (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I did delete that phrase, but it could be good to check the next-to-last difference in the article, where something else got lost, apparently a link to Spitta on the Web. Marlindale (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Secular cantatas section

The article has a section, "Secular Cantatas" which it says were "usually for civic events such as council inaugurations." An example is BWV 212 "Mer Hahn en neue Oberkeet" (upper Saxon dialect) "We have a new governor" which celebrated an occasion when there was "homage from the peasants". There is overlap in language with what I recently deleted, but now I have doubts whether I should have. Marlindale (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

BWV 212 is a secular cantata for a private occasion. It wasn't even performed in Leipzig but on a private estate in Kleinzschocher, a village near Leipzig at the time (now it is all part of the Leipzig area), and resulted from a private comission (the farmers of that estate got a new owner, a.k.a. "governor", of the entirely private estate). Has nothing to do with a director musices qualification, and nothing at all with "musical director of public functions".

Further, as said, for Council inaugurations (=Council election, =changing of the council) he only wrote church cantatas – so indeed Johann Sebastian Bach#Secular cantatas needs to be rewritten (the Wedding Quodlibet isn't even a cantata). Here's the thing: sowehere in its history the Johann Sebastian Bach article lost its "music good article" qualification (see above on this talk page). There obviously was a reason for that (too much nonsense inserted in the article seems a likely cause of that degradation). It is my ambition to bring the article (back) to a WP:GA or better status. Since that's not likely something I'm going to be doing on my own, all help is welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, but since you seem knowledgeable on the subject at hand, may I suggest that you yourself revise the section on "secular cantatas"? Marlindale (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, would eventually get around to that too (when nobody else has stepped up in the mean while). In my updates of List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Works in Bach's catalogues and collections I'm half way through the secular cantatas currently (BWV 208–216 still left to be added): so an update of the secular cantata section in Bach's biographical article won't be too long to wait for if the rewriting depends on me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Grazing sheep and other game

In the mean while ... I just came across File:Sheep May Safely Graze BWV 208.ogg – wouldn't that be something nice to add to the biographical article too? What do other editors think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think File:Sheep May Safely Graze BWV 208.ogg is a grossly unrepresentative version of what JSB wrote. Compare, at random, this (Erna Spoorenberg) or this (Marjeta Cerar). BTW, the article is heavily overpopulated with pictures and sound files, reaching far into "References"; it ought to be trimmed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "Sheep May Safely Graze" is almost too popular. I didn't check the specific version of it, but I would suggest not including it. Marlindale (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be a net addition of course, may replace one or more media illustrations/examples: e.g., what about throwing out two of the three "air" (of 3rd suite/on the G string) examples, and the long explanation for these examples – perhaps only retaining the "professional" Naxos audio example of these, & add the "Safely Graze" audio example, both being examples of "later versions and arrangements" by others. Maybe we don't need the Coffee Cantata score example any more ("Safely Graze" may work as well or better as a "secular cantata" example)

For an average reader of the encyclopedia the charming melody of the audio example may be far more recognizable than a score example, and maybe we don't need more than two or three examples of Bach's handwriting.

Re. "too popular" I don't follow: not every reader of the article may associate the quite well-known melody with the composer, so it may help any reader to find a point of recognition.

Regarding the general point "heavily overpopulated with pictures and sound files": a broader discussion may be in order, but step by step works too: so to make it concrete: I propose to replace the Coffee Cantata autograph score example and the first two "air" from 3rd suite/on the G string audio examples, and the lengthy explanations regarding that "air" by the "Safely Graze" audio example. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do hope that sound file isn't used in the article. I've just sampled it. It's disgusting in several ways: electronic; probably a computer playback, devoid of the temporal inflections that are basic to musical performance; devoid of the slightest ornamention; and in engineering terms, a little fizzy. Tony (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Topics from the recently closed RfC

TRACING THE CHEESE SHOP ANECDOTE

The following was suggested by User:Jashiin on 10 December. I got around to following the hints. There is a Google Book, Johann Sebastian Bach, Life and Work by Martin Geck and John Hargraves. On p. 31, possibly beginning on p. 30, it says

"In his memoirs, Adolf Bernhard Marx, the music scholar from whom we have learned of the rediscovery, by Felix Mendelssohn, of Bach's St. Matthew Passion, recounts an anecdote according to which Mendelssohn's teacher, Carl Friedrich Zelter, `obtained the score of that immortal work from a cheese shop, where it was being used as wrapping paper.'"

In fact Mendelssohn obtained the score as a gift from his grandmother Bella Salomon. Note this anecdote is about the alleged finding, not the loss. Marlindale (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Parchment

• Parchment(-like) paper was invented around the middle of the 19th century. 18th-century (primary) sources, and more recent scholarly sources discussing such 18th-century sources, would keep to the distinction parchment=animal origin and paper=vegetal origin.

The major problem however remains that "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" (or any of its variants), lacks (a) serious reliable source(s) – that is sourcing that covers all aspects of that sentence. If there is a diary of a family member, it shouldn't be too difficult to name that family member, and the date of the diary entrance etc... Since, despite numerous invitations to do so, no such sourcing is forthcoming, nothing can be done with it in Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• The WP article parchment says "In the later Middle Ages, especially the 15h century, parchment was largely replaced by paper." It says parchment has continued to be used for special documents such as diplomas. Marlindale (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it rather hard to believe that anyone was transcribing music on animal parchment in or after Bach's lifetime. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Parchment got into the discussion from the "butcher shop" anecdote which has lacked a reference but which User:Fountains-of-Paris urged be included in the article for the past two months. The alternate "cheese shop' anecdote is relatively better documented but does not mention parchment. Marlindale (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Manuscript history related edits of 11 and 12 January

On 11 and 12 January Martindale and Francis Schonken made numerous edits relating to the history of Bach's manuscripts after the composer's death. Martindale invited for further input on these edits. I think that would be a good idea. Reverting them all without proper talk page discussion with "the RfC isn't closed" as an excuse was imho not a very constructive action. So, here we are: please have a closer look at these edits and share with your fellow editors what you think about the content of these edits (avoiding to make this a mere procedural discussion: concentrate on content please – when the procedures are hampering the content discussion I'm happy to cut short the endless procedural back and forth). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Article on performers of Bach's music

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Performers of Johann Sebastian Bach's music. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sara(h) Itzig Levy

I did find "Sara" in Applegate, which I think is a good source, but some other sources have Sarah so I put Sara(h) in the Daniel Itzig article, sub-article Marlindale (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Restoring some reverted edits on the period 1750-1787

Fountains-of-Paris made about 8 reversions of edits by Francis Schonken and me on 19 January. I plan to selectively un-revert some of the reversions, confined to the period 1750-1787 so that these will be independent of the current RfC topic, to have the first signpost year after 1750 as 1788 (RfC) or 1800 (otherwise, as it is now).Marlindale (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I did a draft of the restorations, although it could be improved in some details. I didn't find any events mentioned in the years 1788-1800, so the the signpost year 1800 could be changed to 1788 (year of CPEB's death), but neither does the text provide any natural reason for doing that. Years that are mentioned are when WFB and CPEB were in Berlin, not when they were alive. Marlindale (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

