Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

New category under external links

Editors,

Would you consider an "Interactive Hypermedia" category? If so, I would direct your thoughtful attention to a new Flash site on the Mass in B Minor at http://digitalbach.com/cuepoints (Helmuth Rilling's '99 performance)

Tim Smith

error in Distance

Hello--

This page states that Weimar is 180km from Arnstadt. In reality it is merely 40km.

Jason Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeter55 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Educational assignment

This article is about to be edited as part of an educational assignment by Union University (of Jackson, Tennessee). This is being discussed here. --Kleinzach 07:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not abuse WP for such purposes! 88.77.156.134 (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If it makes the page better, I'm all for it. I appreciate scholarly input. A brief perusal of Wikipedia will show that this is the minority opinion. Gingermint (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

...Amen! HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

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)

Birthdate?

Wasn't Bach born on 21 March, not 31 March?

Mharries (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

He was, and so we celebrate. But some calendar change happened in between. I personally don't care and prepared two DYK for Sunday 21 March. Erschallet, ihr Lieder --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 6#Date of birth revisited, and then Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 1#Bach's date of birth. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Who favours making it neater and adopting Gregorian, International Standards Organization Style dates for everything? Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-03-31 [Gregorian] 1750-07-28). If I've read the references correctly, then the change from Julian to Gregorian occurred during hiz life. 142.59.234.252 (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect birthdate for J. S. Bach

Bach was born on March 21, not March 31. Should I go grab the link and put it in here? 68.109.88.195 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, anonymous you, you should read the preceding paragraph first that explains it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keyboard

The introduction of this article lists many instruments that Bach played, but there is no mention of keyboard (I am thinking specifically of Harpsichord, Clavier etc, which the terms encompasses) despite it being one of the most fundamental instruments to Bach, that he probably played more than any other and worked out/improvised most of his compositions on.

Might I suggest following the German articles example by slotting in 'virtuoso keyboardist' after 'Organist.' Or even just 'Harpsichordist.' I really think there should be a mention.

Hugo.

Done. - But organ has a keyboard also, and he was not a performer on the harpsichord to my knowledge - but also not on the violin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Soli Deo Gloria

I apologize if I missed it while looking through the archives, but I was not able to find any discussion on the exclusion of Bach's signature, SDG. It seems like the paragraphs on his theology in the section on his musical style could be expanded to include the mention of his theology, seeing as he is a major contributor to the Lutheran, Reformed and even greater liturgical hymnodies, and the fact that he signed all of his works with Soli Deo Gloria may help show how his faith affected his life and works. Somedaypilot (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bach's descendants

Regarding footnote 40, it was thought for a long time that J. S. Bach had no living descendants, but this has now been shown to be untrue. See the article by Hans-Joachim Schulze, "Descendants of Johann Friedemann Bach in the United States," in Bach Perspectives 5 (2003), pp. 123 ff.

Jaywebber (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Childhood - supplement to the last sentence

{{edit semi-protected}} In 1702 the 17-year-old Bach applied for the position of the organist at St. Jacobi in Sangerhausen. He was elected by the town council, but through intervention of the Duke of Saxe-Weißenfels Johann Augustin Kobelius (1674 - 1731) was appointed. Kobelius was practically rediscovered only in 2010 footnote.

Footnote: Concerning the first performance in our time of the only extant work of Kobelius in 2010 see http://www.gerald-drebes.de . Dieter1119 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Welcome. The content requires a reliable source and may be too small a detail to include in that section. The footnote advertising a modern performance of a work by Kobelius is a non-starter. I think. Celestra (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. The story of Bach and Kobelius is well-known in music history, see Christoph Wolff, Bach - the learned musician, p. 67 http://books.google.de/books?id=ronZdkhQouMC&pg=PA67&dq=johann+augustin+kobelius&hl=de&ei=I2aiTNC9Hs6J4QaZ-dSEAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=14&ved=0CF8Q6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=johann%20augustin%20kobelius&f=false . This was the only unsuccessful job application in Bach's life! I think the FIRST (nonprofit!) performance in our time of the ONLY extant work of Kobelius in 2010 is worth a mention in this encyclopedia! Thanks in advance to any editor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter1119 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe Kobelius himself does indeed need a mention, but the information on that 2010 performance shouldn't be included here. The article is currently far too big and it requires far too much cleanup for us to add small details like this. I think I'll try to create Johann Augustin Kobelius later and add the information there. --Jashiin (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No audio?

