Talk:Clavier-Übung III/Archive 1

Archive 1

Typo in number of pages?

The article says that 35 pages of the manuscript were engraved by Balthasar Schmid, 43 pages were engraved by another group of three engravers at the workshop of Johann Gottfried Krügner, and the final manuscript ran to 88 pages. However, 35 + 43 = 78, not 88. One of the numbers must not be right. Graham87 14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the total was a typo :( Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo in "Numerological significance" section

The article used to say that "a pivotal point of special significance occurs at bar 41, which is the sum of the numerical order of letters in JS BACH". I've changed this to bar 43, since the sum of the letters (10 + 19 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 8) comes to 43, not 41. The German alphabet article says nothing about missing letters. Graham87 04:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not what the two books of Williams say and the pivotal bar is bar 41 where the pedal and keyboard parts suddenly switch (with the lombardic rhyhms in the pedal). I'll have to check how Williams makes his calculaion of 41 from the letters (in 1980 and 2003). Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The same answer 41 is given by Kellner (1978). There Kellner writes that the numbering of letters in the Baroque period identified I with J and U with V. Thus BACH=14 and JS=9+18=17.Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense; see Latin alphabet#Medieval and later developments. Graham87 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

French chorale prelude?

The lead states: "Bach was forward-looking, incorporating and distilling modern baroque musical forms, such as the French chorale prelude." But there is no such thing as a French chorale prelude; the chorale was a German Protestant phenomenon. Furthermore, the chorale prelude wasn't a modern form at the time; German composers have been creating chorale preludes for about a century before Clavier-Übung III. So if the sentence comes directly from a good source, it needs an inline citation; otherwise it should be rewritten to reflect the actual contemporary trends Bach incorporated into his music. --Jashiin (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Christoph Wolff, one of the leading living Bach scholars, refers to "French-style organ chorales" on page 207 of Bach: Essays on his life and work with particular reference to the most complex of the chorale prelude BWV 682, Vater unser in Himmelreich. I have corrected this from chorale prelude to French-style chorale. I might write the segment on BWV 682 out of sequence, possibly with supplementary sources (I have already learnt to play it). Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought so; Wolff is referring to the French organ style which Bach incorporated into his works, and that was a progressive thing at the time. The new wording is much better, but I'm not sure if it makes it perfectly clear that the French had no chorales, and that "French-style chorale" means "chorale written in the French style", not "chorale in the style of French chorales". I can't think of a better wording, though, so maybe there's no problem. --Jashiin (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you too. This should hopefully come out in the wash when the summary of the analysis of BWV 682 is written. BTW here where I live in Aix I chatted to Bernard Foccroulle, the director of the Aix festival on Monday. He gave a Bach and pre-Bach concert here in May with his daughter Alice - Purcell, Schütz, Buxtehude and an organ composer contemporary to Frohberger. So I was quite interested to read your user page ... Some day somebody should write up Membra Jesu Nostri more fittingly. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

BWV 686 double pedal part

I have a small problem with the following passage from the description of BWV 686:

This is Bach's unique six part composition for organ, if the keyboard version of the Ricercar a 6 from the Musical Offering BWV 1079 is discounted. Some of Bach's predecessors, such as Scheidt, Buxtehude, Reincken, Bruhns, and Weckmann, used musical notation that might possibly have signified a double pedal part. The first verse of Luther's hymn was already set [...]

First of all, it's a bit odd to describe the piece as "Bach's unique six part composition"... only to immediately mention another six part keyboard composition by Bach, which we discard for unclear reasons. Perhaps a description such as "This is one of the two six part keyboard pieces by Bach" (only worded better, eh) would be more suitable.

But it's the second sentence that seems problematic to me. It doesn't matter who may have used double pedal parts, because we have quite a few solid examples of composers who most certainly used double pedal parts, with no "might possibly have signified" about their notation. To give just a few examples, Arnolt Schlick has done it in early 16th century (and even composed at least one piece with four-part pedal writing!), and in quasi-imitative counterpoint, too. I'm not sure about Buxtehude, Bruhns and Weckmann, but Scheidt most definitely composed a few pieces with double pedal throughout, and Reincken certainly included double pedal passages in at least one work. As far as I know, there is no ambiguity in the notation – at least my 2005 Dirksen edition of Reincken's works simply presents the double pedal passages as fact. Finally, there was at least one major composer, Vincent Lübeck, who was composing double pedal parts when Bach was still alive.

