Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565

Attribution

I found this section nearly impossible to understand; the sentences seem like they were randomly chosen from disparate paragraphs or something akin to that. I feel underqualified to rewrite it as I know nothing of the subject; it's not grammatical or stylistically poor, but in terms of sentence organization, the paragraph has no flow. Maybe someone with more skill in this department can improve it? This article has Featured Article in its future! GngstrMNKY 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

WIth regards to to the 'problem' with the violin transcription theory: The Prelude of the Fifth Suite for solo cello contains a Fugue with the additional voices implied, so there is an example of Bach getting round this problem.

The 'natural weight to the solo line' comment is a reference to the organ version - parallel octaves would give natural weight to what would otherwise have just been a single line in the original violin version. No one is suggesting that the opening was played in octaves on the violin.

Also there is much quadruple stopping in the Partitas and Sonatas for solo violin (I am aware that these are later, and pretty much unprecidented in their complexity)

What?

As someone with very little knowledge of classical music who found this page looking for information on the Toccata and Fugue, I feel I should point out that, from my point of view (and so presumably others in my situation) it is rather confusing that this entry contains (1) Paul Williams' argument that Bach did not write this piece, then immediately afterwards (2) Paul Williams' argument that this piece was originall written for the violin, which is apparently proved... by referring to how this would fit in with Bach's oeuvre as a whole (e.g. "The fairly plain musical texture would reflect the general texture of Bach's well known solo sonatas and partitas for violin", "...which would fit with other passages in Bach's solo violin works"). I have not read Williams' original essay, of course, but I think it would be helpful for someone who has to clarify these points - otherwise these two arguments of Williams' apparently seem to contradict each other (or at least undermine the other's sources of evidence).

(I have a Wikipedia account name somewhere, but can't remember it for the life of me, so please excuse the accidental anonimity)

I agree that it is confusing. I assume, though, that Williams' paper proposes two alternative theories. None of them are proven, by the way, and the theories probably has its fair share of opponents. I don't think Williams is contradicting himself, since he's not showing two united arguments, but two alternative theories, both of which are possible. As it is now these two theories are mentioned in different sections of the article, which I suspect contributes with some confusion. I haven't read the paper itself yet--ironically, since I was the first to mention it in this article, a long long time ago--but I'll read it some day. Until then I'm reluctant to touch anything. EldKatt (Talk) 17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is confusing. However, as any musicologist will readily tell you, Peter Williams is eternally confusing. He has a nasty habit of writing pages and pages of interesting material and going into great depth in order to answer a question, then coming within a millimiter of answering the question conclusively, but suddenly proposing another possibility instead of providing a definitive answer. Cor anglais 16 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is all so, then perhaps these "theories" should be totally removed form the article altogether and instead just reffered to. It'd be a lot better just to mention and cite these things rather than expand upon them in a factual artical if they're really only conjecture. -I don't mean to impune their veracity in any way, it's just that they're a bit esoteric.OzoneO 11:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to avoid esoteric topics in an encyclopedia. If I did, I wouldn't be here at all. Those who are not interested will skip the concerned sections, and those who actually want to read about this theory (which is fairly well-known in the mainstream as far as current musicological research goes) can. All win, and there is much rejoicing. EldKatt (Talk) 14:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just read Williams's article (NOT on-line, by the way, but in the bona fide hard copy of the journal in a bona fide music library). He begins by casting doubt on Bach's authorship and then elaborates his theory that the piece was transcribed from a violin piece and spends considerably more time on the latter argument. It is clear, however, that he doesn't consider the violin piece to have been Bach's either. Williams makes no mention whatsoever of "consecutive fifths", and this wikipedia article needs to be clearer about whence this argument comes. I've examined the piece as well. I did not find "ten bars" of "consecutive fifths". I found, rather, two instances of a perfect fifth going to a diminished fifth (then resolving in contrary motion to a third) and one instance of a diminished fifth going to a perfect fifth (part of a diminished seventh chord: C#-G resolves properly to D-F, but E-Bb simultaneously moves questionably to D-A). (Scotch)