Why is it that I can not listen to any Bach from this article? Why are the discussions and points not illustrated with audio excerpts? Surely Bach no longer has a copyright which would get in Wikipedias way! --96.241.156.174 (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course Bach's compositions are out of copyright, so anyone can freely print, distribute or perform his musical works. However, every performance in itself is considered a work of art and has its own copyright. So recordings of Bach's music are usually protected by copyright. In fact there are very few recordings of anything in existence for which the copyright has expired. However, there are certain recordings by Bach that were released under a free license and these may be used in this article. Some of these are found on Bach's Wikimedia Commons page. All effort to help improve this article is appreciated, but if you want to contribute to this page, please create an account, because this article is semi-protected (against new or anonymous users). Lindert (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2010 (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)

Lutheran hymnody

Is the collapsible banner at the bottom sufficiently relevant in that level of detail? Should it not be placed in a more specific article? Tony (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Some of the English text claims to be a quote of a German court secretary.

• On November 6, [1717], the quondam concertmaster and organist Bach was confined to the County Judge's place of detention for too stubbornly forcing the issue of his dismissal and finally on December 2 was freed from arrest with notice of his unfavourable discharge.

The German court secretary would have spoken German so it can't be a quote. At best, it must be a translation of a quote. The reference didn't work for me and the German article says merely:

• Als er dies nachholen wollte, erhielt er seine Demission nicht, sondern wurde am 6. November wegen seiner „Halßstarrigen Bezeugung“ [19] in der Landrichterstube in Haft genommen. Am 2. Dezember wurde er aus Haft und Dienstverhältnis in Ungnade entlassen.

Can anyone produce the German quote? Lightmouse (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Footnote no. 19 in the German article reads as follows:

"Anm.: Aus einer Protokollnotiz des Hofes: „Am 6. Nov. ist der bisherige Concert-Meister u. Hoforganist, Bach, wegen seiner Halßstarrigen Bezeugung u. zu erzwingenden dimission, auf der LandRichter-Stube arrêtiert, u. endlich d. 2. Dec. darauf, mit angezeigter Ungnade, Ihme die dimission durch den Hof-Secr.: angedeutet, u. zugleich des arrests befreyet worden“; nach Werner Neumann, Hans-Joachim Schulze (Hrsg.): Fremdschriftliche und gedruckte Dokumente zur Lebensgeschichte Johann Sebastian Bachs, 1685–1750, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Deutscher Verlag für Musik, Leipzig 1969, (Bach-Dokumente II, Nr. 84), S. 65."

I.e. this is citing a court notice of the time, which in its turn was quoted in a supplemental volume of documents about Bach's life edited by Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, which was produced to accompany the then newest edition of the complete works of Bach. Is this of any help? --TraceyR (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tracey. The fact that it's a translation still means it's in quotes in English, but we have much more license to fix things; for example, I'd start with the dates, which are dd mm anyway in the original German ... why they've been rendered in the opposite date-format to that used in this article is beyond me. The whole German text might be scrutinised. Tony (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tracey. Quotes are useful when there is something significant that wouldn't have value when presented indirectly. The alleged quote doesn't pass that test. This isn't the only instance of a misleading 'quote' in Wikipeda - I think we should have a guideline such that translations are not presented identically to quotes. The English translation is so far from the German that it should immediately be amended: either a German translator should re-write it (we could invite somebody from the German Wikipedia); or it should be transposed into non-quote (my preference). Lightmouse (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But it would be vivid to have the translation as quote here, if we could manage a good translation, wouldn't it? Tony (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found this (similar) translation of the same source in Johann Sebastian Bach: life and work by Martin Geck, p.96. on Google books:

"On 6 November (1717) the quondam concertmaster and court organist Bach was arrested and held at the County Magistrate's house of detention for obstinate behaviour and forcing the question of his dismissal, and finally on 2 December was informed by the Court Secretary of his unfavourable dischage and simultaneously freed from arrest."