I'm not sure if a discussion of who did double pedal parts before Bach is necessary here, but if it is, I think it would be better to just mention the composers I listed, since they did use double pedal parts, and not others who may have used them. --Jashiin (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. Williams (2003) writes, "Double pedal parts Buxtehude, Rencken, Bruhms and others are less reliable than modern editions imply, though tablature or staff-scores (open and keyboard) could often be interpreted in this way: the extant tablature score of Weckmann's 'O lux beata trinitas' notes that it can be so read that pedal play both c.f. and the bass (the latter read down an ocatve ...). earlier models in Scheidt's Tabulatura nova (1624) are organ motets for organo pleno, with 16' pedal reed. Different articulations for the two pedal parts of BWV 686 makes 16' pedal registration on appropriate organs practicable, for what is almost an augmented canon for pedal." Williams is probably being overly cautious here; I'll check for other secondary sources about double pedal parts. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Range of duets

Am I correct in assuming that the range of the Duets is C2 to C6 in scientific pitch notation? The range should probably be given in that notation, since it's unambiguous, and many people won't be familiar with the notation that is currently used. I don't think that the range of the Duets is *that* much narrower than the range of notes used in the Goldberg Variations, but it's obviously narrow enough to make a difference. Graham87 06:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Two sources agree on this. I would have to identify the notations used (I assume c for c below middle c, C for the C below that and C₁ for the C below that and c', c' ', c ' ' ', etc for the higher pitches). The harpsichord Clavier-Übung 1, II, IV have an extended range from G₁A₁ to d ' ' ' (Robert T. Marshall, J.S.Bach as organist, page 232) whereas Clavier-Übung III has a range CDE to c' ' '. Williams says exactly the same on page 530 of the 2003 book, except he writes GG-d' ' ' for the harpsichord range in Clavier-Übung 1, II, IV. I'll try to figure out the name of the notation for pitch that both of them are using. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found it: Helmholtz pitch notation. Graham87 15:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources for "split titles"

There are no sources in Bach scholarship which refer to Lutheran Mass and Lutheran Catechism. That is something that the recently arrived user Orfeocookie has invented himself. We don't WP:SYNTHESIZE titles in this way. That is WP:OR. We don't create fictitious titles for works of Bach. As the article shows in editing wikipedia we follow sources meticulously and do not try to segment and fragment a musical whole, known by a single name and conceived as one work. At no stage has Orfeocookie referred to any sources. So we have fictitious titles invented by him. I could not possible iagine how anybody vould write the separate articles in a consistent way that would help he reader in any way. Orfeocookie has also indicate that he has done this because of a gridge to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not invent the titles. They are here in the article already. Orfeocookie (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

They are convenient of subsections to discuss parts of the work, and were created by me. They are not suuitable or recognizable titles for wikipedia articles. I have reported your disruption at WP:ANI. Mathsci (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation problems

I have fixed a few purely mechanical problems with the citations. Please can someone check the following:

• Picken 1944 or 1949?
• I corrected the author name in the ref, but cannot find this isbn or publisher:

  Bukofzer, Manfred F. (2008), Music in the Baroque Era: From Monteverdi to Bach, Von Elterlein Press, ISBN 1443726192

