Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

organ teaching

Bach was taught to play the organ by his uncle not his brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.253.130 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"probably"

I see the term "Probably" occurring repeatedly in this article. Should some of these sentences be removed, as it seems like these are mostly unsourced speculation? 14jbella (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 14jbella (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the entire life section was copied from this source. http://books.google.com/books?id=WcLJ3aK-ZSkC&pg=PT603&dq=he+learned+how+to+write+dramatic+openings+and+adopted+their+sunny+dispositions,+dynamic+motor-rhythms+and+decisive+harmonic+schemes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jiVBT9uPJ4H30gGC7cXOBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=he%20learned%20how%20to%20write%20dramatic%20openings%20and%20adopted%20their%20sunny%20dispositions%2C%20dynamic%20motor-rhythms%20and%20decisive%20harmonic%20schemes&f=false

It is specifically stated at the bottom of each page that it is copyrighted material. 14jbella (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Musical style section is plagiarized from the same source. Any help knowing what to do is appreciated.14jbella (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to say this may have been a false alarm. The book has copied from Wikipedia, not the other way round. It's one of those ripoffs that consist entirely of reprinted Wikipedia articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was coming here to say this too. Outrageous, really - just a straight up copy. Eusebeus (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

They actually credit Wikipedia somewhere, so legally they are probably okay, as far as the CC license goes, but it's still a rip-off, of course. There are several "companies" that have swamped Google-books and even Amazon with this kind of trash. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much. I have to say that in this case, I am very happy that I was wrong. Thank you for all of the help. 14jbella (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You really have to wonder about the legality of copyrighting the material from Wikipedia, don't you?14jbella (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Split "Musical style" section into new article?

This article is rather long, and the "Musical style" section seems like a rather unwieldy section of the article that could easily be replaced with a shorter summary relatively easily. The section removed could be made into its own article, as seems to have enough information already for it to be a decent article on its own. This would make the article much more readable, and a more manageable size. If others agree, I will be happy to split it. 14jbella (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You say that the section can be made into a decent article on its own, however, right now a lot of it is unsourced and may be original research. I'm not an expert on this subject, so maybe references can be found to improve it. If so, I would not be against a split. Another option however is simply to heavily trim the section, removing the unsourced parts. If it can simply be made shorter, it could fit well in the overall article. -- Lindert (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that might be a better solution, as I was having difficulty finding citations for much of the information in the section. I suppose making it its own article might just add to the problem. I'll see what I can do. 14jbella (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

"Bach's abilities as an organist were highly respected throughout Europe during his lifetime, although he was not widely recognised..." recognised should be recognized. 76.100.234.15 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi 76. Not necessarily; usually either Brit or US english is ok here as long as its consistently used. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Authorities for Bach's status as one of the greatest composers of all time.

The rather modest statement that Bach is considered one of the greatest composers of all time is currently graced by a single footnote and by a "Who?" tag. Could I suggest going further? I think it would be not unreasonable to provide some authorities for the view that Bach is not merely one of the greatest of all composers, but that he is pretty widely regarded as the greatest composer of all time. Now, do I say this just because I happen to believe that it's true? Well, as it happens I do think that Bach was the greatest composer ever. But that's not why I'd like to work it into this article. Wikipedia has to be informative for people who may know absolutely nothing about the subject. There may well be very uneducated people in the West, as well as perfectly well educated people who are unfamiliar with Western classical music, for whom the knowledge that Bach is widely reputed to be the supreme exponent of the art would be genuinely useful.

Indeed, it is peculiarly useful in the case of music because it is, I think, the one art form for which it can really be said that one person was it's greatest exponent of all time. In painting, the view that Michelangelo was the greatest painter even of the Renaissance is controversial, indeed, one could not even say absolutely that he was the greatest Italian Renaissance painter. In literature, the case has been made for Shakespeare, but I have also read that the most one could say is that he is one of three writers for whom the case could be made (the others being Homer and Dante).

Of course, this view is not unchallenged. The case has been argued for Beethoven, who in turn declared Handel the greatest composer who ever lived (he said he would uncover his head and kneel on his grave!). But I suspect it is fair to say that among people who have an opinion of the subject by far the greatest number would argue for Bach. Even in the last week or so I saw a TV documentary about Vaughan Williams in which his supreme admiration for Bach was highlighted at length, and I heard Anne-Sophie Mutter on Radio 4 saying that if she could play the work of just one composer it would be Bach as his music is like prayer.