? van Swieten, Haydn, Mozart & Beethoven (last paragraph of the section) is pretty much 1788–1800; also Sarah Itzig Levy's activities didn't "stop" in that period. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice any events during 1788-1800 mentioned in the article by year, but maybe you can provide some to add? The more notable they are, the stronger the case would be for keeping 1800 as a signpost year rather than changing it to 1788. I was quite convinced by your case that 1788, year of CPEB's death, is not a significant year in the JSB Legacy, and I added to that in my previous post, but other voters so far haven't agreed. (I don't mean Fountains-of-Paris, I mean the other two; I hope any disagreement with them can be friendly and respectful.) That was why I didn't want to assume an outcome of the RfC in making my edits. Marlindale (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions where to get started:

• Mozart writing about his visits to the van Swieten salon; his efforts to writing Bachian fugues (instigated by his wife); his transcriptions of Bach's fugues;
• Mozart visiting Leipzig, hearing motets Doles had performed for him, and subsequently acquiring a copy of one of the motets (that manuscript is described at the Bach Digital website, it contains some of Mozart's handwriting)
  • Date: 1789
• Beethoven playing preludes and fugues from the WTC at the van Swieten salon.
• Apart from the Mozart visit, there are other instances of Doles performing Bach's vocal music in Leipzig (if I remember correctly Spitta mentions them).
• Publication dates of the various 18th-century editions and reprints of four-part chorales.
• Haydn's Die Schöpfung tied to van Swieten (and Handel – maybe also to Bach: Haydn owned a copy of the Mass in B minor)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, when in the 1788-1800 period "not much happened" reception-wise, that rather ties it to the 1750–87 period (when also not all that much happened outside private salons and a limited liturgical use of some of the church music), than with the first years of the 19th century, when Bach went "public", with Forkel's biography, public non-liturgical concerts, publications and reprints of all kinds of works (not only the chorales). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Reorganization of Bach Legacy time line to specific important dates in Bach's Legacy instead of arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.

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.

---

The current chronology of the Bach Legacy section is arbitrarily organized by century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000, etc, rather than specific important dates directly relevant to the Bach Legacy section. Another RfC (see above on Talk page) has identified that the dates of 1788 (the death of Bach's son), and 1829 (the date of the Mendelssohn Bach revival) are of heightened importance to understanding the Bach Legacy as a whole. Bach's two composer sons (died 1784 and 1788, respectively) inherited many of Bach composition manuscripts and influenced their dispostion during their lives. Mendelssohn worked extensively to revive Bach's reputation between 1824-1829 with the revived performance of Bach's Matthew Passion in Germany in 1829. The dates in the Bach chronology should reflect this in a new and enhanced outline covering first, 1750-1788, followed by 1789-1829, followed by 1830-1899, leaving the rest of the section unchanged at this time. This RfC is to determine SUPPORT or OPPOSE for the enhanced specification of the important dates over and against the use of arbitrary century markers currently used in the Bach Legacy section. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment of original RfC proposal

• (copied from DRN discussion, with typos corrected): CPE's death was not all that significant in the reception trajectory of his father. First the son was way more famous than the father at the time of death (so 1788 is a CPE-related date, not a date significant for the JSB reception). From The Art of Fugue in 1751–52 to 1800 (when a steady stream of Bach-publications began) the only works of JSB that were published were his four-part chorales. These were published before CPE got involved with these publications, then he co-edited a few books, then they went on being published after CPE's death: CPE's death was not a significant date for this aspect of Bach-reception. As for CPE's estate: the music he had owned of his father stayed in private hands before as after his death, without anything of that estate being published before 1800.

On the other hand, the start of the 19th century is an important date in the reception history of JSB:

• The year 1800 was exactly 50 years after the composer's death, and as a result of that several publishers in several countries prepared and published JSB's music, and his first biography. His music was performed publicly (including large scale works such as BWV Anh. 167 which at the time of publication and first 19th-century public performances was believed to be JSB's).
• The whole development leading to the Bach Revival (Zelter, Itzig and Moses Mendelssohn progeny, Sing-Akademie,...) went definitely in a new phase from around 1800.
• Quote (from Jonathan Berkahn. WRESTLING WITH THE GERMAN DEVIL: FIVE CASE STUDIES IN FUGUE AFTER J. S. BACH. Victoria University of Wellington, 2006. p. 37):

  There are, in a sense, two Bachs. One was born in 1685 in Eisenach, died in 1750, and lived as an organist and Kantor, part of the milieu of court, town, and church in eighteenth-century Germany. (...) The other Bach was born, slowly and painfully, during the first half of the nineteenth century; and he shows no sign of dying any time soon...

(emphasis added) – illustrating that historians see the change of century as the significant time indication of the turning point in Bach-reception.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Years 1850, 1900: Bach Society and Edition: A Bach Gesellschaft (Bach Society) was formed in 1850 with Robert Schumann on the founding committee of four, and produced an edition of JSB's complete works, the Bach-Ausgabe, in 1851 through 1900. The society dissolved and was replaced by a new one, the Neue Bachgesellschaft founded in 1900 and a new edition, 1954 through 2007, So the years 1850 and 1900 are important in Bach's legacy. It seems to me, this reinforces the indications that the current RfC will fail. Marlindale (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rewritten RfC proposal (unlike the original proposal not "leaving the rest of the section unchanged")

Bach Legacy: 1750-1788 (in nowiki format)

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.

Bach Legacy: 1789-1829 (in nowiki format)

The legacy of Bach's Matthew Passion, although surviving, also followed a complex historical path following Bach's death following its nearly complete loss. 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}}'''

Background summary of previous RfC for new editors joining discussion

The previous RfC at Johann Sebastian Bach had 4-5 editors in support of changes with citations added to the proposed text, and two editors Opposed User:Martindale and User:Francis Schonken. User:Martindale and User:Francis were apparently displeased with the progress of that RfC and they have returned to edit warring and forum shopping on the page and trying to force their version of the edit into the article. This was despite the caution warning from User:Softl to User:Francis Schonken to follow RfC policy and wait for a result. In addition, two previous Full Page Protections from User:Ymblanter and User:MusikA, for User:Martindale and User:Francis to stop edit warring and to encourage them to either participate in the RfC and await its outcome have been ignored. The two editors have refused to do this and have continued to set aside the warning made to them, and to force their version of the edit into the article against RfC Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Martindale, having knowledge of the open RFC, then began forum shopping on the DRN page which does not allow DRN when an RFC is open, and unfortunately managed to hook-in one of the unsuspecting editors there into doing the "no close/no consensus" demi-close on the old RfC. This new RfC is open for review for your SUPPORT/OPPOSE opinions. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