  (update) This one is interesting, Google does indeed have it here but neither WorldCat nor OttoBib can find it. --Mirokado (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There are lots more problems with the citations, I will have another look later. I suggest installing User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js which will show you the problems. --Mirokado (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Picken is 1944 according to this secondary source (Michael Kassler's The English Bach Awakening, page 48). [1] or on google scholar [2]. Mathsci (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also give as 1944 in "Samuel Wesley: the man and his music" by Philip Olleson, page 330. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also quoted here in 1945 Bach Reader.[3] Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response about, and for correcting, the Picken ref. Unless the problems are fixed before I can look at them I will probably be making more such requests here, in cases where somebody with access to the sources or their own notes can probably sort a typo out in a few minutes which might take me ages to investigate. It will be quite OK to correct the article and perhaps leave a brief comment here, there is no need to provide lengthy details each time unless of course you wish to. --Mirokado (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mostly they're just typos. I usually check that the harvnb notes link to the references. If there is an automated way of doing that, that is fine. Occasionally introducing extra spaces in harvtxt can stop the link working. Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is very difficult to spot these without some sort of mechanical help. That is why I suggested the Ucucha script. --Mirokado (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• missing citation for Rose 1987
• missing citation Stauffer & May 1986 (confusion between authors and editors in Stauffer citations?)
• missing citation for Wolff 1990 (there are three Wolff citations, is 1991 the correct one?)
• missing citation for Lynn 2006
• Smither 2000, I have changed this to 1997 consistent with the only citation
• missing citation Schweitzer 2008
• missing citation Folge 1911
• missing citation Stinson 1996 (there are three other Stinson citations)
• missing citation Templeton 1989
• Thistlethwaite 1990 (isbn 0521343453) or 1991 (which I can't find)? citation isbn is for the 1999 edition

A few more problems also corrected. --Mirokado (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Mathsci (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes. I've tweaked a little more (the advisor.js edit also includes removal of trailing space which I did separately and forgot to mention in the change summary). There follows a list of citations which are not currently used in the article. Please consider whether to remove these or put them in a Further reading section.

• Barger, Judith (2007)
• Bäumlin, Klaus (1990)
• Bond, Ann (1987)
• Cusick, Suzanne G. (1994)
• Dennery, Annie (2001)
• Geck, Martin (2003)
• Keller, Hermann (1967)
• MacDonald, Malcolm (2006)
• O'Donnell, John (1976)
• O'Donnell, John (1979)
• Ross, J. M. (1974)
• Schweitzer, Albert (1905)
• Smith, Rollin (2002)
• Tatlow, Ruth (1991)
• Temperley, Nicholas (1997)

Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think most of these are relevant directly in the text. For example Bond (1987) was mistakenly given as Rose (1987) (old note 25). Albert Schweitzer's original text on Bach, appearing in a quote box below the lede, is given as a reference without a harvnb link. There doesn't appear to be any reason to remove these references at present or to make them into a "further reading" separate section, since they are all specialised. The easiest is to link them to the part of the text to which they are related. I'll do that when I have time. Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine, it is not a serious problem, but nice to sort out when you have time. --Mirokado (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BWV 552 ; the fugue

The article mentions a similarity between this fugue and the fugue in E flat major BWV 876/2 in the Well-Tempered Clavier Book 2. Is there a reference for this? The similarity doesn't seem obvious. On the other hand, it seems to me that there are obvious similarities between the the BWV 552 fugue and the prelude in E-flat major BWV 852 (WTC Book I; this prelude is actually a beautiful fugue with two themes, the first of which is similar to the main theme of BWV 552, and the way the two themes combine is similar too). A subjective assertion admittedly. French imp (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

The section heading and an in-section harvtxt link indicates that particular sentence is a summary of material in Peter Williams' 2003 book. The book is viewable on amazon if you haven't got access to a copy. Mathsci (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Break it up?

There's no other way to put it. This article is extraordinarily long!

By contrast, there are related articles for at least some of the constituent parts that are quite short (eg the article for the 4 Duets) or even full of empty sections (the article for the prelude and fugue). It seems to me that there's a good case for moving large chunks of the material here that relates to specific pieces or group of pieces into those other articles, and linking from here, so that this article focuses on the material that is relevant to the work as a whole. Orfeocookie (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no other articles that treat even parts of this work significantly: there is a poorly written and improperly sourced stub on the prelude and fugue at the beginning and end. By its nature this article is about the history, iconography, analysis and reception of a seminal and gigantic masterwork. With the Canonic Variations, it is one of his only works published in his lifetime. So what on earth do you expect? It is built of inter-related parts which are inseparable. Certainly no source separates the parts. On the other hand, if editors interested in music want something useful to do connected with the works of Bach, they could write one or several articles on Bach reception. There are plenty of sources in German, a whole series of volumes devoted to different centuries. Apart from what is written here, my understanding is that there is almost nothing written on this topic on wikipedia.