--TraceyR (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. We're getting somewhere now. I see that after the word 'arrest' there is the number 104. Presumably that's a number of a reference in the same book. I'd like to get to the original German words. I couldn't find it. Can anyone else? Lightmouse (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The original German text of the cited passage is given in the 'blockquote' above (from footnote 19 to the German WP article, beginning "Anm.:"). I noticed the reference in the Google books text and had a brief look for the source, which is given as "Dok. 2:65", i.e. "Bach-Dokumente II, Nr. 84, S. 65.", which is the source as given in the blockquote above. You'll probably have to look in a library for the book itself. This was published in Leipzig in 1969, i.e. in the old GDR/DDR. --TraceyR (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. In that case, the German WP article seems to do it well i.e. a prose description with the source untranslated text in a footnote. I'm convinced Geck's translation is inadequate and should be revised such that it would be incorrect to attribute it to him. Lightmouse (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As a German speaker and occasional translator, I think that Geck's version is fine. Having said that, I'd prefer "former", "erstwhile" or perhaps "previous" instead of "quondam", since the German "bisherige" is a word in common use, which cannot be said of "quondam", but that's just a matter of personal preference.--TraceyR (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll defer to your expertise. Certainly the word 'quondam' is an indicator that the translation is flawed. Yes, 'former' or 'previous' would be better. As Tony suggests, the reversal of the date is another indicator that something is amiss. If we can improve on the translation, we should. As I said before, I think the approach of the German article is good i.e. prose in the body with a footnote for the original quote. I'd also be happy to see the original German quote in the body with an honest and open translation alongside so anyone can see that it's subject to challenge. This has raised some very interesting generic issues - see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Translations_and_quotationsLightmouse (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding references

For reference's sake, it would be very helpful to include the following work under "references" as well as in/around fn 50, where the article talks about Bach's revival in the early 19thc: Celia Applegate, _Bach in Berlin: Nation and Culture in Mendelssohn's Revival of the St. Matthew's Passion (Cornell, 2005) uses the 1829 revival to examine the construction and performance of the "nation" among educated Germans. I would add this in, but it doesn't seem that I'm allowed to edit here. Trouser34 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tony (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The very first thing about Bach is an error

Bach was born on March 21 not March 31. This is not a minor error, it sets the tone for the rest of the article. Could you kindly change

72.252.169.199 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the footnote. The article on Old Style and New Style dates should also help clarify it for you. 31 March is accurate, as is 21 March in O.S. Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Bach was born on the 21st of march, not the 31st.

No. Please see the section immediately above this one. Antandrus (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OS was still in use at the time and place of birth. Hence born 21st what we now call 31st. Mootros (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, NPR listed today as Bach's birthday on Morning edition. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

proofreading

"In 1706 Bach was offered a more better post as organist at St. Blasius's in Mühlhausen, which took up the following year. It included significantly higher enumeration and improved conditions, such as better choir. Four months after arriving at Mühlhausen, he married his second cousin from Arnstadt, Maria Barbara Bach. They had seven children, four of whom survived to adulthood. Two of them—Wilhelm Friedemann Bach and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach—became important composers in the ornate Rococo style that followed the Baroque."

"...more better" to "better."

"enumeration" should perhaps be "remuneration."

Others, perhaps, but these caught my eye without close examination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.185.185 (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting these. I've corrected them. Lindert (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"back" to "Bach"

Hello.

Someone wrote "Back" instead of "Bach". This is very annoying to me. We NEED to change this to "Bach". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.45.160 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for pointing it out. I looked through the history, and discovered that it was a typo during the recent copyedit, not vandalism. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bach

Bach was born on the 21st, not the 31st! it is a very important fact that I think needs to be changed. also, its Bach, not Back.