As I say, the purpose is not just to indulge in saying how wonderful Bach is, but to inform the reader, who may know nothing about Western classical music, that Bach is in general reputed to have been the greatest of all composers.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to try to find reliable sources to support the claim, although I strongly doubt that any competent researcher would ever suggest any composer as "the best ever." Out of curiosity I looked in a few places and was unable to find anything of the sort in the New Grove article on Bach, Wolff's "The Learned Musician" (the standard book on Bach's life), or Williams's "A Life in Music" (another well-known biographical volume). Western classical music has a very long history, spanning some 800 years at least; how can one adequately compare Bach with, say, Machaut or Stockhausen? The only way to support your claim seems to me to find a source that gathers a large amount of data on the public's opinions—perhaps someone collected poll results from the past 50 years or so—and then we could add that to support the "among people who have an opinion of the subject by far the greatest number would argue for Bach" thing. Personally, though, I'd be against that, because the entire notion of suggesting a single individual as "the best" in a field that spans centuries of different traditions, schools of thought, etc. seems quite absurd to me. --Jashiin (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a credible scholarly position to make claims for "best ever." Noting that he is among the most widely-performed, recorded, admired, etc... is a more substantive way of noting his place in the pantheon of greats. Eusebeus (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

THE best would not be a proper statement. HOWEVER, for at least a century, if not more, the vast majority of musical authorities, not to mention what is taught in universities, etc., have it that Bach and Beethoven are the two greatest composers in the Classical realm. Of course, Mozart, Handel, Brahms and Haydn may be just one level below, and so on and so forth. How this would be worded for the article I leave to you all. BTW, huge chunks of this article are uncited (as stated) - this really demands being worked on. This is Bach, not some article on, say, Ginastera. (I like G.)68.19.0.207 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

In the lead it seems petty to require a citation for that statement. Who were you thinking of to usurp him as one of the ...? Willy Walton? Tony (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, anyone who would claim that Mozart is usually put into 'second tier' doesn't really seem to be right. From all *I've* seen, Bach is hardly universally described at 'the greatest' (now, 'most influential, THAT may be). I've seen, among others, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, Josquin, Wagner, and even Haydn all put on that pedestal. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC) ---- your words, not mine - I said one level below - a fractional measure - Mozart, Brahms, Handel and Haydn were all geniuses - it's just that in magnitude, it's been stated commonly in the musical world that Bach and Beethoven just had more. Certainly Beethoven, being deaf during his greatest period of composition, seems to have accomplished something truly astounding.98.67.182.128 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

No problem in providing a definitive source: I seem to remember that Douglas Adams wrote (or at least implied) that Bach was the greatest composer ever, early in his 'holistic detective agency' book. That should be good enough to convince the doubters! ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no real need to bring attention to this discussion again, but I just thought I would add that, whilst I believe it is important to note Bach's position as one of the greatest composers of classical music (this has been done) there is nothing to be gained by citing him as 'the best,' and doing so would only cause controversy. There is no way for a person to truly understand and accept him as the best without studying his music anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.163.32 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The phrase of all time is hyperbole and not encyclopedic prose. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a hyperbole. It is of course subjective, but nevertheless an opinion shared by many people, including scholars in musical studies. It is also not unencyclopedic, but simply descriptive (we could also say in history); it is used also in other encyclopedias, e.g. Encyclopaedia Brittanica states about Michelangelo that he "was considered the greatest living artist in his lifetime, and ever since then he has been held to be one of the greatest artists of all time.". - Lindert (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Intro?

One sentence in the intro section sounds a bit off: "Bach wrote much music, which was revered for its intellectual depth, technical command, and artistic beauty."

1) Shouldn't it say "a lot of music" rather than "much music"?

2) Shouldn't the comma be dropped? I.e., is the meaning of the sentence "he wrote a lot of material, and (by the way) it was revered" or is it "he wrote a lot of revered material"? Might be a minor semantic point, but this article certainly deserves such attention :-)

Let me know what you think,

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Much" sounds odd, like ESL (English as a Second Language) or trying too hard to be formal. "A lot" is too informal and doesn't sound like encyclopedic prose. I suggested we keep looking. Maybe in the thesaurus? As for the comma, removing it changes the meaning of the sentence. With the comma, everything that follows "which" pertains to all of Bach's music, or to his music in general. Without the comma, it pertains only to "much" of his music. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. After doing a Google search on the phrase "wrote much music" I'm finding it everywhere, including Grove's. I think my own sensibilities have been contaminated by the years I spent living in California suburbs and, like, hanging out with, you know, surfer dudes and Valley girls. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Zyxwv99, thanks for your answer, and for putting me right on the "much/a lot" question. As for the comma, I understand you are saying it is correct as it is (i.e., Bach wrote much music, and all of it is revered/it is revered in general).