You've been on wikipedia for about three weeks, so I'm afraid I do not take your input very seriously because you have had no experience creating music articles. The content here represents what's in the sources and your proposal makes no sense. Each collection of Bach's organ music is taken as a whole, not as a series of bite-sized parts. Your proposal is as unimaginable as splitting Orgelbüchlein into 44 separate articles (that article is not properly written yet in any sense at all). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been thinking the same thing, at least about moving some of the sections about BWV 552 and the Duets to the articles about those pieces. But I've realised, as you say, that the article would be very difficult to break up ... it'd probably take more effort to do it well than it must have done to write the page in the first place. The closest precedent I can think of on Wikipedia ... admittedly not that close at all! ... is that we have an article about the Chopin Études , and yet we have an article about each of the individual ones – but they're more easily divisible. Graham87 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Chopin Etudes or Preludes are hardly comparable. If someone were to write an article on the reception of Bach's organ music, that part could perhaps be detached. But who would do that apart from me? Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Remarks about how long I've been on wikipedia are quite unnecessary, thanks. Just because I have not slaved over an article to the extent that you have here, does not mean that I have no experience in writing, or no knowledge about the differences between how people read on-screen text compared to a book. I am raising this issue because 87 pages is simply more than the average reader can process on a single webpage.

Despite your claims about how interlinked it all is, I don't think this applies to the detailed musical analysis. Take a look, for example, at the section analysing the prelude and fugue in detail. There is only the briefest mention of the rest of the work in that section. Similarly with the chorale preludes - there are certainly references within that musical analysis between chorale preludes, but not to the prelude and fugue or to the duets. I am not for a moment suggesting that sections dealing with history, iconography or reception ought to be broken up, because they relate to the work as a whole. But there are large chunks of this article that focus specifically on a particular piece or pieces within the work as a whole. Orfeocookie (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have followed the sources (the article itself took 1000 edits to create, not counting the audio files and images). Incidentally you use the word "slaved". Wikipedia is written by a volunteer community and I'm not sure using a derogatory word like that is in any way helpful.

You are presenting your own personal opinions, without reference to sources. As far as I can see this article cannot be separated into invidual articles for individual pieces, since they are all related, no matter what you think or say. (The whole section on numerology explains that.) Nor will the Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. Nor the Canonic Variations. Nor the Schubler Chorales. Nor the Orgelbüchlein. Unfortunately experience does matter and I wish you would actually create some articles on music to understand what is involved. (See also the sets of concertos by Handel, published in his life time: Handel organ concertos Op.4, Handel organ concertos Op.7, Handel concerti grossi Op.6 which can't be separated. The article Handel concerti grossi Op.3 has not yet been written.) I don't see any merit to your arguments about making separate articles for the musical analyses. There is no reason to separate the manualiter and pedal preludes, nor the groupings into large and small catechisms, nor the preludes of the mass with the same title (the Kyries, the Glorias). There is no source that does so. The main sources in English are the two editions of Peter Williams' CUP books, and I have more or less followed the structure he has provided. The St Matthew Passion and St John Passion are not broken up into bite-sized pieces. Neither of them incidentally has any detailed musical analysis. It does exist, but people seem to prefer writing lists on wikipedia, presumably because it's easier to do (although boring to read). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally Duets (Bach) is an unsourced stub, with almost no content. The last sentence there should probably be removed, as it contradicts most published scholarship. That is why wikipedia is written using sources, not half-remembered sleeve notes. Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My entire point is that something like the Duets unsourced stub can be rescued by taking content from here and filling it so that if someone is looking for information specifically on the Duets, they can find it there and be given the opportunity to explore further, instead of coming to a truly gigantic article (in the top 100 for Wikipedia) and being dazzled by all the other information that they don't even know that they want yet while trying to find the part that tells them more about the Duets. Saying that there is 'no source that does so' misses the fundamental difference between a book and a website. Taking the structure of a book and plonking it straight onto a website is taking something that works brilliantly in one medium and applying it to a different medium where people read differently. The entire purpose of hyperlinks is to provide a means of linking together related material that has no parallel in a book. If you want some sources on the difference between reading a book and reading a website then try starting with the links here http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/ Incidentally, 'slaved' merely means 'worked hard' in this context and I don't see any derogatory connotations in it. Orfeocookie (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this is one of the most carefully written and sourced articles on wikipedia on Bach's music. Please improve other articles, e.g. the cantatas, before trying to dismantle and fragment this article according to your personal tastes. I see no reason to detatch the duets and spend five days writing a separate history and reception. So please go and improve other articles or parts of articles that haven't been written yet. At some stage I intend writing a careful analysis of all 44 of the chorale preludes in the Orgelbüchlein: that will probably take half a year. It will involve creating the midi files for each chorale prelude by encoding them in lilypond and carefully choosing instrumentation to simulate stops/registration: that would take two months alone (primitive versions might aleady exist on mutopia). There are in addition many chorale preludes not in a nmed collection, which have no wikipedia article. I would encourage you to worry about articles that are yet to be written rather than setting to work on dismantling and dumbing down this particular article on Bach's magnum opus for organ.