Both the 21st and 31st are correct. This has been discussed at least four times on this page; look above. See Gregorian Calendar and Julian Calendar. Antandrus (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

[clarification needed]

Sorry, but it is annoying to find [clarification needed] everywhere that the author is plainly stating conjecture, and making pains to make it clear that he or she is doing so. Wouldn't one think that so careful an author would have cited or clarified whenever clarification or citation was available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.31.249 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

references

Hegel, who attended the performance, later called Bach a "grand, truly Protestant, robust and, so to speak, erudite genius which we have only recently learned again to appreciate at its full value". Goethe became acquainted with Bach's works relatively late in life through a series of performances of keyboard and choral works at Bad Berka in 1814 and 1815; in a letter of 1827 he compared the experience of listening to Bach's music to "eternal harmony in dialogue with itself".

Just to preserve some references. Mootros (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from THS136, 7 April 2011

I guess "appontment" should be spelled appointment!

Nice work, otherwise! THS136 (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed now. Lindert (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hieronimo, 26 June 2011

Please remove the word "music" from the following sentence: "The young Bach probably witnessed and assisted in the maintenance of the organ music." This is clearly an error which makes no sense. On the other hand, it is well established that the larger of the two organs in St. Michael's Church, Ohrdruf, was undergoing completion and repairs from 1696 to 1706, i.e. through most of the time when Bach was living in Ohrdruf with his elder brother, who was organist at St. Michael's. See Christoph Wolff: "Johann Sebastian Bach, The Learned Musician", pp. 36-37.

Hieronimo (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hieronimo, 26 June 2011

In the sentence: "In January 1703, shortly after graduating from St. Michael's and after having failed an audition for the post of organist at Sangerhausen, Bach gained an appointment as a court musician in the chapel of Duke Johann Ernst in Weimar.", please substitute the words "having failed an audition" with the words "being turned down". Bach passed the audition with flying colors (he later (1736) wrote: "all the votes were cast for my humble self"), but was not appointed because another candidate was imposed by Duke Johann Georg of Saxe-Weissenfels. See Christoph Wolff "Johann Sebastian Bach, The Learned Musician", p. 67.

Hieronimo (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hieronimo, 26 June 2011

I suggest that the following sentence be deleted: "Bach wanted to become amanuensis (assistant and successor) to Buxtehude, but did not want to marry his daughter, which apparently was a condition for his appointment.". There is no evidence that Bach had this in mind or indeed had any particular views about Buxtehude's daughter. This misconception arises from Mattheson's account in "Ehren-Pforte" of his and Handel's visit to Buxtehude in 1703 and may reflect their views, but these should not be attributed to Bach in the absence of any evidence.

Hieronimo (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: The source cited states that "Both composers wanted to follow Buxtehude at St. Mary's, but neither one wanted to marry his daughter as that was a condition for the position.". Unless there is a source contradicts that then I will leave it in, though obviously if someone else decides to that is fine with me. Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jnorton7558, Thank you for your prompt attention to my edit requests. But the source you cite cannot be Mattheson's "Ehren-Pforte" itself, but some secondary source which you interpret as substantiating exactly the unjustified inference (about Bach having the same motivation and conclusions about his visit to Buxtehude as Mattheson and Handel) that I am trying to eliminate. Here is what Mattheson says in "Ehren-Pforte", fotocopy of original edition, p. 94, with my translation: "Weil aber eine Heiraths-Bedingung bey de Sache vorgeschlagen wurde, wozu keiner von uns beiden die geringste Lust bezeigte, schieden wir, nach vielen empfangenen Ehrenerweisungen und genossenen Lustbarkeiten, von dannen. Johann Christian Schieferdecker legte sich hernach näher zum Ziel, führte nach des Vaters, Buxtehuden, Tode, die Braut heim, und erhielt den schönen Dienst, welchen anitzo Johann Paul Kuntzen rühmlichst besitzet." "However, because a marriage condition was proposed in the matter [the succession of Buxtehude (translator’s note)], for which neither of us both evinced the slightest desire, we departed from thence, after many received compliments and enjoyable merrymaking. Johann Christian Schieferdecker afterwards came closer to the goal, and after the father, Buxtehude’s, death, led the bride home and obtained the goodly post, which John Paul Kuntzen now most worthily fills." i.e. "us both" refers to Mattheson and Handel, and Bach is not mentioned at all in this connection. So when your secondary source mentions "Both composers" and "neither one", this must refer to Mattheson and Handel (Mattheson was also a composer), not to Handel and Bach. So I have to repeat my edit request for deleting the erroneous sentence. Hieronimo (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The source in the Wikipedia article heresays:

