Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Editing

How do you edit a page, it doen't very clearly tell you and i can't find anywhere at all on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazzaaa-ox (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally there is an Edit tab. I don't see one here. This is too bad, as the article really needs improvement. It is not horribly written...but one can't say it is up to a reasonable standard of quality. Gingermint (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bach Cantatas Website

your comments on the proposed deletion of the article on the Bach Cantatas Website are invited here. --emerson7 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another festival

Since this page is semiprotected, I can't add this myself, but I know of another Bach festival that should be added to the bottom of the entry:

The Boulder Bach Festival http://www.boulderbachfestival.org

Matthyoo (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is clearly a fine article; I note some minor issues in my review on the comments page. Its flaws (such as they are) may be minor enough to merit an A rating for this project. Questions or comments on the review can be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing your link. Graham87 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find any discussion of Bach's Missae Breves - ???

I'm trying to find information about Bach's Missae Brevia, and I'm surprised they're not even mentioned in the introduction. Is there a reason for this omission? -John 68.39.104.142 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - they're hardly mentioned in Wikipedia. There are brief mentions at Missa Brevis and this section of the Ordinary of the Mass article. You might find this page from the Bach Cantatas website useful. Hope this helps, Graham87 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse pedantry: I corrected the heading to Missae Breves, for retrieval in archiving later on.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565

The Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 is a doubtful attribution. Should it really be attributed to Bach without qualification in the lede? William Avery (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bach wrote it. I've never heard of any doubt regarding this. Gingermint (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The doubts are partly documented in the wikipedia article on the piece: Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Attribution. William Avery (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Lutheranism

I would like to see Template:Lutheranism added in an unobtrusive manner to this article, as J.S. Bach has been listed under "People" in the box for quite some time. The other artists also in the template, Lucas Cranach and Paul Gerhardt, also have the infobox included in their articles. The Composer's Wikiproject ban on biographical infoboxes only applies to biographical infoboxes, not this one. Tony1 thought this should be discussed here before adding. What do you think?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of infoboxes: they are visually intrusive and typically "package" information in too coarse-grained a way. What is the advantage to the reader's understanding of this topic to shove a big box in there. Would it provide information that is not already in the article text? Tony (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Tony. This one actually would add some "new" information to this article. It is a Lutheranism infobox, but it doesn't provide information in the normal sense. Instead, it is simply an organized list of wikilinks. It provides information about the people, history, doctrine, and liturgical practices of this broader religious movement. Several liturgical concepts important to understanding Bach have wikilinks to them--Agenda (liturgy) and Divine Service. These terms are nowhere linked to or even explained in the current Bach article. In addition, I remember reading late last year in a scholarly journal about how one of Bach's cantatas was written to represent Luther's Small Catechism--another topic that is linked in the box. This article mentions Bach's study Bible by Cavlov, which he used extensively. Lutherans know that Cavlov is probably the most fiery and vehement of all the major Lutheran dogmatists. He was heavily influenced by the Lutheran Orthodoxy and the Gnesio-Lutherans in reaction to Pietism. We all know how Pietism limited Bach's career at times, while Lutheran Orthodoxy provided the context for his sacred works. But Pietism is not even mentioned in this article. These three movements within Lutheranism and the conflicts that occurred had an impact on Bach's beliefs and career (See "Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism" by Joseph Herl, Ph.D., for info about these movements, including how they affected Bach.), but they are underrepresented in the article. Therefore I am of the opinion that adding Template:Lutheranism, will benefit the article more than it will encumber it. I agree that the box is large, but I've made some recent edits to slim it up somewhat. I'm sure we can find an unobtrusive space for it. It wouldn't have to be at the top.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea at all. While Bach's Lutheranism is a biographical fact, and its relationship to his music is duly noted in the text, it is not an essential aspect of his contribution to music or world culture. It is strange to have a special box with links to articles like Power and Primacy of the Pope, Smalcald Articles, Sacramental union, Sola gratia and the Lutheran World Federation, but no analogous box with counterpoint, fugue, Baroque dance suites, cantatas, etc. In any case, I agree with Tony that any box is intrusive and unattractive. In the case of a subject (Lutheranism) that is not central to the identity or importance of a subject (Bach), an infobox would also be highly arbitrary. Eliezg (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Consider putting a few links in the "See also" section instead? Tony (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then I will add some pertinent articles to the "See also" section rather than add the whole box. I disagree with the idea that Lutheranism was a peripheral rather than central aspect to Bach's own personal identity, though. There is no reason he would have spent so much time and soul searching writing notes into into his Luther's Bible with Cavlov commentary if he wasn't deep into the piety and theological rigor of the Lutheranism of his day. By the way, as a Lutheran choirmaster, Bach agreed to Melancthon's Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope and all the rest of the Lutheran confessional writings (without any reservation as to their doctrinal teaching) as his own personal and public confession of faith. If you are still skeptical of my claim, see this article--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "See also" sections are supposed to have descriptions for the links they provide, but in this case I think little descriptions won't hurt. I.e. non-believers, for one, will find a link to Luther's Small Catechism odd, especially since that article doesn't mention Bach. Would you be so kind to add a few small clarifications? I.e. something like "Luther's Small Catechism, the Catechism Bach taught to students at the Thomasschule" (assuming it was Thomasschule, as I have no idea) instead of a simple link. Also, Christian symbolism in Bach's works is certainly an interesting topic, and it is already mentioned in the "Style" section. Perhaps one day someone will feel bold enough to create something like Musical style of Johann Sebastian Bach, and then we'd have enough space to elaborate on this aspect of Bach's work. For now, though, the article is already way too large (and has to grow larger, as there are few inline citations, the References section is underdeveloped, etc.). --Jashiin (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• It was central, but then so was his native language, and his being male, and lots of other things. Tony (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I intend to get around to doing it, but not this instant. There was just a new article on the theology of Bach as relates to music in the most recent month's Lutheran Witness, using as a source of course the extensive notes he made in his Calov Study Bible. I might add a line about that in the section on Calov's Bible.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to Style