I was pretty sure there were parallel fifths in there somewhere (certainly not ten bars in, though). In any case, the parallel octaves are pretty uncharacteristic, though they can be explained by the organ test hypothesis. I thought William's views (as expounded here) were rather sensational and poorly supported in general. True or not, they should be described as hypothesis, not theory: even though hypothesis and theory are generally used interchangeably in popular culture, a theory must be supported by all available data and have been successfully used in a predictive manner, while a hypothesis is an informed opinion. For instance, gravity and relativity are theories, while (due to a lack of provability) many scientists would say that string theory is actually a hypothesis. (person without an account)

Source for quotes

It's good that we have authors given for these quotes, but it would be even better if we could have specific sources for them. Any chance of that? --Camembert

Umm, they are from liner notes from various recordings I have. Would you like me to list the disc numbers, or what - is there a standard WikiWay of identifying recordings? Noel 23:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ah right. Hm, not sure how to handle liner notes, I must admit. Maybe saying "in liner notes from so-and-so's recording" would be OK (it's true that liner notes change with re-releases and in different parts of the world, but then so do record catalogue numbers, and including catalogue numbers would look a bit odd anyway, I think). Best course of action is probably to pretend I didn't say anything.. --Camembert

Well, that's certainly easy enough to do! :-) And of course the fact that they are from liner notes is now recorded here! In case anyone *really* cares, though, the Schulze is from E. Power Biggs: Bach - Great Organ Favourites (CBS MK 42644) and the other is from Bach: E. Power Biggs (Sony SBK 46551). Speaking of E. Power Biggs, do we have an entry for him? Hmmm... Noel 00:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Provide help for pop culture fans

Isn't this the music in "Phantom of the Opera"? (You know what I mean...) I think it may be helpful if we provide a clue as to what musical piece we're talking about, since the opening is widely known but the name of the piece is not. -- furrykef

Your suggestion is helpful, furrykef. It's indeed true that many Wikipedia readers are likely to know about works of classical music only through their appearances in popular culture. However, the change that I made is incomplete, because we need to clarify what particular version of Phantom of the Opera is meant (there are many). I can't help here, but perhaps you could clarify the links a bit? --Opus33 21:24, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...perhaps in addition to mentioning places that the piece appears, we should find a MIDI and post that. Then everybody will know the piece we're talking about. :) -- furrykef

This piece is NOT in Phantom of the Opera. The Phantom's music is composed solely by Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it is NOT Toccata and Fugue in d minor. The Toccata starts with a quick three notes, and a pause, then the also-quick scale descent, followed by another pause. Generally, the notes are A G A (pause) G F E D C# D, and the piece goes on. Phantom of the Opera opens with an "ostinato," a descent and ascent of four notes- generally, D... D C# C B Bb, slight pause, then Bb B C C# D, and so on, repeating. They are not the same, and because Toccata is one of my favorite pieces to play, I get slightly irritated when people say, "Oh! I know this! It's from Phantom of the Opera!" I just wanna say, "No, obviously you don't..."

While Toccata and Fugue (in d minor) might have been used with a silent version of the film, it was never in a version with singing and dancing, as all of those contained the score written by Andrew Lloyd Webber. -Chewbacca 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "The Phantom's music is composed solely by Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it is NOT Toccata and Fugue in d minor....Phantom of the Opera opens with an 'ostinato,' a descent and ascent of four notes- generally, D... D C# C B Bb, slight pause, then Bb B C C# D, and so on, repeating." Just because Phantom doesn't use Bach doesn't make it "composed solely by Andrew Lloyd Webber". The ostinato you cite is a transposition of the one used in Pink Floyd's "Echoes". It is possible (not necessarily plausible) that Lloyd Webber came up with his version independently (although "Echoes" WAS Pink Floyd's best-known piece before "Dark Side of the Moon" and Lloyd Webber IS a rock guy), but a more conscientious composer would nevertheless have discarded it when someone pointed out to him the resemblance, and I can't imagine that no one involved in the original production of the musical noticed. (Scotch)

More on Williams's Theory

Thanks, Camembert, for your sensible revert. In hopes of getting this on more solid ground I went to the original article and summarized it. Opus33 16:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Op33, looks good. --Camembert

Sources needed for some assertions

Hmm, we've got some assertions now that strike me as perhaps controversial.