Have fun hanging out some more with the Californian surfer dudes and Valles girls! :-)

Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Link Rot

In the section entitled, "Return to Weimar (1708-17)", an accompanying image, labeled "Portrait of the young Bach," is described as "disputed." To support this description, a citation is provided to an article, "The Face of Bach," at the apparently now-defunct website, npj.com.

I have spent an hour's research looking to see if this website or the article in question was ever relocated, but with no success. I was able to discover that the author of "The Face of Bach" was, it seems, a Teri Noel Towe (which, incidentally, is not the author listed with the link at the bottom of the Bach Wikipedia article)---but that was all that presented itself to me.

To be honest, I was surprised to see disputed the authenticity of this famous portrait of the young J.S.B. If academic or scholarly opinion is that the portrait is in fact dubious, one can certainly accept that; however, I do hope that someone is able to find a proper citation for this claim if it is to remain in the article. If such a citation proves impossible to be made, I hope that the description of "dubious" will be removed.

65.6.139.251 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)R.C.

The cited website, although not functional anymore, can still be viewed through the Internet Archive (http://archive.org/web/web.php). The latest version is from July 2011 (although the article was apparently written in 2001). It seems that the author, who concludes that it is not a portrait of Bach, does have some authority when it comes to Bach (see e.g. [1]). I will update the reference for the claim. By the way, thank you for your time and efforts in improving this article. -Lindert (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Errors in Johann Sebastian Bach article

{{editsemiprotected}}

There is an omission of a few words in the Weimar, Arnstadt, and Mühlhausen (1703–08) section of the article.

I was hoping that someone could please change the paragraph:

Despite strong family connections and a musically enthusiastic employer, tension built up between Bach and the authorities after several years in the post. Bach was dissatisfied with the standard of singers in the choir, while his employer was upset by his unauthorised absence from Arnstadt; Bach was gone for several months in 1705–06, to great organist and composer Dieterich Buxtehude and his Abendmusiken at the Marienkirche in the northern city of Lübeck. The visit to Buxtehude involved a 400 kilometres (250 mi) journey on foot each way. The trip reinforced Buxtehude's style as a foundation for Bach's earlier works. Bach wanted to become amanuensis (assistant and successor) to Buxtehude, but did not want to marry his daughter, which was a condition for his appointment.[22]

to

Despite strong family connections and a musically enthusiastic employer, tension built up between Bach and the authorities after several years in the post. Bach was dissatisfied with the standard of singers in the choir, while his employer was upset by his unauthorised absence from Arnstadt. Bach was gone for several months in 1705–06 to visit the great organist and composer Dieterich Buxtehude and his Abendmusiken at the Marienkirche in the northern city of Lübeck. The visit to Buxtehude involved a 400 kilometres (250 mi) journey on foot each way. The trip reinforced Buxtehude's style as a foundation for Bach's earlier works. Bach wanted to become amanuensis (assistant and successor) to Buxtehude, but did not want to marry his daughter, which was a condition for his appointment.[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.173.47 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Lindert (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please change

"Bach's copy of a two volume Bible commentary by the orthodox Lutheran theologian, Abraham Calov, was discovered in the 1950s in a barn in Minnesota in the US, purchased apparently in Germany as part of a "job lot" of old books and brought to America by an immigrant. Its provenance was verified and it was subsequently deposited in the rare book holdings of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. It contains his markings of texts for his cantatas and notes. It is only rarely displayed to the public. A study of the so-called Bach Bible was prepared by Robin Leaver, titled J.S. Bach and Scripture: Glosses from the Calov Bible Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985)."

to

"Bach's signature in a copy of a three volume Bible commentary by the orthodox Lutheran theologian, Abraham Calov, was discovered in 1934 in a house in Frankenmuth, Michigan in the US. It is not known how the bible came to America, but is was purchased in a used book store in Philadelphia in the 1830s or 1840s by an immigrant and taken to Michigan. Its provenance was verified and it was subsequently deposited in the rare book holdings of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. It contains Bach's markings of texts for his cantatas and notes. It is only rarely displayed to the public. A study of the so-called Bach Bible was prepared by Robin Leaver, titled J.S. Bach and Scripture: Glosses from the Calov Bible Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985)."