I see that so far you have made 10 article space contributions to wikipedia.[4] I see also that you are interested in Gabriel Fauré. The whole of the piano music of Gabriel Fauré is gathered in one single article: perhaps that is a little odd. The vocal music is not badly represented, although there's much more in Nectoux than has been put on wikipedia. I'm not even sure whether there is an article on his chamber music, e.g. the second piano quintet, the second violin sonata, the cello sonatas, the piano trio, all the late Fauré. Is there? It's all in Nectoux, which you seem to have. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no hesitation in agreeing that it is a VERY carefully written and sourced article. Unfortunately, I don't think that this means that people will read it, because most people will be completely overwhelmed. And encyclopaedias are ultimately for reading. If I get around to working on the existing stubs for the Duets and the Prelude and Fugue then I will basically be copying slabs of material from this article, but it's obviously not worth pursuing this further in this location. And yes I like Faure, and the single article for his piano music is only 20% the length of this one (although you don't appear to accept that length is a remotely relevant criterion for readability, or perhaps you don't accept that readability should be a criterion for structure) and beautifully readable, and no I don't have Nectoux. And you also make an error in assuming that the contributions I have made since opening an account/creating a log in are the only contributions I have ever made to Wikipedia, but if it makes you feel comfortable to think that I know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia, the way in which classical composers (and especially Bach) grouped their work, organisation of concepts for different audiences, writing for the web or anything else that you can't see by linking to my editing history, then by all means. Over and out. Orfeocookie (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not try to improve an article like the stub Clavier-Übung I instead of venting here? It took some ingenuity to find the original manuscript. Otherwise the article is virtually content free, probably inaccurate in parts: an uninformative and misspelt list. The last gigue is a three part fugue, divided into two parts and probably inverted second time round. Where is that in the article. As for Clavier-Übung III it is an overwhelming Promethean work as you would know if you had ever tried playing the double pedal part in the six part fugue of BWV 866. Speaking of which ... Mathsci (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that you keep pushing me to go and research/add content in response to a discussion about the readability of existing content tends to suggest that you don't grasp the latter. They are two completely different skills and tasks. Accuracy of information is essential, but this doesn't mean that the article with the most information in it is therefore the most informative. Orfeocookie (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now that someone raised this very point in May 2011 by adding a tag to the article. I can also see that you immediately dismissed it. It took you all of 5 minutes to consider. That was not from someone who had 'just arrived' in Wikipedia, it was from someone who had been here since 2005. You also appear to disagree not just with my 'personal opinion' but with Wikipedia:Article size, which says that an article of 100Kb has reached the point where it should almost certainly be split. This article is more than DOUBLE that point. So clearly how long I have been here is not the reason for dismissing my opinion, the reason for dismissing my opinion is simply because you don't agree with it.Orfeocookie (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please stop wikilawyering. As I say, you're giving your personal opinions which are at odds to what I have found in the sources. I have adhered to a time-honoured way of writing about Bach's organ music, using as a guide the writings of Bach scholars like Russell Stinson, Peter WIlliams, Christoph Wolff, etc. I cannot see the point of pushing a non-neutral/fringe point of view here, i.e. that Clavier-Übung III has no unity and is a collection of random pieces which can be understood separately. That makes absolutely no sense to me and I have not seen that idea expressed anywhere in print. As for accessibility, commentators frequently point out that these pieces are hard to play and hard for the listener to comprehend. Try BWV 686 or BWV 682. There are five or six distinct parts in layers or canon which even a player can find it had to hear as he/she plays. (The same is true of the Canonic Variations.) That is what Williams says in the sources; and it is repeated elsewhere. For example here