• Can Busoni's work be considered to have been an actual "Bach revival"? To show this, one would have to document an actual decline in public interest in Bach's music between Mendelssohn's and Busoni's day. Is there some published material that documents such a decline?

• Is it really true that Fantasia induced yet another third Bach revival, or was Bach's music simply continuously popular during the first half of the 20th century?

If people can come up with published references to back up these claims, then I think it would be ok to retain them, but otherwise I think they should be removed.

Thanks,

Opus33 16:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Opus33, thanks for asking. Both "claims" were put in the article by me. As a preliminary thought please consider that I listen to classical radio on a daily basis, and that my favourite radio station scarcely broadcasts any music without giving a piece of information about the music they broadcast. So, much of my knowledge on classical music could be referenced as "assertion by Radio Klara (or its predecessors) in the period (roughly) 1975-2005. Surely, this is an "untouchable" type of reference, I'm sure you'd like something more precise.

• I thought I'd found something about Busoni pushing some kind of Bach revival in the wikipedia Busoni article. Anyway, the "type" of revival is about making the "grand" pieces of Bach (not the A.M.B. notebook, the inventions, the well-tempered clavier and the like), that up till then could generally only be heard in concert halls (or churches for the organ pieces), available as salon entertainment. 19th century was famous for producing all kinds of sheet music piano reductions, for example Liszt producing the full cycle of Beethoven symphonies in that format. What I understood is that Bach escaped that "piano reduction frenzy" until late romantic era, when it was pushed by, most notably, Busoni.
• The "Fantasia"-linked revival: I think a minor indication about that is also in the wikipedia Fantasia (movie) article. What I know about this particular Bach revival wave is that (1) Elgar and Richard Strauss were discussing in the early 20th century whether or not it was a good idea to make orchestrations of Bach's music for a full-blown Romantic orchestra, which they discussed in terms of "novelty" (Bach did not compose much non-solistic/non-sung orchestral pieces of music, and these pieces - 3 out of the 4 suites for orchestra - were for the reduced kind of Baroque orchestra). Elgar orchestrated the Fantasia and Fugue in C minor (with some time elapsing between the two halves of the work. Although relatively "successful" in the UK, this was hardly a Bach revival. (2) Alban Berg's "Klangfarbenmelodie" experiment with one of Bach's Ricercar's from the Musical Offering is later, and was not so much the start of a "Bach revival", as a "promotion article" for the 2nd Viennese school. (3) But then, Leopold Stokowski heard the Elgar orchestration, and decided to make such an orchestration too (this time BWV 565). No Bach revival resulted, the three orchestration "experiments" were more or less isolated events - until Disney heard the Stokowsky orchestration, and still many years later incorporated that music in Fantasia. Then it was an instant world hit: only then the record sales of this Stokowsky orchestration went soaring. Any record sold at that time including orchestrations of Bach's organ music needed no promotion to fly of the shelves. I happen to own one of such records of this wave of Bach revival (that was about Bach played by a full blown romantic orchestra): the record I own is, not so surprisingly, directed by Eugene Ormandy, one of Stokowsky's immediate collegues, and my parents must have bought it somewhere in the 1950s (no BWV numbers on the record sleeve yet). This wave of Bach revival was completely battered down 2 decades later when the "authentic interpretation" wave, led by Nicolaus Harnoncourt came along.