On a somewhat related note (if you will), I still don't really like the "Musical Style" section. References to Bach's "devout, personal relationship with the Christian God", "audiences committed to serious, regular worship", "inner personal drive to display musical achievements", "cherished role as teacher" are borderline weasely, conjecture-ridden, near OR, and in any case entirely unreferenced. The section seems to put undue weight on the sacred music at the expense of discussing the no less considerable secular output, and reads a little like a plagiarization of some unknown single source. I've made these comments elsewhere and understand that it is not an easy section to write. I also do not feel that I am in a position to contribute to it, but surely someone in the music article writing community can whip out their Groves and Schweitzers and Williams and Gecks and whatever other basic references exist to generate something tighter and more appropriate? Best, Eliezg (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Are you in a position to help? It might be best if whoever revamps this section posts the new version here first. It's not an easy one to get right. Christoph Wolff (see refs) is a valuable source, too. Tony (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get that IPA pronunciation??

In german Sebastian is pronounced with an [s]!! Fix it, it shows the page as a quack right from the beginning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.87.192.98 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No German would say [ze'bastjan]. It should be [se'bastjan]. See, for example, at http://www.nordicnames.de/Aussprache.html 216.156.120.62 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

<german, please scroll down for English>Die IPA-Umschrift mit [ze-] ist richtig. Sie deutet kein deutsches 'z' an, sondern ein weiches 's'. Vergleiche auch die IPA-Hilfeseiten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_German Der IPA-Laut [z] entspricht demnach dem 's' in "Hase". So, wie die Aussprache jetzt angegeben ist, [se-], entspricht sie einem scharfen S als Anlaut, das es meines Wissens im Deutschen gar nicht gibt. Jedenfalls aber nicht beim Namen Sebastian.</german>

<bad english>IPA transcription should be [zeˈbastjan], not [seˈ-]. Sebastian is pronounced with a soft "s-", therefore the IPA sign [z] should be used. The article is semi-protected and I don't have an account, so maybe anyone who is able to would like to change it. Thanks </bad english> --78.34.180.190 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

JS Bach

JS Bach was born 21 March, 1685, NOT 31 March as is listed. [Schonberg, Harold C., The Lives of the Great Composers, WW Norton, 1981.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.127.109 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What did Bach really look like?

The link in Note 27. to CNN is broken. I suggest to use an alternative reference: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3157170,00.html?maca=en-newsletter_en_germany-light-2089-txt-nl Stranded@wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Time-traveling works of Wagner

Within the paragraph entitled "Death", the following sentence can be read:

His estate was valued at 1159 Thalers and included... ...and 9 volumes of Wagner's Leipzig Song Book).[18]

Bach died around 1750, 63 years before the birth of Wagner. --81.183.190.237 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

---

You know, the surname "Wagner" was certainly used before good old Richard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.226.196 (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I miss taht the 'hohe messe' is not mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.165.21 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Although "Wagner" was (and still is) a fairly common surname, the sentence is mildly confusing. Gingermint (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone check if this "Leipziger Gesangbuch (1729)" was really Paul Wagner's? Or was it a compilation of hymns culled from both Gottfried Vopelius' and Paul Wagner's earlier works. Also I think it is appropriate to precede Wagner with his first name as that name has not been mentioned before in the article. Angry bee (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tightening up this article

The article still contains a number of mistatements, factual errors and conjectures which could be corrected in the light of recent scholarship. Just to take a few from the early sections of the article:

"The young Bach probably witnessed and assisted in the maintenance of the organ music" - surely it was the maintenance of the organ, not the organ music.