In Lubeck he rose to such fame that musicians from northern Germany came to the city to meet the composer and attend his concerts. He was visited by George Frideric Handel in 1703 and by Johann Sebastian Bach in 1705. According to legend Bach, walked more than 200 miles to meet him. Bach did study with Buxtehude for several months in 1705 and 1706. Both composers wanted to follow Buxtehude at St. Mary's, but neither one wanted to marry his daughter as that was a condition for the position

This is not me interpreting it to include Bach but is how that source has it written. FYI if someone doesn't beat me to it I will look at your other request laterJnorton7558 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying the Wikipedia source, but I am afraid that the source is a secondary, unreliable summary article about Buxtehude on a web page, very much in the nature of a program note, and the author of this summary is evidently perpetuating the conventional misunderstanding that the job offers or requests, and the opinions of Mattheson and Handel in 1703, were paralleled in Bach's much longer visit in 1705-6. There is really no evidence to support this view, although I have read it in many non-scholarly Bach biographies. Christoph Wolff does not draw any such conclusion, as indeed Mattheson makes no reference to Bach in this context and there is no other primary source for the view. It is my hope that Wikipedia should do better than to perpetuate unsubstantiated, sniggering misunderstandings of this type, however long-standing they may be. "Sniggering", because in its presumptuousness, it manages to snigger at Buxtehude (an old fool trying sell his daughter), his daughter (an ugly old maid, of course), and at Bach, in assuming that he had the same motives and attitudes as two rather less serious young dandies coming to Lübeck on the coach from Hamburg. So I have to stand by my edit request - stick to the original source, Mattheson, and say nothing about Bach except what Bach said himself - that he went "to comprehend one thing and another about his art" - i.e. not to get a job or turn down a marriage requirement. Hieronimo (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hieronimo, 26 June 2011

I am concerned about the vague and possibly misleading nature of the following sentences: "At this time, Bach was embarking on the composition of organ preludes; these works, in the North German tradition of virtuosic, improvisatory preludes, already showed tight motivic control (in which a single, short musical idea is explored throughout a movement). In these works the composer had yet to fully develop his powers of large-scale organisation and contrapuntal technique." Questions about the dating of most of Bach's early organ and keyboard works are still to be resolved, and the reader cannot be sure which "organ preludes" are being referred to. They should be identified by BWV numbers. The problem is that many of the ones that might fit the description could be rather earlier than the Arnstadt years. The Passacaglia in c minor BWV 582 is entered in the Andreas Bach Buch, and the Praeludium et Fuga in g BWV 535a is entered by Bach himself in the even earlier Möller Manuscript. It is likely that these works are from the Arnstadt years, and I would argue that the Passacaglia does not show under-developed "powers of large-scale organisation and contrapuntal technique". I believe that any "organ preludes" showing defects in these respects might date from the Ohrdruf years. The second sentence is perhaps obvious in view of Bach's mastery of large-scale organisation in his mature works and looks like a truism that would apply to anyone with a life-long interest and success in self-improvement. It is in fact difficult to write any summary phrases to describe Bach's development in the Ohrdruf, Lüneburg and Arnstadt years and be sure that one is applying them to the right period. Over this period Bach's development as a composer was was evidently explosive - we are talking about the age of 12 to 22. As it is difficult to write anything of confirmed accuracy suitable for an encyclopedia article, I would recommend the omission of these sentences. If some comment is to be retained, I would recommend specific referenced comments that apply to each of the Ohrdruf, Lüneburg and Arnstadt years.