All of these corrections are documented in Robin Leaver's book that is cited here, pp. 16-21, so I hope they are incorporated into the article soon! Note that the bible itself wasn't "discovered" in 1934, that is just when someone first noticed Bach's monogram in it.

Thanks for looking into this. Mark Knoll

Done: thanks for bringing it to our attention. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article states that Bach has no living desendants. Although this is possible, in the book The Cello Suites says that Bach's seventh generation daughter reported to have "lost a chest containing many family treasures". In addition, it is very unlikely that of Bach's 10 children that survived infancy, none or very little of them had children.Yuan Lin (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Check this: http://michele-gabriel.chez-alice.fr/pge77-14.html

--Frania W. (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And more. Johann Sebastian was a LAST CHILD of Maria Elisabeth Lämmerhirt . No more children. Johann Pachelbel son, Wilhelm Hieronymus Pachelbel (b. Erfurt 1685; d. 1764) from second marriage, was almost an exact eamemporary of J.S. Bach. Look: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Pachelbel-Johann.htm Pachelbel met members of the Bach family in Eisenach (which was the home city of J. S. Bach's father, Johann Ambrosius Bach) 1677, and became a close friend of Johann Ambrosius and tutor to his children. The Bach family was very well known in Erfurt (where virtually all organists would later be called "Bachs"), so Pachelbel's friendship with them continued here 1678. Pachelbel became godfather to Johann Ambrosius' daughter, Johanna Juditha, taught Johann Christoph Bach (1671–1721), Johann Sebastian's eldest brother, and lived in Johann Christian Bach's (1640–1682) house. During his visits to Bachs house, Pachelbel also taught some of J.A. Bach's other children. Pachelbel was a biological father of Johann Sebastian Bach. Johann Christian Bach (1640-1682), Pachelbel's landlord in Erfurt, died in 1682. In June 1684, Pachelbel purchased the house (called Zur silbernen Tasche, now Junkersand 1) from Johann Christian's widow. 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. Most important: Pachelbel favorite student Johann Heinrich Buttstett married Martha Lämmerhirt (a cousin of JS Bach's mother) in 1687, it means that Maria Elisabeth Lämmerhirt has s strong influence to Pachelbel affairs.

--Doom11 (talk) 15.24, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.55.98 (talk)

Infobox

I hate how a small faction of Wikipedia editors disallow infoboxes on composers. It is annoying to have to dig through the article to get some basic facts. There really is no justification for this. The editors simply enjoy being contrarian, to the albeit small--but when accumulated, very large--detriment of the masses actually accessing the great composers. That's all. --Mojavechimer (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't possible disagree more. Infoboxes for composers are tacky.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012

Bach was actually born on March 21 not March 31. Please change his birth date from the 31st to the 21st. 97.76.20.114 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See Old Style and New Style dates. Bach was born March 21st on the (old style) Julian calendar, which corresponds to March 31st, on the (new style) Gregorian calendar. The difference is noted in the article. Rwessel (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Voyager Golden Record Edit

Under the subheading "Legacy", I have edited the reference to the Voyager Golden Record. I made both style improvements, to bring the entry into line with the entry for Beethoven, and improved accuracy by rendering a better description of the contents of the Golden Record, and by replacing the existing erroneous New York Times citation, with a primary NASA source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poplicola1 (talk • contribs) 23:33 26 July 2012

Poplicola1: please read WP:SIGNATURE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