Note that I don't speak about "revivals" so much in the sense of that Bach was completely "forgotten", but in the sense, that Bach's popularity went by waves, each wave attaining a new "target audience" (to put it in modern commercial jargon). Often people seem to think that the Mendelssohn revival with the St. Matthew passion in the early 19th century was the only of such waves. Nothing is less true. There had already been a previous wave, the Baron Von Swieten wave, that had effectively attained Beethoven (and the "encore" he always had to play at Von Swieten's: the chromatic P&F); Mozart (his "adagio and fuga" would not have been thinkable without) and Haydn (had a copy of the Wohltemperirte Klavier permanently near his piano). The Mendelssohn revival was only about reviving the Passionen and the Great organ works in public concert practice.

Now, anyway, if needed, I'll turn the text I typed above out of my head into nice wikipedia-style thorough references, just let me know if you think this really necessary, and then allow me some time to produce them!

Thanks, --Francis Schonken 17:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, it's interesting to look at the preface written by Busoni himself to the score of his transcription, as published by G. Schirmer Library of Musical Classics Vol.1629. Here's what Busoni himself intended to achieve by his sixteen Bach transcriptions: "...the arrangement of these studies gradually eventuated in a systematic grouping thereof.... They constitute a Contribution to the High School of Pianoforte-Playing. In their entirety they are similar to an educational building which -- preferably with Bach-Music as its basis -- seeems capable of eventually bearing further and younger superstructures...." Given these comments, it would seem that Busoni's intentions were educational and not tilted in the direction of any kind of Bach "revival".

Possible subjective POV

The last edit by 84.185.205.99 (08:29, 6 May 2005) sounds my POV alarm to some extent. It does state that musicology is not an exact science, and that Williams' theories are theories, but I don't consider that a very necessary statement to make, and the rest of it seems to be biased counter-arguments. Calling Williams' arguments "shaky" does not agree with my ideas of NPOV and objectivity. I'm not dead sure of my instincts (or indeed objectivity) here, so I decided not to be bold and edit, but I encourage others to give it a look. EldKatt 13:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

True, "shaky" is not exactly an objective word, but Williams arguments aren't exactly objective either. He has a vested interest in making dramatic claims about Bach's most famous organ work, since he's not exactly going to get published by arguing that a Bach organ work was written by Bach. (person without an account)

Piano reduction

A few comments on the piano reduction: Firstly, why is it a piano reduction, if the work is for organ? The piano doesn't quite have the same effect as an organ, especially on the sustained notes. Secondly, in the sound file of the introduction, the arpeggiation at the end consists of 8 notes (D2, C#3 E3 G3 Bb3 C#4 E4 G4), whereas in the image of the music, it consists of only 7 notes (D2, C#3 E3 G3 Bb3 C#4 E4). --BrainInAVat 02:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's called a piano reduction because the piano doesn't have a footboard like the organ, and therefore the song has to be reduced to two parts rather than three. I don't know what to say about your missing note, because I haven't listened to the music clip, but I doubt that the music shown in the article is incorrect. --Berserk798 03:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

About the "missing note"...it's actually added, by mistake. The original version, for organ, doesn't have it; nor does the orchestral version from Fantasia, nor do either of the piano transcriptions by Busoni or Tausig.

Problem is, I don't know how to change that file. AND I don't have time. (I would if I knew and did...) ~GMH 04:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's ogg (as opposed to MIDI), so the only way of changing it would be recording a new one (or quoting an existing recording, which would probably pass as fair use). If we do, we should make it an organ recording, not a piano transcription. EldKatt (Talk) 10:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I found a nice (complete) recording at 1 , although because of copyright concerns, perhaps it's better to use it as an external link. --BrainInAVat 03:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Toccata and Fugue, or just a toccata?