!Voting section

• SUPPORT, as starting this request for comments. The specific important dates for the Bach Legacy are well known and far more important to the article than arbitrary century markers. User:Martin and User:Frances can bring their Bach sons manuscript discussion into the new 1750-1788 Legacy section (see separate RfC above for details of recovering the User:Buxtehude edit), and the Mendelssohn Bach revival material can be brought into the new 1789-1829 Legacy section (as shown in the separate RfC above for details), for enhanced coverage of both important Bach Legacy sections. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose rewritten RfC proposal for reasons given before: #RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article, #Topics from the recently closed RfC, #Assessment of original RfC proposal, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, agreeing with above statements by Francis Schonken. Marlindale (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support sectioning the reception by more meaningful dates. Also support keeping more detail and dropping less details whenever possible. Also support un-Disney-fying the article whenever possible. Please don't overly systematize the section according to periods, i.e. please don't make things fit if they don't or portray a simplistic story because it makes a simple narrative, but it's better than century-divisions. However, instead of a purely chronological organization, please consider thematic breakdown instead. So a section on the Mendelssohn Bach revival, in itself, rather than the year of the timeline division being set like that. Ultimately, all simplified versions are just that -- simplified. Thanks for you hard work, editors, and i hope you can get along. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support using more meaningful dates, and keeping more detailed text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Two editors User:Matrindale and User:Francis Schocken have been edit warring and forum shopping concerning this RfC and its previous RfC for several weeks and the page has gone to Full Page Protection twice as a result of my reuests to make a Full Page Protection of the Bach page because of their edit warring and forum shopping. This section is for comments related to their edit conduct of edit warring and forum shopping, as well as any other comments they have. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I OBJECT to starting a new RfC at this time. To me the first priority is to restore the many reverts of edits by User:Francis Schonken and me by User:Fountains-of-Paris on the grounds that the previous RfC was not closed, It is now closed, so there is no good reeson left for those reverts. Marlindale (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

TRACING THE BUTCHER SHOP "BUXTEHUDE" ANECDOTE The anecdote, given above, says that after Bach's death, some unspecified relative sold some manuscripts to a butcher shop for use as wrapping paper. User:Fountains-of-Paris has named this story for "Buxtehude". But User:Buxtehude wrote on 8 December:

"Actually, I didn't add that butcher shop story and edited that section on 30 March with the edit summary "No primary/reliable source found for anecdote."

In fact in that edit User:Buxtehude deleted the butcher shop anecdote. So it seems quite misleading to have named the anecdote after him. Later after learning from User:Jashiin that a "cheese shop" anecdote existed, Fountains-of-Paris changed the butcher shop anecdote just by substituting "cheese shop" in place of "butcher shop" whereas the anecdotes, such as they are, are actually different, e.g. losing vs. finding ms. Under the heading "Refined version of Buxtehude edit with requested citations added", a version is given with no citation for the (butcher or cheese) shop anecdote. So the heading contradicts the body.

The anecdote was included in the (old) RfC and in the current "Rewritten RfC proposal, Bach Legacy 1750-1788 " (again without any reference).

To "support" voters such as User:SageRad and User:Maunus: Welcome to the discussion. I of course don't expect you to change your votes, but at some point it would be good to converge toward a consensus if possible The RfCs, as presented, have called for including a "shop" anecdote int the article. I assume your votes were about signpost years (on which please read Francis Schonken's discussion about why 1788, CPEB's death, was not so important in JSB's legacy) and favoring more "details" but I trust details may not include anecdotes? Marlindale (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE On 25 January,

(a) at 00:51 User:DrCrazy102, supervising our discussion, advised that contrary to Fountain-of-Paris's accusations, what Francis Schonken and I had done was NOT WP:FORUMSHOPPING (emphasis in original)

(b) Later that day Fountains-of-Paris requested a 5-day full page protection for the JSB article, which would have prevented any of us from editing it for 5 days, but so far the request is pending, not granted. This was a method that Fountains-of-Paris had used in other recent disputes on the article, as in making a lot of reverts of our edits and then getting the protection;

(c) Fountains-of-Paris, for whatever reason, has made no WP edits between 25 January and now. So, we may be cautiously optimistic that we will be able to continue editing the article.Marlindale (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed compromise resolution:

The RfC has a complex statement, I suggest not so suitable for a "support" vs. "oppose" choice. I suggest:

(a) I hope we can agree not to include any "butcher shop" or "cheese shop" anecdote as these are not well documented. For example User:Buxtehude has pointed out that he deleted on March 30 the anecdote named (misleadingly) for him.

About signpost years, I hope we can all agree to include 1829 as an important year in the JSB legacy.

(c) The RfC proposes 1788, the year of CPE Bach's death, as a signpost year. Why not? CPEB was in Berlin from 1738 to 1768. His influence on his father's legacy stemmed from those years. From 1768 to 1788 he was in Hamburg pursuing his own highly successful composing career. In 1805 Abraham Mendelssohn, Felix's father, bought JSB manuscripts "brought down from" CPEB. Francis Schonken and I have given other reasons for keeping 1800 rather than 1788 as a signpost year. Marlindale (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: and anyone else who happens to notice this, 19 February: is the above proposed compromise resolution OK with you? If all goes well we could close the (new, current) RfC and get away from procedures and back to content. Marlindale (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

DRN Case (result: closed due to new RfC, refile if needed)

DRN Case-related Comment - If the editors are still willing to use the DRN to moderate the case, I will be happy to accept and help you all come to an agreeable compromise or position. This will involve closing this RfC as being "deferred to DRN" but as it is still quite new and "young", and won't make much of an impact as opposed to if editors start to comment and vote. I would like response placed on the DRN page in the section for discussion. If editors do not wish to use DRN anymore, again, please let us know and the RfC can run it's natural course. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Drcrazy102: The current RfC is open and the DRN process was improperly started as part of forum shopping and edit warring by User:Martindale and User:Francis. May I ask that you abridge or delete your comment above as having been answered here, and to close and delete the improperly started DRN on the DRN page. You are free to transpose any material to the RfC which you feel is pertient from other discussion pages to avoid the forum shopping issues caused by an improperly started RfC as done by User:Martidale. Drn discussions are not supposed to be initiated when there is an open RfC is progress which was known to the editor who tried to improperly open the Drn while an RfC was open. Both User:Martindale and User:Francis have been reported for edit warring and forum shopping when the Full Page Protection was requested and granted for the Bach article to protect the page against their edit warring. I am assuming you are a good faith editor who was not aware of their disruptive edit history regarding the RfC and you are welcome to join the discussion in the Bach RfC here as described. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC) @Fountains-of-Paris:, I have yet to see any forum shopping; how many Dispute Resolution venues were approached and/or used? Going from Talkpage, to RfC, to DRN (after a no consensus close to RfC) is NOT forum shopping. Too many editors do not realise this, but you are allowed to visit more than one dispute resolution venue to solve a dispute. If one venue solves an aspect of the dispute but not the whole dispute, then go to another venue more suited for the remaining dispute. It is when users knowingly start several discussions with the same focus, on several noticeboards, to subvert/"game" the dispute resolution process to their own ends, that Forum Shopping is actually started. Short version; As far as I am aware, this dispute has gone; Talkpage → RfC by FoP (result: No Consensus) → DRN by Marlindale (result: Procedural close due to NEW RfC) → Second RfC by FoP with reverts scattered throughout somewhere by both sides. This is NOT forum shopping since there has been no evident bad-faith attempts to subvert the process of dispute resolution which is the very basis of forum shopping. Making such allegations can be considered uncivil by some and is nearly always unhelpful in most disputes unless/until the attempts become blatantly obvious. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Procedural