J. S. Bach, an Anglican Saint??

The "Categories" at the very end of the entry list Bach among the Saints of the Anglican Church, as does the list to which the link refers. However, no proof for this assertion is given. As much as Bach's music inspires in me a sense of the sacred, as much am I in doubt about the sainthood of its author. Could anyone who knows more about this than I do either provide verification, or delete this information? Thanks and greetings from Germany, Klaus Schneider--146.60.30.169 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems he has not officially been declared a saint, because the last person to be canonized by the Anglican Church was Charles the Martyr, and that happened in 1662, before the birth of Bach (source). However, canonization does not make one a saint, it just makes it official teaching, so it is possible that many Anglicans recognize him as a saint, despite not having been officially declared such. - Lindert (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining the consequences of canonization by the Anglican Church, Lindert; I wasn't even aware of the canonical status of Charles I as a recognized martyr, whatever that means in practice. But as far as I can see after a short search on the web, there is no evidence that J. S. Bach has ever been declared, or venerated as, a saint, not by any Christian denomination, be it mainstream or not. The joint German Protestant Churches (EKD - Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland) commemorate Bach each year on the day of his death, as do the Lutheran churches in the US which honor their German cultural heritage embodied by him, among others -- but that's light years away from the concept of sainthood. If there is, other than his merit as one of the greatest musicians of all times, no proof for an official, or officially recognized special status of Bach elevating him above the ranks of the normal mortals, I believe this category and the link pertaining to it should be deleted. Best, and thank you again, Klaus Schneider --146.60.30.169 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Handel and Bach

I'm thinking about creating and article called Handel and Bach. If you have any information on the topic, please post here. NephthysAthena (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal Festival

I am suggesting a merger of Bach Festival in some capacity... maybe legacy and cutting that article down and merging to this? Pwojdacz (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather see the Festival article grow and think it is better kept separate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather see the Festival article expanded and improved. There's too much material (and potential material) to incorporate in this article (already quite lengthy). Right now Bach Festival is a mess and frankly ought to be retitled List of Bach festivals or Bach festivals. It started out in 2006 being about one particular Bach Festival [2]. Then in 2009, it was turned into an article about a completely different Bach Festival [3]. Since then it's become a complete mish-mash. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally agree with the idea of expanding the Bach Festival page and simply providing more information on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.59.179 (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I too agree to not merge the article, so I will remove the banner as a consensus was established. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

This is an extreme understatement of Bach's influence on the world of music. Elite music schools still teach everyone Bach's compositional styles. Also the baroque period is the foundational era of modern harmony. Thus he is possibly the single most important figure in western music. contact any music theory professor and they will tell you the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipareth (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2012

After the entry on "The art of the fugue" you have to give an indication of Bach's entry into the Correspondierende Societät der musicalischen Wissenschaften of Lorenz Christoph Mizler. Bach joined this Society after a long formal preparation, which was necessary in this Society. Bachs membership had the following effects:
1st Bach's composition Einige canonische Veraenderungen, / über das / Weynacht-Lied: / Vom Himmel hoch da / komm ich her (BWV 769) [1].
2nd The famous Haussmann-portrait.Those portraits had to be submitted by each member of the Societät. Some of these portraits are existing in the Musikalische Bibliothek, other portraits where planed to be published in the Musikalische Bibliothek [2].
3rd The canon triplex á 6 voc. (BWV 1076) on this portrait , which was dedicated to the Society [3].
4th The Societät insisted on a necrology of each member. Thus began the history of the Bach-biographies [4].
5th It was often argued other late works would have a connection with the music theory based Societät [5].

In my recently published PhD about Mizler [6] these relationships are first explored to a greater extent. This work was done in close collaboration with Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Schulze (Bach Archive in Leipzig).

[1] Musikalische Bibliothek, IV.1 [1754], 173, (Source online)
[2] Musikalische Bibliothek, III.2 [1746], 353. (Source online), Felbick 2012, 284 Source online)
[3] Musikalische Bibliothek, IV.1 [1754], 108 and Tab. IV, fig. 16 (Source online)(letter of Mizler to Spieß, 29.6.1748, in: Hans Rudolf Jung und Hans-Eberhard Dentler: Briefe von Lorenz Mizler und Zeitgenossen an Meinrad Spieß, in: Studi musicali 2003, Nr. 32, 115. (Source online).
[4] Musikalische Bibliothek, IV.1 [1754], 158–173, (Source online) [5 Hans Gunter Hoke: Neue Studien zur »Kunst der Fuge« BWV 1080, in: Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 17 (1975), 95–115., Peter Schleuning: Johann Sebastian Bachs »Kunst der Fuge« – Ideologien – Entstehung – Analyse, Kassel 1993, Alberto Basso: Frau Musika. La vita e le opere di J. S. Bach, 2 Bde, Torino 1979/1983, Hans-Eberhard Dentler: Johann Sebastian Bachs »Kunst der Fuge« – Ein pythagoreisches Werk und seine Verwirklichung, Mainz 2004 Hans-Eberhard Dentler: L’Arte della fuga di Johann Sebastian Bach, Milano 2000. Hans-Eberhard Dentler: Johann Sebastian Bachs »Musicalisches Opfer« – Musik als Abbild der Sphärenharmonie, Mainz 2008.
[6] Lutz Felbick: Lorenz Christoph Mizler de Kolof – Schüler Bachs und pythagoreischer „Apostel der Wolffischen Philosophie“. Georg-Olms-Verlag, Hildesheim 2012, ISBN 978-3-487-14675-1 (Hochschule für Musik und Theater „Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy“ Leipzig – Schriften; 5). Here you will find a lot of further argues for the complex relationship between Mizler and his "very good friend" Bach.Musikalische Bibliothek, I.4 [1738], 61, Source online). --Felbick (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Felbick (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing. Felbick, one more edit and you're free to edit the article. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping--Felbick (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bach texts translated into Swedish