It just occured to me that this article (more exactly this section) consistently treats this piece as a "toccata and fugue" where the toccata functions as a prelude to the fugue, never mentioning the problem with such a description, that Williams describes in his paper. A north German Baroque toccata (such as Buxtehude's) would by definition include, for instance, fugal sections, and a piece like this would probably have been viewed (by Bach as well) as just a toccata, the fugue being part of the toccata. The reason for the description of it as a "toccata and fugue" would thus be the same as the many tempo markings etc: that the sources we have are from a later time, when musical ideals had changed. In fact, though, as Williams states, calling it "Toccata and fugue" is comparable to referring to a Mozart sonata as "Sonata, andante and rondo". The reason I bring this up here is that the article (in the above-linked section) makes a lot of connections with other prelude-fugue type works--a type to which BWV565 doesn't necessarily belong. Thoughts? EldKatt (Talk) 11:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As I remember from reading about the piece (can't remember where though), the proper name for the piece is Toccata in D minor, which is why I personally prefer to refer to it as such. For reference, the other Toccatas that Bach wrote for keyboard consist of several movements each, including both fugal and improvisatory passages. ~GMH 01:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

After several months of having forgotten about this article, I've finally decided to boldly remove all of this. I doubt a lot of people nowadays could dispute that a "toccata and fugue" is simply a toccata and not a preluding toccata followed by a fugue. As an interesting side-note that doesn't really matter, neither of the two examples presented were particularly descriptive since they also fall outside this category. The C-minor passacaglia is of such scale that I for one would not think of it as a traditional prelude to the following fugue, and the Goldberg variations, obviously, don't even come close to having anything to do with anything here. EldKatt (Talk) 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

the proper name for both movements is Toccata and Fugue in d minor, because it is a two-movement piece. The toccata is more well-known, but both movements are almost always played together, the first movement (Toccata) followed by the second (Fugue). -Chewbacca 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of Bach's normal structural usage, this piece is a decided exception. In all other cases in the organ literature the prelude, fantasia, toccata, even the C-Minor passacaglia, comes to a full stop and is then succeeded by the fugue, often of a decidedly different musical character. Here, and here alone, the toccata passages return after the fugue in the manner of Buxtehude, and without the fugue itself coming to a full close.

Isn't this following true? The first theme of the fugue ('altviolin') is in d minor and the second (transposed) theme ('2nd violin') is in g minor. According to the common 'fugue-rules' in those days, the second theme should be in a minor (a quint higher than d). I add this, because I think it is another argument that this 'fugue'is not much of fugue, actually. Am I right? 194.53.91.2 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Steven, the Netherlands

Atypical or not, the title of the work in the earliest recorded manuscript is "Toccata con Fuga," which would seem to make all discussion rather superfluous. (person without an account)

Pop looks bach

I'd put this in myself but there's NOR in the way. I believe that the music "pop looks bach" (ski sunday from the BBC)is based on the start of the fugue. Worthy of a mention?

Excellent online recordings of Bach's works including BWV 565

I have no idea what is the copyright status, but you can get excellent recordings of many of Bach's work (transcribed for guitare) on http://www.philiphii.com/recordings/audio/

Toccata and Fugue in popular culture

The article currently states that the work is likely Bach's most famous work. Aside from "likely" being an obvious weasel word, this is an extremely dubious assertion. Not that the work isn't very famous, quite the contrary. It is certainly _one_ of Bach's most famous works. Nonetheless, Bach wrote a number of extraordinarily famous works. Any of BWV 147, 565, 988, 1043, 1046–1051, or the ubiquitous Air from 1068, for instance, might be considered among the most famous pieces of music by any composer of any era. Any one of these is referenced inestimably many times in popular culture, has been performed and recorded a similarly uncountable number of times, and has significant recognition value even among people who do not, as a rule, listen to music composed more than a generation ago. Indeed, just by making the above list I have opened up a real can of worms: it could doubtless be expanded significantly without adding anything of less than spectacular fame. To pick a particular one of these works and claim that it's likely _the_ most famous is an unencyclopedic overstatement. It's a bit like saying "blue is likely the most widely recognized color". No doubt blue is extremely well known, but so are a number of other colors. Likewise, J. S. Bach was not exactly a one-hit wonder. -Jonadab, 2007 July 15

Bach isn't the only composer to write fugues, nor was the second movement of Toccata and Fugue the only fugue ever written, so the comment about several motorola phones coming with ringtones called fugue has little relevance to the topic, unless all of those ringtones are Fugue in d minor. This was unclear in that section. -Chewbacca 03:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, I see very little relevance to the fact that Linda Brava released her version of the Toccata and Fugue in 1997, and that Vanessa-Mae recorded a version for her album The Violin Player (1994/1995). Firstly, they are, after all, classical players (as opposed to pop culture..?), and secondly, they seem like "shameless" links to these artists' websites. I would propose to make these entries, as well as the one on Motorola, at least a bit encyclopedia-worthy. -FelisSchrödingeris 14:41, 24 Febuary 2006.