• Suggesting a WP:SNOW close for this RfC, it is little else (after Fountains-of-Paris' rewrite of the RfC proposal) than what was concluded as "no consensus" in the previous, recently closed, RfC. And yes, Fountains-of-Paris' rewrite of the proposal of this RfC was disruptive as it was extensively modifying an edit that already had been replied to (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, a guideline Fountains-of-Paris has recently been warned about [1]). I think it is about time to sanction Fountains-of-Paris for such disruptive behaviour on this talk page. As for the content of the RfC: I replied to the original proposal of this second RfC (that is the version before the disruptive rewrite of the proposal) here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would very much like to see the current RfC closed, and no further one opened. A lot of time was wasted on the first RfC. How best to accomplish these things I don't know. I don't see how we could reach consensus in the present RfC unless Fountains-of-Paris were to give up on it, which I hope will happen. Marlindale (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another no-consensus would result in failure of the new RfC. But maybe there is a more constructive way out? I don't object to the obviously important year 1829 as a signpost year, and as part of a new package deal. Francis proposes 1800 instead of 1788 for reasons he explained, which I agree with. To bring in the old RfC again, I really think is not a good idea, it has serious problems, such as claiming references are given in some places where they are not, so can't we drop the old RfC finally? Marlindale (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the efforts at finding consensus, however I can only read SageRad's "sectioning the reception by more meaningful dates" as meaning 1800 (50 years after Bach's death), 1850 (100 years after Bach's death), 1900 (150 years after Bach's death) 1950 (200 years after Bach's death) and 2000 (quarter of a millennium after Bach's death), per the explanation of the meaningful dates I gave above. I'd keep it by century though: 1829 is an important date in the 19th-century development, but doesn't say much without the context before and after that date. That "context" started pretty much around 1800 (when dissemination of Bach's music entered a new phase by publications and concerts), and lasted pretty much till around 1900 (with the first round of publications completed, and the Bach Gesellschaft dissolving itself for that reason).

  Re. "no-consensus would result in failure of the new RfC" – Failure of the RfC was engrained in its setup, take alone the section title "... arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.": the OP failed to give a neutral description of the RfC topic (calling something "arbitrary" which was not): seen from this perspective this RfC was heading for self-annihilation from the outset. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Look at the recent edit history of the article

You will see that User: Fountains-of-Paris has reverted multiple edits by User:Francis Schonken and myself, not vice versa. Even some talk page paragraphs by Francis were reverted by Fountains-of-Paris as Francis showed in DRN (Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Talk: Johann Sebastian Bach). So who is edit warring? Marlindale (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were made while an RfC was still in progress. The Bach page was restored by me to the Ymblanter version. You were edit warring to force your version of your edit into the article against Wikipedia policy for you to refrain from editing while an RfC is open. The page was put on Full Page Protection when your edit warring was reported by me last week. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC

There are only three recent editors. User:Francis Schonken and I have been agreeing on most points. In the new RfC located in the DRN (but now not visible there since the DRN was closed) he gave substantial reasons against the new RfC, specifically for keeping 1800 as a signpost year. User:Fountains-of-Paris disagrees (usually giving procedural, not content reasons). Arguably the majority of 2/3 should be able to work its will, but Fountains-of-Paris claims individual power based on RfCs. The discussion may be sterile until and unless other editors join in. Marlindale (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would any other editor bother to get involved in such a food fight? I've only tangentially been following this, but it seems like there's more accusations of bad faith, forum shopping, RFC abuse, edit warring, and other improper behavior than of J.S.Bach. This talk page isn't the place for any such accusations, but rather for discussion of the page content. Maybe if the three principal editors would promise to shut up for a couple of days, somebody else who's more on top of the topic could clarify for the rest of us what's really at issue here. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wahoofive, I do believe that was why the DRN case was started, but due to a new RfC being filed - seemingly same area, same editors, etc. - the case was closed since DRN does not accept cases that move into other DR processes. If they accept that the problem exists between the three of them, perhaps they can work it out on DRN but the RfC is likely to only inflame things. Still, they are (assumably) all adults and know how to handle themselves. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Drcrazy102, there was discusssion in the DRN of the content of the new RfC on signpost years for Bach's legacy written by User:Francis Schonken with a small correction by me (1900 to 1800). But that disappeared when the DRN was closed. If instead of disappearing that presentation had been moved here, this Talk page could have concerned itself more with content. Marlindale (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that above Francis Schonken on 23 Jan. at 09:27 already provided a link to the closed DRN. Marlindale (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Marlindale, no DRN cases "disappear" - they are collapsed to avoid further discussion since the case has been closed (for whatever reason) before being archived. The Bach case is still on the DRN page but will be archived into Archive 131 or Archive 132 in the next few days. You can still easily "copy-and-paste" any presentation from the case by simply clicking on the [Edit] button and copying the source text from the editing window. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:49, 25 January 2016

Marlindale here: Thank you, that's good to know. The new RFC has been revised by Fountains-of-Paris while it is in progress and actually the same happened with the previous RFC. Is that legal (assuming for present purposes thatḥ it did happen)? Marlindale (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

re. "assuming for present purposes that it did happen": here's the edit — The original RfC contained "...leaving the rest of the section unchanged at this time"; the rewritten proposal proposed an extensive rewrite of the content of the sections (in fact: re-proposing the content rejected as "no consensus" in the previous RfC).

re. "Is that legal (...)?" — there's nothing legal/illegal about this (...we've seen quite enough WP:WIKILAWYERING in this context, so definitely "no thanks" for any more of it). It was however disruptive, as explained above. I grouped this section with the extensive procedural discussion of the RfC. I propose to WP:SNOW close the sections on the rewritten proposal (i.e. from #Rewritten RfC proposal (unlike the original proposal not "leaving the rest of the section unchanged")) up to all procedural comments about RfC and DRN (that is up to this section #Look at the recent edit history of the article), which all divert from the original RfC proposal with WP:SNOW chance to lead to anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There have been a half dozen posts here since I asked for a return to the topic, and exactly zero of them have mentioned Bach. Just STFU about that procedural stuff already. Take it to the appropriate page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I read that as a support to my proposal to WP:SNOW close the whole rehash-of-previous-RfC-with-unending-procedural-discussion. No objections from anyone? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Marlindale here: I was happy to see that there have been edits to the article itself today and hope we can continue with that,. Re my inquiry about whether something was 'legal' I regret it and apologize. Marlindale (talk) 22:01, 25 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.

Second RfC closed Feb. 22; now what?