• Cusick, Suzanne G. (1994), "Feminist Theory, Music Theory, and the Mind/Body Problem", Perspectives of New Music, 32: 8–27

the professional organist Suzaane G. Cusick gives a feminist point of view on a moment of tension in BWV 686 as both feet have to be displaced simultaneously in an extreme way in the double pedal part. There are also of course the religious/spiritual aspects of this piece as well. Rather than create an "Occupy Talk:Clavier-Übung_III" protest, might it not be a better idea to try writing a balnaced article on the chamber music of Gabriel Faurė or perhaps even of Francis Poulenc. There is whole thesis from Boston University on Poulenc's violin sonata.

One of the music articles I wrote was adapted on Simple Wikipedia. It might have been one of the articles on Handel Concertos. Easy enough to check. Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting for a minute that "Clavier-Übung III has no unity and is a collection of random pieces which can be understood separately". Orfeocookie (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see any point in separating the pieces, I'm sorry. Can't you think of anything else to do on wikipedia apart from arguing here, which is all you've done for three days? Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to set my 'work program'. And I have done other things, including finding out a bit more about how to enable other people to participate in a discussion when one-on-one is going nowhere. I would have actually stopped at 'over and out' but for two factors. First, your continued attempts after that to tell me where in Wikipedia to spend my time. Second, the discovery that there is actually a policy on this topic. So I will be following that policy and giving other people an opportunity to express their views on whether this article merits some form of WP:Split. Orfeocookie (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is never advisable to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. And adding content is the main purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My initial feeling is not to split it up, since it is complete and coherent (long, but does that really matter? people looking for information can still easily find it). It's a curious case because the pieces within are often performed separately, but they're not completely separable. A parallel case isn't coming to me right off. Antandrus (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Orfeocookie: This discussion is not productive. Yes, the article is long. Yes, there is a guideline on article size. Yes, no one owns the article. However, there is no compelling case for why this article needs to be split, and given its high quality, all this noise on the talk page is unwarranted. Editorial judgment covers things like deciding when and how to split an article—there is no policy and no reason to require a split. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a technical reason for breaking up larger articles: older browsers can have difficulty parsing wikimedia articles that are too large. RooK (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This account is almost certainly a sockpuppet or compromised account.[5] Mathsci (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the total ad hominem talk page (on both sides). Pay no attention to the content of any particular comment. Find some way to attack the credibility of the user who posted it!DavidRF (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Any user who appears on wikipedia with 6 edits in 2004, 1 edit in 2006 and then 6 years later one comment here is not a regular user. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And only regular users are allowed to have opinions?? For the record, it is possible that this is someone I know. However, it is not a sockpuppet, nor an account I have hacked, nor someone that I encouraged to come and say something here. Please stop assuming bad faith at every turn. You don't seem to have grasped yet that I no longer have any interest in editing this article, and haven't for several days. Not since the support for keeping the article as is was shown on the Classical Music project page. I keep trying to tell you this, but you appear convinced that any opinion the other way must be part of my sinister plotting. Orfeocookie (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To me this looks like an obvious sockpuppet account, since nobody leaves an account inactive for 6 years and then suddenly appears on wikipiedia in an obscure article. These matters are currently occupying all your attention on wikipedia. Orgelbüchlein meanwhile is gradually being created, with the midi audio files gradually being created and added. If you appreciated what is involved in writing articles like this, perhaps you would not spend all your time wikilawyering. File:BWV641-organ.mid took a whole day to create with all the intricate ornamentation. Likewise File:BWV622-organ.mid. Mathsci (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