Hieronimo (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Removed the 2 sentences as they appear to be unsourced and possible OR Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.108.15.124, 20 July 2011

WTC autograph

Under "Weimar (1708-17)", The Well Tempered Clavier's german name is misspelt. On the page, it is Das Wohltemperierte Clavier, when it should be Das Wohltemperierte Klavier.

122.108.15.124 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion how to spell the WTC in German. Today's German spelling is certainly "Klavier", but the autograph shown on the right spells it "Clavier". When Bach wrote "Clavier", he most certainly did not mean anything that resembles today's "Klavier" (piano). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Ah, I see. The wiki page on the WTC has it as "Klavier", would that be considered an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.15.124 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If Bach spelled it as "Clavier" then just leave it there. NephthysAthena (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Billyfalconer, 2 August 2011

I'd like to clean up some grammar problems such as comma splices, unnecessarily repeated words, etc. Billyfalconer (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a specific request. If you want to be able to edit the page simply make 6 more edits on other pages and you'll be autoconfirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

DIDI HER 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 (UTC)

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)

Infobox proposal

Johann Sebastian Bach
Portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach by Elias Gottlob Haussmann, 1748
Born	(1685-03-21)21 March 1685 (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685) Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach
Died	28 July 1750(1750-07-28) (aged 65) Leipzig
Occupations	Composer Cantor Organist Conductor
Years active	1703 (1703) – 1707 (1707): Arnstadt 1707 (1707) – 1708 (1708): Mühlhausen 1708 (1708) – 1717 (1717): Weimar 1717 (1717) – 1723 (1723): Köthen 1723 (1723) – 1750 (1750): Leipzig Thomaskantor
Style	Baroque
Spouses	Maria Barbara Bach (1707–1720) Anna Magdalena Bach (1721–1750)
Children	Wilhelm Friedemann Bach Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach Johann Christian Bach
{{Johann Sebastian Bach}}
Signature

I suggest an infobox, which includes a link to his navbox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No comment on whether there could/should be an infobox, but a link to a template's page when that template is already transcluded on the article page is completely inappropriate for any infobox. Voceditenore (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Infoboxes are very useful and provide a great overview of a topic. Many people often use them. PumpkinSky talk 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The infobox would add nothing to the article. It's useless. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are badly informed. The infobox would add the following classes to information in the article: vcard; fn; bday; birthplace; dday; deathdate; deathplace; role; vevent; dtstart; dtend; location; category. None of those are included in the article at present. All of those make the job of scraping information from the article much easier for third-party re-users. In addition, an infobox can be used by more sophisticated tools to extract and aggregate information in ways that you don't seem to be aware of - see Intelligence in Wikipedia for some of the possibilities. Additionally, we expect a brief summary overview of a topic at the top right of Wikipedia articles.

