Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)

Tune

I don't want to interfer with a work in progress, but please consider changing "on the hymn tune" to "on the hymn". In most cases of chorale fantasias, the content of the hymn shapes what happens, not only the tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn

Reincken's An Wasserflüssen Babylon chorale fantasia for organ is significant enough for an article in its own right. According to Christoph Wolff: "... Reinken's impressive large-scale Chorale Fantasia An Wasserflüssen Babylon, one of the key works of the north German organ style ..." (Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician, (2000), p. 64). Reliable sources abound on this piece. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been no attempted "discussion" here just a frivolous attempt to make misleading edits, see WP:POINT. The main discussion has not taken place here but in the talk page of the main article Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon. The fork article is incoherent, unreadable (presumably deliberately) and has no WP:consensus. To me it mostly reads like gibberish and attempts to appropriate content or images without attribution. A complete mess. The main talk page is carefully written and scholarly. Mathsci (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please speak about content. Your comment above makes clear you have no objections about the content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mathsci: please stop the disruption you're operating all over the place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Francis Schonken has been revert-warring in the main article at random.[1]

The WP:AfD seems to be ongoing on.

Tags have been removed about editing issues are decide by WP:consensus not unilaterally by Francis Schonken.

The edits in the section on "Musical analysis" seems like a guideo for "how not to edit wikipedia". It appears to ne just WP:original research and WP:synthesis. There was no proper sourcing, despite the appearance of citations. that was misleading. For musical analysis, e.g. BWV 39, a reliable secondary source should be used and then paraphrased/summarised, e.g. one of the two volumes by William G. Whittaker.. That is not the process you have been using. The "music" section is not something that could be used anywhere on wikipedia. I see no way of "merging" the content in the forked article, just redirecting and userfying. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Re. "It appears to ne ..." – however, you don't demonstrate anything: some subjective, and to all extents and purposes unfounded, criticism does not justify a battery of tags, such as the ones you re-introduced. Please provide a more substantial commentary on what exactly would be wrong in your appreciation, that would allow us to move forward and actually resolve issues (if any). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please don't remove tags. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Please explain why these tags would be justified in your opinion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It has been and is being explained in detail on the AfD. Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Thus far, no. There's a lot of detailed explanations there (quite some of it off-topic to an AfD), but nothing that indicates precisely what these tags mean, nor why they should be kept, and even less what is needed to resolve the alleged issues they are meant to indicate (none of which is suitable AfD rationale anyway). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an on-going discussion on arbitration with Newyorkbrad. Please address those issues there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Replied there on the broader issue. Awaiting your response. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Christoph Wolff's 2000 popular book "Johann Sebastian Bach, The Learned Musician"

Christoph Wolff's account of Reincken and Bach unfortunately seems to be out of date (that was no fault of his, of course). It has been superseded by the 2005 discoveries of the Weimar tablature. In particular the main editors for the Routledge Research Companion on Bach (2017), Robin Leaver and Christoph Wolff, acknowledge that problem, which involves new and ongoing research. The account by Kirsten Beißwenger is reliable (even though she died in 2013). Her report is valuable: the JSTOR journal "Die Musikforschung" contains 3 short discussions between Martin Staehelin and Maul & Wollny from 2009, which are cited by Beißwenger. These are all reliable secondary sources and cannot be dismissed in "the voice of wikipedia." Peter Williams' posthumous "Bach, a Musical Biography" (2016) gives a very careful account of the early years of Bach, which takes into account the 2005 discoveries (Williams died in 2015). The same is true of the account of Maul & Wollny, which I've read in the Anderson Room in Cambridge. Mathsci (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)