"Bach's obituary indicates that he copied music out of Johann Christoph's scores, but his brother had apparently forbidden him to do so, possibly because scores were valuable and private commodities at the time" - "apparently" is an unnecessary qualification and "scores" in the plural is inappropriate; the anecdote concerns one particular ms. fascicle, thin enough to be curled up and drawn through the lattice of the book cupboard door. The reason for J.C. Bach's prohibition is conjectural. We will never know. It is inconsistent with other evidence of the mutually supportive relationship between Bach and his elder brother. Do we really believe that Bach would have got his brother's permission if he had paid him a fee out of his pocket money? My own conjecture is just that Bach's extreme precocity and energy may sometimes have irritated his brother, despite their good general relationship.

"... Bach would have visited the Johanniskirche (Church of St. John) and heard (and possibly played) the church's famous organ (built in 1549 by Jasper Johannsen and nicknamed the "Böhm organ" after its most prominent master), an instrument whose sonic capabilities could well have been the inspiration for the mighty Toccata and Fugue in D minor." - Unfortunately, it is most unlikely that this particular organ could have been the inspiration for anything but the chorale partitas, and I doubt whether a particular organ can be said to have "inspired" any of Bach's organ works, although there are very occasional markings showing that someone, not necessarily Bach, had performance on a particular instrument in mind; i.e., if "Rückpositiv" is indicated, then it is at least not the Arnstadt organ, which lacked a Rückpositiv. The organ in the Johanniskirche was in fact in bad repair and had no independent pedal before this was added in 1712-14. This has been used to date those of Georg Bohm's organ works which have an independent pedal part, including pedal solos. Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor is of this nature and can have no particular relationhip to the Johanniskirche organ as it was when Bach was in Lüneburg.

"Given his innate musical talent, Bach would have had significant contact with prominent organists of the day in Lüneburg, most notably Georg Böhm (the organist at Johanniskirche) as well as organists in nearby Hamburg, such as Johann Adam Reincken. Through contact with these musicians, Bach probably gained access to the largest and finest instruments he had played thus far. It is likely that during this stage he became acquainted with the music of the German organ schools, especially the work of Dieterich Buxtehude, and with music manuscripts and treatises on music theory that were in the possession of these musicians." - This is written as conjecture, when it is in fact a certainty (except "access" to the organs. Access to organs was not that easy - who books and pays the organ blower or connects up the bellows to the local water wheel?). The rest is not conjecture, as demonstrated by the recent finding of Bach's ms. copies of Reincken and Buxtehude's longest chorale fantasias, made for Georg Böhm.

"In January 1703, shortly after graduating and failing an audition for an organist's post at Sangerhausen[4], ..." - Bach did not go around failing auditions, and he certainly did not fail this one. However, for "political" reasons he failed to get certain posts he had auditioned for. In accordance with Bach's own statement (letter to Johann Friedrich Klemm, November 18, 1736) "all the votes were cast for my humble self - I was nevertheless, for the aforementioned raison, not able to have the good fortune of emerging with success." The aforementioned "raison" was that another candidate was imposed by Duke Johann Georg of Saxe-Weissenfels (Christoph Wolff: Johann Sebastian Bach - the learned musician, p. 67).

"According to legend, both Bach and George Frederic Handel wanted to become amanuenses of Buxtehude, but neither wanted to marry his daughter, as that was a condition for the position.[5]" - Let's keep legends out of this. This may be true for Handel, according to Mattheson, who describes his and Handel's journey to Lübeck, the insufferably cocky young dandies from the Hamburg Opera improvising double fugues along the way. It is not true for Bach - there is no evidence that he wanted to be an amanuensis or succeed to Buxtehude's post, nor that he had any particular views about Buxtehude's daughter. He wanted to "comprehend one thing and another about his art", now interpreted (possibly) to mean "how to become a successful independent musical entrepreneur".