User:Robert McClenon has closed the second RfC and suggested formal mediation. only on the signpost years. I suppose this means that the cheese and butcher shop anecdotes are no longer in play. I decided to consult 6 people (5 voters on the RfC, plus User:Buxtehude), For those who have supported 1788 (CPEB's death) as a signpost year, please consider the arguments against it by Francis Schonken and me. I suspect that 1829 may have few or no votes against it this time. If in your responses here there is a consensus, we're done. If not, would you agree to formal mediation? Marlindale (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know. I have little time to read the hectares of text above. What I can say is that there's troublesome tendency for unreferenced claims to be inserted into the article. Tony (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• We are now focusing on signpost years. Still waiting for new input on that (1788 or not? 1829 or not?). Marlindale (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to interrupt: no, we are no longer discussing the signpost years. That discussion has ended, see closed discussion above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's closed with no consensus and because of that, but the closer, Robeert Mcclenon, suggested formal mediation on the question of signpost years. I take it then that you still do not agree to making 1829 a signpost year. It's possible that all other voters favor including that, it remains to be seen. Although I agree with you on nearly all questions relating to Bach, I can very well understand how many people favor making 1829 a signpost year. That wouldn't be a factual error at all, it's a matter of taste and choice, isn't it? Marlindale (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Either accept the close as meaning no consensus is no change to the article in this respect, or take it to formal mediation per the closer's suggestion. Either way on this talk page the discussion has ended for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• So far, I see no "other voters" in the past two days. Specifically, no one has come out in favor of formal mediation. For what it's worth, I suggest that normal editing of the article continue, and that we take "process" issues as settled for the time being, using this Talk page in the normal way in relation to the content of the article. Marlindale (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Innovativeness of concertos?

In a concerto, as I understand, there is a "concertino", consisting of one or a small number of instruments, and a "ripieno" or "basso continuo" of the remaining instruments. In Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, BWV 1050, for example, the concertino is a flute, violin, and harpsichord, and the ripieno a violin, viola, cello, violone, and maybe harpsichord. It is said that this is the first example of a concerto with a solo keyboard part. The concerto BWV 1044 has the same concertino. . Vivaldi's L'Estro Armonico is a set of concertos for violin(s) (1, 2, or 4), cello, strings, and continuo. Bach's violin concertos (concertino is a solo violin) BWV 1041, BWV 1042, 2 violins BWV 1043, seem different from Vivaldi's and closer to later (classical) concertos in some way(s) I currently don't know how to formulate. Marlindale (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Too esoteric for this article. Maybe under concerto if you can find some secondary source for this. I always thought that "concertino" was a term only used with the concerto grosso, rather than with solo concerti. (That's how Willi Apel defines it, too.) —Wahoofive (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The concerto article itself has fewer sources than I'd like. Thanks for the advice. It seems nothing may come of this for now. Marlindale (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Bringing back some material Fountains-of-Paris had deleted ?

Some of these had been deleted for a second time. I am going to put them back, changing wording in some longer ones to make quite clear I am not edit warring. Fountains-of-Paris had accused me of edit warring, but three administrators all found in my favor. It begins to seem almost like Sisyphus, but I really want to protect the article against attacks. Marlindale (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, false alarm this time. I searched and found I was wrong, the passages I was concerned about actually look intact. I only found that in one case where I had unnecessarily given two references, only one was left, which was sufficient. Marlindale (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

1800-1830, how to subdivide, by a signpost year or by content? I suggest by content?

I wrote rather a lot in about 1800-1830 today. Very possibly I made small errors or maybe large ones. To some extent I tried to follow Softlavender's ideas about subheads: I put in a subdivision year 1830 which seemed suggested by the material,, but in 1800-1830 there is a content section on the 1829 Mendelssohn revival, containing the event in 1824 when his grandmother gave him a score of the Matthew Passion. Any thoughts? Marlindale (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Lutheran chorale hymn tune

This term appears in the article ("The Lutheran chorale hymn tune was the basis of much of his work."), and I would like to know what it means. I would understand "Lutheran hymns", but the duplication of "chorale" and "hymn" seems strange, and even more the reduction to only the "tune". The hymns in both text and tune were the basis. Even when he composed chorale preludes, he reflected the text and the liturgical meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A hymn tune is separate from a hymn harmonization such as are usually found in hymnals (since sometimes hymns are reharmonized), so the phrase "hymn tune" is a useful formulation. I agree, though, that the phrase you quote is redundant. It should just say "Lutheran chorale." Perhaps some well-meaning editor thought a few readers wouldn't be familiar with the word "chorale" and so added what was meant as a parenthetical explanation, i.e. "Lutheran chorale (hymn tune)", which is how it appears higher on the page. I don't think that's necessary the second time, so I've deleted it. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a (language?) problem with our article chorale, saying: "a melody to which a hymn is sung by a congregation in a German Protestant Church service" - At least in German, Choral means both text and melody/melodies, and often the fact that it is in four-part setting, and NOT sung by the congregation. What the congregation sings is rather no four-part setting, and would be called Kirchenlied = church song = hymn, - colloquially just Lied = song. A minister might announce: "Wir singen jetzt Lied Nr. 10" (We now sing song no. 10), never "Choral". If chorale equals "hymn tune" (as it reads to me), it's often wrongly applied when translating from German. If it's not equal to hymn tune, the article should be corrected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I read that sentence to mean the melodies of chorales (like organ chorales or the deutsche Magnificat in "Suscepit Israel") were the basis of the music, rather than the words. Of course the latter is also true sometimes! Not to be asinine ;-) but doesn't "wohl sungen hast du Nachtigal aber Kukuk singt gut Choral" suggest Choral can also mean tune, as we often assume with English "chorale"? Sparafucil (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

When Bach used a melody in an instrumental form, it carried not only the melody/music but implied text which the listener was expected to know. The chorale preludes in Orgelbüchlein have liturgical meaning derived from the meaning of the hymn lyrics. The Gregorian chant Magnificat Bach quoted in the Suscepit isn't any nice melody but refers to the meaning of the Magnificat. Therefore I think "A chorale is a melody" is kind of wrong, because the underlying text plays an important role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits of main article

Francis Schonken and I nearly always agree in essence, but if i make an edit and he says I've given too much detail, I often agree.

Fountains-of-Paris in recent edits to the main article claims that Francis and I disagree, but that was not helpful. It would have resulted in some case(s) in reversion back to an earlier edit by me, deleting useful material by Francis, or otherwise inappropriate, but I did not want that at all. Marlindale (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

On looking again at today's back-and forth edits between the two. in which I believe Francis is correct, I think that Fountsin-of-Paris's multiple reverts are a very serious matter. How long will this go on? As long as the latest version is by Francis I'm OK with it for now, but I'll have to look further later to see if some of my own edits may have been damaged. Marlindale (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That was your edit being restored in the Mendelssohn material. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked at some of the differences. I didn't change my opinion that Francis was correct. For example, at 15:34 today a version resulting from an edit by Fountains-of-Paris said that Telemann was the godfather and teacher of JSB's son CPE Bach. He was the godfather but not the teacher; JSB himself was the musical teacher of all his musician sons, as the main article says. Francis Schonken had deleted material containing the Telemann bit at 15:35, correctly. In the original version of this section I mentioned the two usernames of the other editors. Those were removed by someone, not me, which was inappropriate..Marlindale (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your own edit identified with your signature on the Bach article appeared on this time stamp and was deleted by User:Francis: "01:53, 1 March 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (130,741 bytes) (+1,386)‎ . . (→‎19th century: preliminary efforts toward the 1829 revival)." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The original form of this section, by me, had the usernames Francis Schonken and Fountains-of-Paris in the title. Those usernames were later removed, not my me. Fountains-of-Paris is the only apparent editor of the section other than me, in the meantime. So did he remove his own username from the title? On my edit with a time stamp, all I say again is, it's more complicated than that. Marlindale (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fountains-of-Paris, please stop edit-warring to revert edits without verifiable WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page. Marlindale and Francis Schonken, I believe you may restore your versions, as Marlindale has agreed above that his own additions were in excess and that he agreed with Francis Schonken's removal of them. Fountains-of-Paris, always post WP:DIFFs instead of timestamps; learn to do that now before you waste any more editors' time. Stop edit-warring and stop your disruptive editing. You have been on this path of repetitively disruptively editing this article and this talk page for nearly four months now. I am going to issue a formal final warning on your user talkpage. If you continue on this path in spite of this formal final warning, you will very likely find yourself reported at an administrators' noticeboard and very likely sanctioned in the form of a topic-ban or block. If you disagree with someone's edit, then immediately post a discussion thread (not an RfC) about it on this talk page rather than edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC); edited 03:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Oratorios