New Swedish translations of the texts that Bach composed are done by Eva Hedlund, Hjo, Sweden, who also works with religious texts of e.g. Händel, Mendelssohn, Poulenc, V Williams, and with Latin hymns, e.g. Stabat mater. 79.99.169.105 (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mention WTC I in time in Köthen

hi, I would like to suggest to mention the finalization of the first book of the Well-tempered Clavier in 1722 in Bach's Köthen time. It is of course hard to evaluate works against each other, but in my view this work goes beyond the cantata which is mentioned, and potentially also beyond the Cello or Violin solo works. Thank you Philip Goeth (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Philip Goeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.8.228 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Propose new weblink to general link section

hi, I would like to suggest to insert a link to my website www.bachwelltemperedclavier.org into the Genereal Reference section of the Link Section. Thank you for your consideration. Regards Philip Goeth (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Philip Goeth

Did he ever get married?

I want to know if he ever got married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.217.202 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

He married twice. It's all there in the article. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bach's chorales?

The lead mentions Bach's chorales. As long as the linked article is not clear, it should say more precisely "chorale harmonisations", because only very few "chorale tunes" are composed by Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this would be clearer, and the linked article is pretty atrocious. However, most modern people use the term "chorale" to mean a 4-part harmonization as well as just the tune, just as they do with hymn. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I come from German, it's different there. I would prefer a native speaker to perhaps suggest changes to both Bach and Chorale, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For example: I saw Bach credited with "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme". I doubt that even a modern person could say about it "Bach's chorale", - it was Philipp Nicolai who composed the tune, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

New category please

Please add: Category:People from Thuringia Saxe-Eisenach was already part of the Thuringian states. If all persons from the Thuringian states are only listed according to whatever principality, duchy etc happened to be in charge at the time, there will be some very small categories and people from the same town, even the same family, may end up only in different categories. For this reason, it is better to list all such persons in the "People from Thuringia" category (though it's fine to have a "People from Saxe-Eisenach" category as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingPresence (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 February 2013

Edit request on 27 February 2013

i think johann sebastian bach was born on march 21st and not on march 31st as wikipedia suggests 74.101.89.97 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the note by the birth dates. It would seem that J.S. Bach was born on March 21 based on use of the "old style" Julian calendar, which was in use in Protestant Germany at the time of his birth, but when matched with the modern-use Gregorian calendar, he was born on March 31. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Closed edit request per above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bach as a Singer

Should singer not be added to all the other musical epithets at the beginning of the article? Wasn't it a choral scholarship he won in his youth? Did he not work as cantor for 27 years? He seems to have had been a singer more than he was a violist or violinist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.82.50 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim at footnote 93

Hi--a first-timer here, be merciful.

This sentence: "The structure of the Easter Oratorio, BWV 249, resembles The Crucifixion." has footnote 93, which links here: http://www.bach.org/bach101/other_vocal/easter_oratorio.html

That's the first time I've run into that idea; and since I'm researching the Easter Oratorio now, I was eager to read the argument. The link does lead to text describing the Easter Oratorio, but nowhere in that text, as far as I can see, does the author make the claim that the structure of the piece resembles the Crucifixion. I'd be sorry to see the only sentence mentioning this piece be struck from the Bach article, but it ought to be either properly substantiated or replaced. Thanks.Sangerinde (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the source; the sentence should be removed. However, I think that source ought to be mentioned in the Easter Oratorio article as external link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)