However obvious your conclusion is, it is still wrong. You are more than welcome to conduct an investigation. Ironically enough I saw Doubt_(2008_film) last night. Whether or not this is taking up all my effort on Wikipedia doesn't mean it is taking up all my time, and I am not here to specifically hunt for Wiki-work to do. I will take an interest in articles as and when I see fit, not according to requirements determined by someone else. It seems amazing me to me that I have to say this again, but I will, one last time: I Have Not Edited A Single Word Of Your Article And I Do Not Intend To. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a life outside of Wikipedia to attend to. Orfeocookie (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, calm yourselves. There was nothing ad-hominem in my comment - just a technical comment. I run wikimedia on a couple websites, and they regularly flag up warnings for me for articles over 32kb. This might affect disadvantaged people with limited access to newer tech, like people in developing countries. That's it; consider it if you want. I have no comment about anything else to do with the article, or about anyone else discussing it. I merely suffer from an idiotic urge to add information when it seems to be missing. I'm sure you know what I mean. RooK (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is not a WP:FORUM or a blog. Mathsci (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Split - Split, starting with "Chorale preludes BWV 669–689". Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• This was already discussed at great length on WikiProject Classical Music. It was decided by consensus that it was inappropraite to break up the article by pieces, particularly the music criticism. Please look at the arhives there and do not tadd to threads that are 12 months old. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass in B minor

"in particular in some early versions of the Domine Deus of the Mass in B minor from his cantata Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191" - I don't know enough to change it, but both the cantata (1745) and the Mass (1748/49) are derived from the Missa, BWV 232a (1733), actually the music in the Mass is the same as the former Missa, not "from the cantata". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

regarding the drive-by "article too long" tags

I also drove by this article, coming from the list of long articles. Because of the large number of images, the fact that the text is so long is somewhat alleviated. The main author of this article (do you feel you are immune against claims that you are behaving like an article owner?) mentioned that the issue had been discussed in the WP Classical music, but didn't give a link to that discussion. So, assuming it is consensus that the article is not and will never be too long (of which I'm not entirely convinced; it should be possible to leave summaries here and split off the details), wouldn't it be some help to include a comment in the source, at the top of the article where the "too long" tag would normally be placed, pointing the potential tagger to that discussion? --Nczempin (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem re the "idealized programme for an organ recital" as described by Forkel

(Pre-script: What a great article! Thanks!!) That long Forkel quotation (at the end of the "Textual and musical plan" section) is quite delightful, and makes me figuratively salivate with pleasurable imaginings of a Bach recital, but I fear it is not relevant to the Clavier-Übung III. After the quotation, the current text asserts: "The musical plan of Clavier-Übung III conforms to this pattern of a collection..." but it doesn't. The "idealized programme for an organ recital" as described by Forkel comprises music all using from the same subject, but the pieces in the Clavier-Übung III have many different subjects (by any definition) and many different chorale cantus firmuses (I know that is not the right plural!). No CF is shared by more than 3 chorale-preludes (the Allein Gotts) and there is no duplication of "subjects" of any other kind that I can recall. So although our Clavier-Übung III may be an ideal organ work, and might (arguably) make an ideal organ recital, it is not an "idealized organ recital" as Forkel described one. Comments? David Couch (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clavier-Übung III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727064405/http://www.marceldupre.org/ENGindex-1.html to http://www.marceldupre.org/ENGindex-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718113259/http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/a/ad/IMSLP07744-Busoni_Bach_BWV552.pdf to http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/a/ad/IMSLP07744-Busoni_Bach_BWV552.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711081914/http://www.geerts.com/web/midi/classic/bach/jsbwv552.mid to http://www.geerts.com/web/midi/classic/bach/jsbwv552.mid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mention that the duets aren't for two players

I would suggest saying that these four 'duets' are not duets (in the usual sense of two performers) as soon as they are mentioned in the lead section, because without it, it's confusing. It is explained later in the article, but you really have to look for it. I'm not sure how to rewrite that section elegantly, so all help will be appreciated.Sawtoothcoriander (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Red links