Neither of these two are really classical performers in the traditional sense. They deal with techno crossover stuff, as far as I know (listen to the linked mp3), so I guess they're sort of legitimate in the pop culture section. I don't think the link belongs, though. Shameless indeed. And as for the "critical acclaim"... I think it's a terrible rendition. But that doesn't matter. EldKatt (Talk) 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How about simply deleting the Linda Brava link in the "popular culture" section and adding it to the "external links"? FelisSchrödingeris (Talk) 16:42, 28 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

That works, but how about deleting it altogether? I don't really think it's particularly relevant or useful as an external link either. What do you think? EldKatt (Talk) 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. FelisSchrödingeris 15:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Influence of other composers

when Buxtehude called a work "Prelude and Fugue", it might start with an odd bit of fugue, followed by some cadenza-like improvisation (possibly on another theme), yet followed by some more fugue or canon-like passages, some more virtuoso firework, etc... And Buxtehude loved fermatas, some serious pumping on the pedals, and other expressive techniques. Compared to this, despite the enormous influence of Buxtehude that is apparent in Bach's organ compositions, Bach establishes order and coherence in the patchwork-like idea Buxtehude seemed to have of a "prelude and fugue" or "toccata" type composition. In fact Bach, in his early organ works, synthesises this looser structure of an organ composition with what he had learnt from (amongst others) Johann Pachelbel's more organised approach (Bach was an indirect pupil of Pachelbel, through his brother Johann Christoph).

In comparison to earlier work in the same genre, Bach's work appears more tighly constructed and less in the character of an improvisation.

I deleted this information because it's mostly incorrect and not compatible with the modern understanding of Buxtehude's music. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Score/External links

For the record, I removed the links to an online Sibelius score[1]. Personally I think that such a heavily edited score ("Slightly adapted for Sibelius playback" with such nonsense as piano-style pedal markings for extended notes) is worse than no score at all. If anyone knows of a better online score to replace it, though, that would be nice. EldKatt (Talk) 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

An all stops out organ version

Here you can find the Toccatta played on the huge organ at the Atlantic City convention center.

http://www.acchos.org/html/gallery.html

"This "high-octane" version of the Toccata in d Minor used everything available except the big 50" and 100" reeds, but added the 32' Bombardon and the 64' Diaphone Profunda in the Pedal. File size 2.6 MB, download time roughly 6 1/2 minutes at 56 Kbps"

You NEED a super-duper set of speakers to play this to its fullest. Hear what an organ with seven blowers that total 600 horsepower can do!

Orchestral Version?

I recently heard a glorious orchestral version of this song on public radio. I thought I heard the announcers say that it was by Beethoven, but I can't find any reference to Beethoven having ever written an orchestral version of this piece online. Does anyone know about such a version? Who wrote it? --Mmpartee 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been arranged many ways by many composers. — ceejayoz ^talk 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Handwritten score?

I would LOVE it very much if someone could give me a link to a working site that show the ENTIRE handwritten score of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, and other of Bach's organ works! Aaron Pepin