That is the spelling I would have used, I don't recall seeing, until today, Oratoria which I guess is a Latin plural of Oratorium? But this is best taken up with Francis as there may be several places where the plural occurs. Marlindale (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Christmas Oratorio is a set of six cantatas, yes? Marlindale (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The German user Wikiwal will strongly disagree, we had pages of discussion in 2010 (on de). But I would say so. Dürr lists the six for six occasions of the Christmas season on their day. The Church cantata follows him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the English plural is "oratorios". Fixed now. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The article List of masses, passions and oratorios by Johann Sebastian Bach, I believe created and it is so far mainly edited by Francis Schonken, uses the plural we agree on, in the title and within it, so the one "Oratoria" may have been an isolated exception. Marlindale (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"...Königlich-Pohlnischer und Churfürstlich Sächsicher Hofcompositeur..."

This has been touched upon in a few sections above, but couldn't see where best to reply, so started a new section on this specific topic.

1. The title of Bach's Nekrolog reads, in part, "...Königlich-Pohlnischer und Churfürstlich Sächsicher Hofcompositeur..." (Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian court composer). I see no reason to put "Royal-Polish" after "Prince-electoral" (or even omit "Royal-Polish" completely) when referring to Bach's sovereign in the context of his biography, or when referring to the title Bach received from that sovereign, etc.
2. Whether "Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian court composer" was "more" than a title I don't know: Wikipedia editors should not fill in details not provided by reliable sources. AFAIK, the title Bach received from his sovereign did not entail the comission of compositions, or an income, or whatever, so, strictly speaking, it might have been not more than a title.
3. There is some history-writing as to why Bach wanted this title, e.g. Eidam 1999 sees it as a way Bach was seeking leverage from the highest civil authority against the injustices he had suffered from his employers and the Leipzig university. Bluntly, that's what Bach wrote to his sovereign in the application letter for the title. However, that didn't work out that way: against the forces at work in Leipzig, the effect of a high-ranking title was negligible.
4. Eidam names a few scholars that, without explaining themselves, downplay the "Royal-Polish" aspect in historiography about Bach. I don't think we should give the detail of this historians' tiff in the main Wikipedia article about Bach, keeping the balance as it is in the Nekrolog (i.e. "Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian") will probably suffise.
5. Did Bach get the title for the Mass for the Dresden court? Tricky, but the honest answer is that we don't know. The Mass was filed in the sovereign's archives upon arrival in Dresden, never to be looked at again until long after the sovereign's death. To the best of our knowledge it was never performed in the presence of the sovereign. The petition for the court composer title had to be reminded to the sovereign a few years later, and only then Bach got it. In sum: what role that composition played is not known, but likely not a big one. The music performed when the sovereign visited Leipzig a few times probably was more decisive than the archived music, never performed in front of the sovereign.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed information. I agree that Bach didn't receive the title "for" the Missa (Kyrie + Gloria), but what do we know about his reasons to write the elaborate piece for the court? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Re. "what do we know about [Bach's] reasons to write the elaborate piece for the court?" – I don't think anything specific is known about these reasons. Bach's letter accompanying the composition to Dresden is extant, and a part of it is quoted in the Mass for the Dresden court article. The rest is educated guesswork, but I've seen no conclusive answer to that question in related educated guesswork by scholars. So, again, as I said in #2 above, best to refrain from filling in details not provided by reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Francis. On point 3, did the title help Bach in Leipzig? Wolff 2013, p. 372 wrote "The Dresden court title seems to have had the desired effect of protecting Bach from further unpleasantness in Leipzig. It apparently helped resolve the prefect dispute with the St. Thomas rector [Ernesti], which had simmered from the summer of 1736 to early 1738; since that year, no further complaints from either side are on record." In 1737 Bach had addressed three letters of complaint about Ernesti to King Friedrich August, 12 Feb., 21 Aug., and 18 October (The New Bach Reader...). The response in December was noncommittal, telling the Leipzig council to "take such measures as you shall see fit." Spitta, vol. 3 pp. 10-11 writes that "At the time of the Easter [1738] Fair, the King himself came to Leipzig..... Now, at last, [Bach's] suit was brought to an issue, which, under the circumstances, we may infer were in every way favorable to him. The sudden lack of all documentary evidence points to the conclusion that this was brought about by the personal intervention of his Majesty."

On point 2, Wolff p.362 lists about 15 Extraordinaire Concerten in honor of the Electoral-Royal family, such as on birthdays, name days, and coronations, by the Collegium Musicum. These concerts began in 1727, well before Bach was appointed as Court Composer. I don't think these concerts (of secular cantatas) were commissioned by the Court. Marlindale (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Re. #3: Historians excell in interpreting lack of evidence. Eidam unearths some unplaisantries after Bach had received the title, the last of which was a few weeks before the composer's death: the City Council was already openly negotiating with his successor, who was indeed appointed without much ado soon after Bach's death (compare the year it took after Kuhnau's death to appoint Bach 27 years earlier). My point is that when historians give such a wide range of interpretations to too few hard facts to render a complete picture, Wikipedia's main Bach biography, which is a summary of summaries, should not delve in the details of the incompatible historians' interpretations. Such detail can go in dedicated articles (e.g. I already put some of this in Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Still on #3, you wrote "Against the forces at work in Leipzig, the effect of a high-ranking title was negligible." I think we need to separate two issues. One was that Bach preferred to spend more time and effort composing, whereas the Council preferred that he put more effort than he did into teaching. On this it would have been useless for Bach, I suppose, to ask the King's support. But the argument between Bach and Ernesti, in which Ernesti openly defied Bach's authority, was one on which sought the King's support. That was not a hopeless cause. Bach petitioned the King three times in 1737 about it. In 1738 Bach got what he wanted on that, although not in writing from the King. Marlindale (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The sovereign's proclamation of the court composer title arrived halfway through the crisis with Ernesti (1736). As such the title had no effect in ending that dispute: it still took the Council six months to implement an evasive reply, then, after the next humiliations, Bach had to write his sovereign again (1737), and before an intervention of the latter (1738) nothing got solved one way or another.

