Talk:Johann Pachelbel

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a fine article, possibly meriting an A rating. Its principal defect is not enough inline citations; it could use more images, and the works discussion, while admirable, is long, and should be partitioned in some way. My full review is on the comments page; questions or comments can be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lutheranism navbar?

Is the presence of the lutheranism navbar justified? There's only two passing references about this issue on the entire article. IMHO, if an issue doesn't appear in the first few paragraphs of an article (and doen't merit its own section), it's not relevant enough. Please forgive my poor english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.242.78 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree (and your English is just fine). I take the lack of any further discussion to mean that you and I have reached a consensus to remove the navigation box, so I have removed it. Peter Chastain (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Biological father...

Have removed the following uncited text:

During his visits, he also taught some of J.A. Bach's other children. Probably Pachelbel was a biological father of Johann Sebastian Bach. Pachelbel married second time on August 24, 1684, Johann Sebastian Bach was fathered on June 1684. When Johann Sebastian Bach was 9 years old, he attended his oldest brother's (Johann Christoph) wedding where he met Johann Pachelbel.

It contains several issues and needs, at least, an inline citation for the "a biological father" crack.--Technopat (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted further than you, before I noticed your edit - I'm surprised I didn't get an edit conflict notice. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The cited source uses the term "geistige Stammvater Bach" or the intellectual progenitor of Bach. Have modified the article accordingly.--Technopat (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1694 wedding event is mentioned in the article in the "Final years" section of the biography, third paragraph. It covers everything we know about it. We don't really know if JSB was there, but he most probably was, and that's about it. The biological father thing is a joke or a bad translation; as the for the "intellectual progenitor"—well, I wouldn't go that far. Pachelbel was an important influence on most Central German composers at the time, but Bach's style also borrowed from Buxtehude, Böhm (who probably taught him), probably Lübeck, members of the Bach family, etc. I'm afraid our article on Bach isn't very good, and this article too needs some rewriting... I've been planning it but haven't got around to doing it yet. Sorry! --Jashiin (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

of course we need a DNA test. But on circle of historians Pachelbel and E.M.Bach relationship is a smoking gun. --User:Doom11 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Look: Johann Pachelbel's importance in the history of music is due the fact that he was one of the spiritual ancestors of J.S. Bach... His son, Wilhelm Hieronymus Pachelbel (b. Erfurt 1685; d. 1764), was almost an exact eamemporary of J.S. Bach. http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Pachelbel-Johann.htm --User:Doom11 (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how high the possibility was. Take at a look at WP:OR. We can include information on how Pachelbel attended the 1694 wedding, we can include information on how Pachelbel stood godfather to JA's daughter, etc., because those are all facts mentioned by many, many sources. All that information is included in the article. But we cannot include speculation such as "these events show that Pachelbel may have been Bach's father" etc., because that information is never mentioned in any reliable sources. At least, I've never seen it mentioned anywhere. If you can't provide an article from an academic journal, or at least a book of some sort, which puts forward this theory, then to include it would be including original research, not suitable for Wikipedia.

In other words, no matter how logical something is. If it is not covered by any reliable sources, it is not included on Wikipedia. Unless it's something really trivial.

On a side note (although this is nitpicking): no, Pachelbel's importance in history lies not only in his influence on Bach. The man influenced dozens, if not hundreds of organists in Central Germany, contributed to the development of several principal genres of organ and vocal music, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Internal Inconsistencies

"Johann Christoph Bach, Pachelbel's landlord in Erfurt, died in 1682." "When former pupil Johann Christoph Bach married in October 1694,..." Which is it? If these are the same men, the dates are wrong. If these are not the same men, then the difference needs to made clear. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 21:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

...a fine article...

Hello,

First I knew only the german version of this article. Step two: I heard a broadcast with the information that the university of Oxford wanted P. as a music professor. But this fact couldn't be found in the german version. So I changed to the english version and was very impressed by the quality of this article. Maybe some tiny facts are not perfect. But I can say ... it is a very fine article.

With best greetings from the area of Nuremberg from Feuchtwangen where Pachelbels brother served some years as a Cantor.

Uli M

--Metzner (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)