And so one could go on. I have previously pointed out other questionable passages (now in the Discussion Archives). No corrections have resulted. As Wikipedia is now, correction is for self-appointed experts, hair-splitters and NPOV artists. However, there are thousands of people out there who have more precise knowledge of Bach and his music than the well-meaning authors of these passages. It would be to Wikipedia's advantage if one found ways of making use of it. Uttenthal, Salamanca.87.49.96.55 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• (1) Why don't you register and log in? Takes 3 mins. (2) Why don't you make your suggested corrections yourself? They appear to be significant improvements, although I haven't micro-examined all of them. (3) Why are you rude about the regular editors here? Tony (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Logged in and wrote a full reply, but it got lost when I pressed "Save page". Anyway, I am not sure that I am getting at the regular editors, but the sterile arguments exemplified further up this page. Over the years this type of nit-picking has not led to any improvement to the article, which, by the way, I think is quite appropriate in general but just needs some tightening up in the way I have suggested. Hieronimo (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent move, Hiero. Are you going to launch in and make your changes? I haven't looked at your archived ones. Does anyone have a problem with any of them? Tony (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the passage on the Johanniskirche organ, per your arguments. And anyway, any "this organ may have inspired that piece" arguments are nearly always speculative. Besides, if "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" referred to BWV 565, it is not a good example (because Bach's authorship is disputed), and an irrelevant one in any case (because BWV 565 does not require a particularly powerful organ). As for the rest, you're welcome to implement the changes yourself. The article would benefit greatly if someone just checked everything using Wolff's seminal biography and added appropriate references everywhere. I just don't happen to have the book. --Jashiin (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not "Elisabetha" but "Elisabeth"

The name of Bachs mother is Maria Elisabeth Bach, née Lämmerhirt and not Maria Elisabetha Lämmerhirt Bach, that's a mistake.

Could someone correct the following phrase:

Johann Sebastian Bach was born in Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach. He was the youngest child of Johann Ambrosius Bach, the director of the Stadtpfeifer or town musicians, and Maria Elisabetha Lämmerhirt Bach. --87.123.68.59 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I checked Grove Online just in case, you're absolutely correct. I changed it to "Maria Elisabeth Lämmerhirt" (again, using Grove Online as an example) and renamed her article accordingly, fixing all (hopefully) double redirects that resulted. --Jashiin (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spitta & Schweitzer

I think that the presence of both Spitta's and Schweitzer's books in "Further reading" is unnecessary. Both books are very outdated - Spitta's is from 1870s, Schweitzer's is from 1910s. There are countless errors and misjudgements in both. Some of these are very widely known, such as the Telemann issue (both writers dismissed Telemann as a minor composer with little talent, yet praised works by him.. because those were thought to be Bach's at the time), but others are only seen if one has experience studying 17th-century music (i.e. Schweitzer claiming Frescobaldi was an insignificant composer, much less important than Scheidt, or that Pachelbel's chorales are "chains of fughettas"). It would be great to mention both books in "Legacy" as important early publications, but to list them alongside Wolff is doing a disservice to our readers. Any objections? --Jashiin (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Orchestral Suites

While Bach began composing orchestral works during his period in Cothen, the actual Orchestral Suites were probably not composed until his period in Leipzig.Affendi1 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Template

I think that there's is something missing on the page. Because on the page's of (for example) Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart and Tchaikovsky there are the so called templates on the bottom of the pages. With includes all the links to other chapters and aspects of the composers. But there is no template on J.S. Bach's page. Why not??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.143.109 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you specify the value added? Tony (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

External links

I recently cleaned up the links as per our guidelines and there were some links that weren't suitable as ELs but constitute reliable sources. These could be used by anyone interested in adding content to the article as they can be cited in the References section. I've listed the sources I believe could add content to this article below:

• Faces of Bach - Site discussing the portraits of J. S. Bach.
• An article on Bach's purported 'tuning pattern' from his manuscript of The Well Tempered Clavier
• "Johann Sebastian Bach: Some Theological Perspectives by James E. Engel" (PDF). (66.6 KiB)
• "Bach Institute Announces Discovery of Transcription Technique". April 20 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-06-23. Retrieved 2008-05-20. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Bach on the bus - tour at signandsight.com
• Radio 3 - A Bach Christmas—extensive resources on Bach, on occasion of BBC Radio 3's complete airing of Bach's works in December 2005
• [1], Bach-Archiv Leipzig
• "Bach as Contrapuntist" by Dan Brown from his web book Why Bach?

-ThemFromSpace 19:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one is in Russian? Tony (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it was spam added by 81.26.91.253. I've deleted it from this list. Graham87 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question removal of an external link

If I'm reading the history right, the following link was removed from "External Links/General Reference" on 6/20/2009:

• "Bach as Contrapuntist" by Dan Brown from his web book Why Bach?

I found this section of Brown's web book very illuminating on it stated subject, which is (or should be) of general interest to people interested in Bach; is this the place to request of established that the link be restored? I hope some established reader will restore it. Bald99 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Too general, unreferenced itself, too much like an essay, belongs more in the music theory area. Tony (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I also note the above user's only contributions here have been to link to that book. He hasn't contributed since he first linked it over a year ago and now comes out of the woodwork to defend it. Anyhow, as the editor who removed the link, I concur with Tony1's assessment of it. ThemFromSpace 04:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I like that page a lot. But it is basically a draw into a commercial (i.e. pay money for full access) site, and that is a strike against linking to it from Wikipedia. Bertport (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)