I think the Wikipedia article on Bach should give a short description of the conflict with Ernesti, based on historical facts, as described by historians, but should stop short where historians start to lose themselves in contradictory musings based on, literally, "absence of facts". --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an adage "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and a related WP article Argument from Ignorance. That's something we need to be careful about, I agree. Records of the Leipzig City Council from the relevant period I believe have been preserved. Rather than concluding with Spitta that the Bach-Ernesti dispute had ended sometime in 1738, might we just say that there is no Council record of it continuing beyond 1738? Marlindale (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In 1739 the Council used a petty excuse to disallow Bach to stage the St John Passion again. So, instead of writing what the Council "didn't do" after 1738 (true, they didn't write about the Ernesti conflict any more), I'd write what they did (interfere with Bach's art, which for 1739 is the salient point in the biography of this article's subject).

The important point being, still, that currently even the most basic description of the tensions between Bach and his superiors is missing from Wikipedia's Bach-biography. Ernesti isn't even mentioned once. I'd say this is a serious defect of this biographical article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that both the Ernesti dispute and the issue of the St John Passion are worth mentioning Marlindale (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cantata questions

I came - after unwatching the article for a while - to check how BWV 4 is mentioned, fixed minor formatting things.

1. I think the cantata - his first chorale cantata - deserves mentioning in the biography part.
2. "The recitative is part of the corresponding Bible reading for the week and the aria is a contemporary reflection on it." - Really? It seems not typical, rather the exception that recitative is biblical text, most recitatives are on contemporary poetry. Perhaps better mention nothing that generalizing. Two Bible readings were prescribed for the Sundays and feast days, epistle and gospel, to be precise.
3. Divi Blasii, Mühlhausen - why use a redirect?
4. A list of cantata names without indication why those were chosen (from around 200) as representative seems not helpful. Sorting by BWV number is also not the best idea. Explain somewhere that is not chronological. Would be nice to have an article Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, not only a redirect.
5. "These include O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20, Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140, Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland, BWV 62, and Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1." - it's not obvious by what criteria they are sorted, not chronology, not liturgical year, - BWV 140 at the end would make more sense.
6. We have to omit so much,- do we need to know that the elector in Dresden was also king of Poland? (True, but does it help understanding Bach's music better?)
7. "Bach started a second annual cycle the first Sunday after Trinity of 1724, and composed only chorale cantatas, ..." - that was the plan, but didn't quite succeed, see Chorale cantata (Bach), - so "only" is not correct.
8. Want to mention that BWV 71 was the first printed work, and is the only cantata print extant?
9. (added 23 March) Why do "Passions and oratoria" (why not "oratorios" in the English-speaking Wikipedia?) come first? The cantatas were written from 1707, the first Passion in 1723, and that St John, why Matthew first? Christmas Oratorio in 1734, why not mentioned?

Back to writing, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, next, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

Many thanks for the questions. It may take a while to get them answered.

One suggestion:: the fact that the Elector in a region of Protestant Germany was also King of Catholic Poland meant that a Mass was a form of choral music suitable for both. This I think may have led to the B minor Mass being composed in honor of that person.

I looked at List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach to which BWV redirects. It has sections, before the list itself, about BWV and other related catalogs. The history shows Francis Schonken has done a lot of work on that article. I don't favor now creating a separate article Bach Werke-Verzeichnis instead, I think we have higher priorities than that, if indeed we would ever want to make that change. `Marlindale (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope Francis can help with some other questions, as you yourself might with others, Gerda. Marlindale (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just two answers: Do you really think the average reader understands the connection between the mentioning of "King and Poland" and the Mass in B minor? How about mentioning "the Catholic Dresden court"? Matching Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), in German Missa, BWV 232 I. Bach received the title Court composer for that mass (Kyrie and Gloria), - that could be clearer.

We had an article on BWV, and I believe that the merge (which I missed until it happened), which leads to a link to the looong list from BWV, was not a good idea. For the cantatas, we offer two steps: explain by footnote that BWV is the catalogue name, and provide the link to the list from there, example BWV 4 (heading for TFA on Easter Sunday, therefore I am concerned about articles linked from it, such as this one ;) ) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ps: Francis understood the BWV problem and worked on something shorter, Bach Werke Verzeichnis (a soft redirect, but open the redirect itself). A German name without hyphens is not historic, but after out latest Orthography reform, everything is possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, maybe what I should have said about the B minor Mass is that it could serve both Bach's main employer in Protestant Leipzig and his somewhat honorary position under Augustus (Dresden, Poland). That is not yet said in the article but could be? About BWV, I'm accustomed to trusting Francis's judgment on matters he has worked on, and I would only depart from that in case of clear evidence. I think we should wait to hear from him. Marlindale (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I printed the list of questions and am numbering them as

1 for the suggestion to mention BWV 4 in the biography,

2 for "The recitative ...

For 2, following Gerda's suggestion, I deleted the sentence from the article. It had no cited reference.

On questions 4 and 5, the listed cantatas are said to be "among the best known". Sorry, Gerda, but it does not say the sample is representative, please look again. "Among the best known" might not make much sense to someone with Gerda's expertise on cantatas, but to me as an amateur perhaps more typical of readers, it seems correct so I don't see any change needing to be made.

Leaving some questions for another day, question 8, "Want to mention....?" the formulation for one thing seems unclear. Does it mean the only original-edition cantata print extant? Maybe that belongs in the article on BWV 150 (which, Gerda says she is just now writing). Should it also be in the Bach article? Marlindale (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and action. I now numbered my questions, sorry, should have done that before. The first printed work was BWV 71 (not BWV 150), which is mentioned, even the printing, but it's not mentioned that it is the only one of which the print is extant. A second one is lost completely, and that's about it. Worth mentioning? - I am not going to write BWV 150, but improving it to GA status. - We heard from Francis, see his talk, he came to agree with me that Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis is the better name. - The "best-known": any criteria for that vague attribute? Who says so? BWV 147 is probably not so well-known, just "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" from it. I would be surprised if BWV 4 was better known than BWV 12. Anyway, if we leave the selection, could we sort by chronology rather than the arbitrary BWV numbers? - The Mass in B minor could not serve his Leipzig employer, only the Kyrie + Gloria (Missa, for Bach) written in 1733 for the Dresden court. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find "Divi Blasi, Mühlhausen", where is it? I revised Chorale cantata (Bach) to say that in the second cycle, the first 40 are chorale cantatas, not the last 13, responding to one of your questions. Marlindale (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That's my question, where is it. It's Divi Blasii, Mühlhausen, why instead say St Blasius's Church, a clumsy construction? When we German can have it in Latin, English can also have it Latin. - I dropped that sentence in Church cantata (Bach), as a detail not quite correct: Bach himself regarded 2 of the 13 as chorale cantatas, - who are we to not count them? - Details should be in Chorale cantata (Bach), - I had no time to check that one, it grew too fast for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

For several of the questions, and future ones, it would help a lot to specify what is the title of the section under which they appear. Marlindale (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding questions 4 and 5, "some of the better known" church cantatas, I looked in Oxford Companion to Bach which has an article up to a full page on each cantata. I inserted footnotes to it confirming most of those now listed in the article are called well known. I looked at adjoining pages in the Companion and found several cantatas with shorter articles on them not saying they are well known. But I can't be expected to go through all of the over 190 cantatas on which of them are notable, that would mean reading a large proportion of the Companion. One option would just be to eliminate the mention of "better known" cantatas. Is that what people would prefer? Marlindale (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions 4 and 5 are actually, it seems to me, about different short lists of cantatas. It was on those in Question 4, from the main article, that I wrote the previous answer and revised the article. The list of four in Question 5 (BWV 20,140, 62,1) are from Church cantata (Bach) since had 140 deleted so it's now BWV 20, 62, 1, and there is a "such as" there which is not clear. Marlindale (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

I inserted some words in the preceding, but to me it seems the issue of Question 5 is rather, to clarify the article Church cantata (Bach). Marlindale (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

Further on cantata questions

1. Mention BWV 4 in the biography - where and how?

(Probably) application for Mühlhausen post --GA Done 3/26, Marl.