Now, if you want to argue that the infobox doesn't look right to you; or takes up too much room; or that this sort of subject can lead to misleading summaries which are over-simplified, then you would at least have a credible argument. But the "add nothing/useless" argument was discredited five years ago, and rolling it out again does tend to insult our intelligence. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The box opposite would mislead the reader into thinking that Bach was equally important as a cantor, organist, and conductor as a composer. In any case giving pre-modern composers 'occupations' is anachronistic. The pro-boxers never seem to get the anachronism thing. Did none of them ever study history? --Kleinzach 03:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a valid argument, but falls short by ignoring the point that having the information does not always imply equivalent importance (however importance may be judged). What it does do is allow Google (or whoever) to answer a question like "Was Bach a singer?" quite quickly because they can make semantic relationships between "Was X a Y?" and "occupation=Y" even it is anachronistic. Once you establish that a "Cantor belongs to the set of types of singer", then the answer can be supplied automatically. Not only did some of us study history, we also studied linguistics and information processing. YMMV --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/mild oppose Avoiding infoboxes seems to be common practice for composers. Of the first five classical composers I checked at random (George Frideric Handel, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Joseph Haydn, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff), all followed the same infobox-less format. This appears to be something of a standard for these projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Article_structure states "It is the consensus of this WikiProject that the lead should not contain an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, "without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page". Which in turn says “We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page.” So I'd lean towards oppose unless there was a good reason this article should be different. Rwessel (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That may well be the consensus of a WikiProject, but the RfC called by members of the project concluded that "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations", which is what you you cite, "but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per PumpkinSky & RexxS. An infobox such as that shown here would have enabled the above casual reader to quickly answer their own question, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as reductionist, unbalanced, and contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals. As has been previously noted, there is no technical reason why the metadata Rex supports above could not be provided in a less obtrusive manner. Note: I've also changed the section header to better reflect the topic being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not only are infoboxes not "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals"; their emission of metadata has been praised by the WMF's technical director. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken: one of the WMF's key goals is to attract new editors in general and women in particular, and to increase accessibility for these groups. The complexity of wikimarkup - being confronted with a wall of template text upon hitting the edit button - is one of the most commonly cited reasons for both groups not becoming editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • But the counter-argument, Nikki, is that filling in a template with informative labels is much easier and more natural than writing the raw html to supply useful classes for re-users. I do accept though that new editors often find the edit box and wiki-markup a barrier, although my experience is that new women editors are just as capable of dealing with those barriers as men. We should be looking for better technological solutions like the visual editor and collapsible editing elements (so the editor doesn't see the content of templates until they expand them) to encourage new editors, not repressing our current technology because it's less than perfect. --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • • Per your edit summary Fighting with women doesn't do much for the atmosphere, to be honest. There probably is something to be said for the argument that women in general are more likely to walk away from bullying - and there has been more than a bit of bullying in the infobox issues. I think in that sense Nikki's argument is quite strong. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Rex, expecting a new editor to deal with a large template as the first thing they see when they hit edit is not any more reasonable than asking them to use another method to supply classes...but why on earth should we expect newbies to be doing those tasks? (I do agree with you about the wiki-markup being no more or less intimidating because of my gender, but the publications appear to disagree with us on this point, and of course TK also has a very valid point). I also agree that we should be looking for technological solutions, which is what I said in my initial post - find a less obtrusive way of providing this data to reusers, rather than continuing to push a poor substitute. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't think we disagree on the effect on new editors, Nikki: I accept that in full, but I just don't accept that women cope less well with wikimarkup than men. As I've trained dozens of new editors - both men and women - over the last year or so, I'm going to claim some insight, anecdotal at least. Sadly, it has taken us years to make progress on the visual editor and it's still got some distance to go, so we put up with wikimarkup, on the assumption that new editors don't have to use it because it can be tweaked later. I still see infoboxes and citation templates in the same light: article improvements from a technical perspective, but they have to be balanced against other valid issues. At present only infoboxes do the job we want for Google and other re-users, probably because the problem of creating a non-intrusive replacement is not trivial. If we ask a developer to provide us with a substitute, how do we answer them when they reply, "You already have something that does that job for you"? --RexxS (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