Phantom of the Opera

As someone has said, the toccata and fugue are definitely NOT used in the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. While the claim "Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote all the music", is, you know, we're talking about Andrew Lloyd Webber. The Echoes argument has been used frequently, but really, it's unimportant here, and, in the grand scheme of things, does it really friggin matter? It's a minor chord followed by half a chromatic scale. Who wrote that? Probably whomever came before Palestrina....
Anyway, I wanted to explain why the t&f sounds reasonably close to POTO. For one, they're in the same key. Two, they're both generally organ works. Three, there's a descending figure followed by lots of 16th notes. Fourth, people are morons.
Anyway, I've edited the article to reflect that it was the movie from the 60s that (at least according to its article) contains the t&f. 69.253.193.234 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The association of Toccata and Fugue with POTO is long standing and probably goes back to the Lon Chaney silent film where he played an organ and 'suitable' organ music was supplied either by Theatre Organist or recording. It is an unfortunate association because it is not 'Gothic' organ music but it has come to stand for Gothic organ music. The way it was performed in the early twentieth century probably has a lot to do with this; large organs with high wind pressure, strident reed stops and a very Romantic performance style - lots of swaying about at the keyboard. Its association with horror films, Dracula, the devil and so on is particularly unfortunate as Bach did not make much distinction between his church and secular music. The diabolical associations that have grown up around this piece would have astounded him. Although I do not agree on all points with his interpretation, Ton Koopman is to be congratulated for rescuing this piece from the jaws of hell, so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoeEGrace (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign. I'll try again. ----

Silent features were usually scored, not improvised. I don't remember the 1925 Phantom score, by Gustav Hinrichs, quoting Bach. As far as I know, its first use in film was in The Black Cat in 1934, which is where its association with horror began. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned under pop-culture references---I thought it was the most famous one. Odradek5 (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't featured in the silent (I believe) 1925 version, but I'm fairly sure it was in the sound 1928 version. I'm not quite sure the years, but it's somewhere around there. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 02:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dracula

I've always thought this piece was played by Bela Lugosi in Dracula. This the true pop culture reference.

Scrolling bar-graph score version

Would a link to this version [2] be appropriate to add? Musanim 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aviator

I am not sure, but I recall that the beginning of the Fugue was featured, in strings, in The Aviator during the sequence showing the filming of Hell’s Angels. I do not believe that I own the movie, so if anybody could reply to this, then that might be an important pop culture reference. JosCol (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 76.95.168.64, for confirming the above. JosCol (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Uses of the song

While the article mentions that this song is used in video games, etc., no examples are mentioned. I know, for example, that this song is Wellington's ringtone in the second Phoenix Wright game. If this type of information is too trivial let me know, but I think it is a worthwhile addition. Pizzadinosaur (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Walcha's performance irrelevant to authorship question?

The Attribution section points out that Helmut Walcha regarded the piece as authentic Bach, but this fact is surely irrelevant, because, at the time Walcha made his recordings, no one had ever questioned Bach's authorship. The attribution was first questioned five years after Walcha made his second set of recordings. So the fact that Walcha thought it was Bach's work it has no more significance than the fact that everyone else did also. Surely the sentences about Walcha can be removed without any loss? BWV2000 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This could not be written by anyone else.

I don’t want to argue with theorists who say otherwise. I’d just like tell my own opinion. And it is that this music couldn’t be written by anyone but Bach. It just goes so well with his flamboyant style that he had around his Brandenburg concertos days.

And I just can’t get out of my head an imagination of him. Old, all forgotten, deemed out of style, alone in his church then he goes and starts playing this piece on organ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.250.202 (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually he was quite young when he wrote it (probably before 1708), but that's a nice mental picture anyway. The theory that someone else wrote it is largely the contribution of a single scholar. Musicologist Christoph Wolff, who wrote the Bach article for the New Grove, considers the attribution to Bach secure. Antandrus (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can rewrite the section on authorship to present a better picture of Williams' arguments, and maybe cite one or two more sources. But then someone already complained about the amount of material devoted to this subject, so I'm not sure if I should do any rewrites. Personally, I have to say that I believe the piece isn't by Bach; there are simply too many problems with it. --Jashiin (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much mention of Peter Williams?