2. Delete a sentence on recitative - done.

3. Divi Blasii - to me, St. Blasius's Church seems fine in English. "divi" is not in my limited Latin vocabulary. Medieval Latin? Of course we can keep the redirect.

St. Blasius's Church is obviously no common English name, doesn't appear in the church article (which makes irt an Easter egg to arrive there), is no redirect. "Divi" means "... of Saint...". --GA - - - See still further, below, Marl 3/27

4. About some "better known" cantatas - I gave footnotes to show they are.

5. Some cantatas mentioned in Church cantata (Bach); that article needs clarification.

A bit more precise, please. --GA See Talk page of that article, Clarifications requested, Marl 3/26

6. I don't know yet about Elector (Dresden), King of Poland.

To my understanding: Poland doesn't need to be mentioned, as having nothing to do with Bach. The elector's court in Dresden was Catholic, that's enough. --GA

7. Second annual cycle incomplete, did not consist only of chorale cantatas. We've tried to fix this, have we succeeded? See question 5, Marlindale (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No. The second cycle is complete. It is not identical to the chorale cantatas cycle, ask Francis, who made a nice table of where they overlap and where not. The chorale cantatas cycle was not completed during the second cycle, true, but Bach added a few missing ones later, and incorporated one earlier work (BWV 4, back to the beginning) . Worth mentioning perhaps that he repeated that early work for his first year in Leipzig, and his second. --GA

8. BWV 71 was the first cantata whose score was published, yes? But "only cantata print extant" seems unclear. It seems to me paradoxical that a cantata first published much later, perhaps in a Bach-Ausgabe, would nevertheless have no copies preserved.

You are right, "only one where a print during Bach's lifetime survived" is more precise,

9. Plural "oratorios" - done.

10 about Dresden, Poland, Mass? Readers wouldn't understand this until it was written into the article, which hasn't been done yet and might not be. Marlindale (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See above: then drop Poland. Better include. That he applied for a post in Dresden, writing Kyrie and Gloria of the (later completed) Massin B minor seems one of the significant aspects of his biography. He applied for work, and will have been disappointed to receive only a title.

Thanks for the fixes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Still further on questions not yet answered

3. In English, for a church named for a saint, for example St. Anthony, the usual name is St. Anthony's Church. There are about 15 churches with that name. There is a WP article St. Paul's Church, Frankfurt am Main (not redirected) in which the German name is given as Paulskirche. With the name at issue there is a St. Blasius Church, Shanklin on the Isle of Wight. Maybe what seems clumsy is Blasius's. So I am going to delete the 's. Marlindale (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I explained that Kantor is not cantor, that Thomaskantor is not restricted to the Thomaskirche. It's interesting that the German church has a Latin name, which you loose if you simply translate it. To click on a link from St. Blasius Church, to find Divi Blasii looks like an Easter egg to me. And is the translation a common name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

First, congratulations on your featured article today. But:

a. What does Thomaskantor have to do with this question?

Later: I see it doesn't. I was aware that Bach had different responsibilities among four churches and had helped make revisions about that sometime in the past few years. Marlindale (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an example of better using an original term than a misleading translation. --GA

b. "Easter egg": in American English that's a hard-boiled painted egg, hidden for children to find. You seem to use it a different way, twice so far, to mean a disappointing find?

I was told (if I remember right) that I should not link from Mass in B minor structure to Mass in B minor, as misleading. (I think that was called Easter egg, but may be wrong. Thought it was a nice pun on Easter, but it seems not to have worked.) I think it's more misleading to come from St. Blasius Church and arrive at Divi Blasii. --GA

Marlindale, see WP:EGG. So named because they are hidden surprises (and should not be). -- Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize there is a problem with that link, to the article on a church where Bach worked. See a couple of paragraphs below, "I looked into..." The church is called St. Blasius (maybe with ' or 's) church in English, or Blasiuskirche in German. In the mulltiple references to the church I found in four books, all used the English or German name. The church has a Latin name Divi Blasii which I had seen only in the title of the article being linked to, so there was the EGG, exacerbated by "divi" being an unfamiliar word I think to most readers, but I see that below, Gerda has given references about how the name Divi Blasii arose. I am going to revise the Bach article accordingly. Marlindale (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

c. If St. Blasius is not a common name it's because he is not a very well-known saint. I mentioned the usage in English for churches named after saints.Marlindale (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding, sorry: I think this particular church is rarely called St. Blasius Church, more often Divi Blasii or Blasiuskirche. Generally: The church names in articles on compositions are the original (common) names, for example Paulinerkirche, which is not named after the Saint but the order. In cantata articles, we say Thomaskirche, matching Thomaskantor. --GA

I looked into what this church was called in a few books on Bach in English. In Gardiner, 2013, Vintage ed., it's called Blasiiuskirche on pp 178, 180. In the Oxford Companion, J. S. Bach, Boyd, Ed., 1999, article on Mŭhlhausen, it's also called Blasiuskirche each time it's mentioned. In the New Bach Reader ed. Wolff 1998, it occurs several times on pp. 49-58, always in English, as Church of St. Blasiius, organ of St. Blasius's, etc. In Spitts, vol.1, are "of St. Blasius many times, but also sometimes "Blasiuskirche'.I did not see "divi Blasii' mentioned in any of the four books. Moreover I didn't find "divi" in an unabridged dictionary of English. I would suggest that in the title of the WP artlcle on the church, "Divi Blasii" be replaced by "Blasiuskirche". Marlindale (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Blasiuskirche seems to be a rather colloquial version of Divi Blasii [2], - is that what we go for? Here is an explanation that the original "St." was replaced by "Divi" when turning to Protestant. See also: [3][4]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

5. This question, on clarifying the article Church cantata (Bach), I think you took care of very well in your revision today. Many thanks, Gerda. Marlindale (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

8. The original question was "[Do we] want to mention that BWV was the first printed work" etc. which needed to be clarified but now has been. In the article it now says that BWV 71 is an "elaborate, festive cantata", whereas the publication year placement seems like rather dry details, once they are elaborated. Are they already there in the article on BWV 71? If yes, maybe that's good enough. Marlindale (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to mention that, but think as VERY FEW of his works were printed during his lifetime, it might be interesting to learn what was printed. "Elaborate" and "festive" could be used for almost all cantatas for feast days I guess, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• On Blasius's name variant: see a somewhat related discussion I initiated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Divi Blasii, Mühlhausen. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)