Since CÜ III was written about 10 years ago, I have attempted to avoid red links. I wrote a quote a lot of material on organs in Germany, France and England in the reception section. Germany is special: one problem is that many of the famous organs were destroyed from Dresden, Leipzig, etc, were destroyed in WWII. Perhaps a stub can be written for Wagner. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding red links is not a virtue – see WP:REDYES. As for the red link to de:Joachim Wagner (Orgelbauer): you introduced that link, wrongly formatted, on 3 October 2010. The template {{ill}} is specifically designed for this purpose and its benefits have been discussed at length in various places and its application is widespread. I suggest you restore the presentation of this link as it has been in the article since October 2018. There is no essay, guideline, or policy against it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Why the silence? — You misunderstand WP:BRD. That link (Wagner) had been in the article since 2010. I corrected its malformed coding in 2018. You then removed the link on 18 October 2020 (the bold part), and I restored the previous, stable version on the same day (the restore part). Instead of then discussing it, you reverted again on that day and mistakenly cited BRD as a reason. You also initiated this discussion, but the procedure is not BRRD. Why would the use of {{ill}} be contentious? Please restore that link, and the one to fr:Jean-Joseph Bonaventure Laurens. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I am actiually editing a parallel section on Bach reception for BWV 543; so not about sacred music. That material could easily be for the entire set of 6 preludes and fugues, BWV 543–548. During that editing, similar problems to this article have arisen. There is a longish section on Jean-Joseph Bonaventure Laurens, or rather his younger brother, concerning Liszt; and then a problem of naming the residence where Liszt's second mistress had her country estate. When I clicked on the page with a wl for the location of Liszt's mistress, I was bamboozled by the link in cyrillic: there was no hint of how to find the place. The article Franz Liszt is a mess and I'm not sure why. It seems under control on de.wikipedia.org and even more so on the French and Hungarian wikipedia. So at the moment, I'm still trying to sort out how to write the content on Bach reception for BWV 543. Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but would you mind responding to to the matter at hand, or even better, just restore those interlanguage links. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)r

There are plenty of links in the article which are not linked at all, so I think your statements about red links are not accurate. You just haven't read the article, which is very long. The discography was short, but that suited me. I noticed that the Belgian organist Bernard Foccroulle was not wikilinked, so I corrected that. But there are six people with no wikipedia entry. Examples are Christopher Le Fleming and Ivan Karlovitsch Tscherlitzky. Ludwig Stark was not linked, nit a stub was created in 2017, so I have added a wikilink. Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are unlinked items in the article which deserve a link and there's an article for them, they certainly ought to be linked. If there is no article, WP:REDYES – which is not very long – is to be considered. As for the matter at hand (WP:BRD, Wagner, Laurens), I note your failure to listen and I give up. I also leave you to deal with the citation error you introduced. EoD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Reception and influence

This section has a lot of content that is not directly relevant to the reception and influence of the work. A huge chunk in the middle of the section talks almost exclusively about J. S. Bach's influence in general, and squabbles between musicians about the merits of the elder Bach, without a single mention of the C-Ü III. I don't know enough about this topic to fix this myself. 189.203.137.177 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking this too, but I don't know how to fix it either. Graham87 06:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I placed

  {{Split portions|section=y |date=February 2021 |Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music |portion=general reception content (that is, content not exclusively related to the reception of Bach's ''Clavier-Übung III'') |discuss=Talk:Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence}}

  under the section header. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  While I support the creation of a stand-alone article , I don't support to take the content away from this article where it was created. Both serve different purposes for our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wherever the split ought to go, it is likely the correct thing to do: except for a few isolated mentions specifically about the Clavier-Uebung, the whole section could probably be split off as a new article without requiring too much further work to make it stand alone. At 250 kB (including about 130 kB of readable text), the article is well overdue for a split anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought this had been discussed and settled in 2012, see Archive 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

... and also at the time: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 41#Discussion of Clavier-Übung III at AN/I. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus requires more than 1 vs. 1. I have restored Gerda's deletion of User:Francis Schonken's 'split portions' for which no consensus was even sought. There are complex issues about this article which are not going to be resolved by high-handedness on the part of a single editor. Fascinating also that the comment initiating Francis's attempted coup is from an IP in Mexico making its first ever contribution to WP. Just saying.--Smerus (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Smerus: your ad hominems, including but not limited to WP:BITE-ing a newcomer, are not welcome here. The split portions proposal template indicates the start of a discussion, not the end of it. Once consensus is reached (one way or another – I will not run ahead which way this might conclude) it has no further use. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Francis Schonken: Three times now you have added {{Split portions}} to this article, and three times it has been removed. I'm confident you can understand that any further attempts to add it to the article without gaining consensus here would be disruptive. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)