            • As a woman (and yes only a single example) I have to disagree. I'm not entirely unsavvy techwise, but I find templates to be difficult and intrusive in the edit window. If I have to fight about them, as I've spent much of the last year doing, then I'll withdraw my volunteer time spent writing here. This article can do with a great deal of maintenance and clean-up - i.e there are over 30 redundant links creating a great deal of unnecessary blue. Rather than fighting yet another infobox war, and I find this to be provocative at best, perhaps someone should work on bringing it back to GA status. If we're only concerned about the tidbits given to Google, then an entire section of the editor base is unneeded - and the women will leave first because to them this is not a video game to be played over and over. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Nikkimaria, and the many many many other previously made arguments against infoxboxed being imposed on this subject area. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This infobox has the typical problems of infoboxes. (1) It gives very prominent representation to not-very-important data, such as the sequence of minor German cities Bach lived in while starting his career. (2) The shoehorning of information into the infobox format introduces factual distortions; in particular, a reader of the infobox might think that Bach had only four children (a spectacularly wrong conclusion, as you will learn if you read the article text). Unlike some editors above, I think we should not customize WP for readers who just want to browse for trivia -- we are a reference source, not a trivia outlet, and other WP policies emphasize this point.Opus33 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that - in order not to make the infobox too long - it has at the bottom a link to the navbox which provides a timeline of his compositions and much more? It would be easy to add how many more children he had, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is true, Gerda -- but on the other hand, it makes the infobox longer and longer. Take a look any chemical element article to see the nightmare this can lead to. Also, please note that I mentioned the kids as an example of inaccuracy, but it's also an example of trivia that should not be prominently displayed. Both are problems for infoboxes. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And also above I see, its not just anymore about making the article easier for supposed two second page hoppers, but reducing so as to make it easier for "third-party re-users" to "scrape". Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the scare-quotes? Do you have a problem with our content being re-used? Did you even look at Intelligence in Wikipedia from a Google talk dated 2008? Infoboxes have always had a function in presenting data in a fairly standard way as well as marking up microformats - both of which are used by third parties. --RexxS (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Opus33. The oversimplification mandated by the infobox concept seems particularly ill-advised for articles on artists of all sorts, including composers. The complex nature of "classical" music in particular resists this sort of Disneyfication. Dumbing down Wikipedia composer articles like this trivializes the article. Save it for the "Classical Music for Doofuses" websites.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per several, including Opus and JK. We have to take a stand somewhere against the dumbing-down of Wikipedia. Infoboxes compete against the article, and lazy eyes pick up their oversimplifications, trivia, and distortions. We're an encyclopedia, not a trivia site, and only the article itself can present the appropriate nuance. To casual readers: read the first paragraph. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Infoboxes are useful for biographical articles in a handful of categories—professional athletes for instance, whose uniform numbers and career statistics can be presented in quick-reference reductionist format without making a mockery of their life's work—but are generally detrimental in articles about artists. Ewulp (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nikkimaria, Opus33, Jerome Kohl, Antandrus, and Ewulp, all of whom have made strong arguments against trivialising this article about one of the greatest and most important composers of all time. --Kleinzach 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't believe that an Infobox is trivialising or dumbing-down. It is about supplying information to a wide range of readers – something WP is in a unique position to do. I choose not to assume the worst about our readers; instead, I believe that each reader will get out of our articles what we can supply and what they want – and if a reader comes to the article to find obvious facts, then it is WP's duty to present such information in a consistent way across similar articles. BTW, the bulk of the article is still there for those who want to dig (and really dig sometimes because similar information for Bach, Handel, Mozart, Cage, etc. is always presented differently in the prosaic text). I have written a large amount of WP-database XML scraping software, and it is a refreshing change to find well-formatted infoboxes that allow me to acquire information consistently (so there really is a downstream argument in this debate). The wise approach here would not be to jettison the suggestion with trivialisations, but to work on improving the infobox layout so that it is both useful and unobtrusive. Such an approach might be to create collapsible sections (such as already happens with {{Handel}}). I am dismayed about (what I can only describe as) the Luddite mentality that pervades composer and music pages (as I frequently see in referencing/citation discussions), and I live in hope that one day a refreshing and clean wind will breeze through – dragging these articles out of their current appearance (which can best be described as being from a nineteenth-century book). Discussing this in an intelligent, calm, considerate, and open-minded way would be a very good place to start. GFHandel ♬  04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouted comments

BLAH BLAH INFOBOXES SUCK AND SHOULD NEVER BE ON COMPOSER ARTICLES BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST SO SPECIAL AND ANYONE WHO WANTS THEM IS A LAZY IDIOT. BLAH BLAH BLAH. (etc.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)