Parts of the Attribution section seem to me to read more like a promotional piece for Peter Williams than an impartial article about BWV 565. The authorship challenge is interesting, but perhaps less prominent mention of Williams might be good. What are other people's thoughts?--69.202.71.49 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say - seems like too much airtime. If many notable scholars are in agreement with Williams, they should be given space. If it's just him, this should be made clear, and this section should be condensed. Plus it could use some resorting, the section is all over the place. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also - basic info missing like, when did this first came into question, is it just the toccata or the whole work in question or what? --99.245.206.188 (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the section, explaining most of Williams' arguments. I also added a list (by no means comprehensive) of books and articles that support his views, or offer alternative authorship theories. I don't speak German and don't have the 2002 Williams article cited in the References section, so all I could do was to explain his arguments from the 2002 edition of "The Learned Musician". Sorry about the messy references - I think the article is in bad shape and needs some reformatting and rewriting, but I don't have the time for that right now. Maybe later. --Jashiin (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent rewrite. I object only to the emphasis put into the lede, which as I mentioned in my now-reverted edit, is contrary to WP:UNDUE. "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." The Williams view is a minority view, and even in article specifically on a minority view, "though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view)." TJRC (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

TJRC, this was a minority view in 1981, when Williams published his article. But already in 1982 another article appeared, by Humphreys, who argued altogether against Bach's authorship. And today, well, I just cited three major publications, two of which are written/edited by very respected scholars (Butt and Schulenberg, and Butt's book is a collection of essays by several scholars). There's also a book-length study by Klaus, which is endorsed by Yo Tomita, another very well-known Bach scholar. You'll find people referring to the authorship problem literally everywhere, i.e. here (search for 565, first mention), or here (message number three, and further on in a few other messages), etc. This is why I don't believe it is a minority view. As for the lead, well, isn't it - ideally - supposed to summarize the article? In which case at least a sentence should be given, mentioning the attribution section. --Jashiin (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using "minority" as a synonym for "fringe." I think it's still a minority view, even though it's a scholarly minority view. I agree on the mention in the lede, and I included that in my last edit, which you may not have yet seen: [3]. Does that look good to you? TJRC (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I missed it. It does look good; I have no objections now. --Jashiin (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some rewriting

I rearranged some of the sections and made some substantial rewrites, and here are some explanations people might want to hear. The section "Compositional process" was useless, as it contained no text of its own; instead, it had a subsection describing Bach's influences. It was rather badly written, I'm afraid, because stylus fantasticus has nothing to do with BWV 565 and a description of Buxtehude's five-section model was completely uncalled for (practically every north German composer wrote sectional pieces that alternate between free and imitative sections, and besides, Buxtehude's five-part model is not the one used in BWV 565). So I rewrote it in a more concise manner. No need to emphasize "Bach the Borrower", either - everyone was writing fugues on other composers' themes at the time. So I kept the information, just made the paragraph a little bit shorter.

I also kept the Pachelbel mention, together with the citation needed template. As a matter of fact, yes, one of Pachelbel's D minor fantasias has a strikingly similar passage - I don't have the score, but it sounds very much like a passage from BWV 565. I have never seen this mentioned anywhere, but the similarity is undeniable and so I kept the bit in the article.

Much of what I added on the title of the piece, the north German influence, etc. is really subject-specific common knowledge, familiar to anyone dealing with the music of the era, which is why there are few citations. If anyone objects to this, I'll try to find more citations, its just difficult to cite such things.

I'm also planning to expand the Toccata and Fugue sections sometime soon. --Jashiin (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the See also section: just a single link to the list of Bach's compositions doesn't really deserve a whole section, and its function is already covered by categories. --Jashiin (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dang, forgot one more thing: I removed the paragraph on the "organ test hypothesis". The only reference given was Eidam's book, which, as the article notes, may be factually inaccurate. Besides, the hypothesis is kind of odd, given that for a typical organ of, say, three manuals, pedal and about 40 stops you'd much rather write a piece with many small contrasting sections to try different registrations and playing manners, rather than a single long piece for a single registration. That is, if you'd want to write an organ test piece at all - every organist back then was required to be able to improvise, and this is probably what they did when testing new organs. But I do remember reading about the hypothesis elsewhere (although it may have been this very article..), so if someone has a good source, do add the information back. --Jashiin (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)