Jump to content

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

German?

How can he have been a German although Germany was only founded 121 years after his death? We might call him Saxon, but not German. And don't mention ethnicity because how would a dubious "German" ethnic group be defined? -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal of prior knowledge of this question, but I took a look at the Germans article. I'll approach this from the point of view of an etymology nerd. The section on the medieval period says that the word tiutscher, the ancestor of modern Deutscher, has been used since the 12th century. The word German itself has been used since Roman times, for instance by the historian Tacitus. So, the concept of Germanness, however defined, has existed since long before the founding of the German Empire in 1871. Presumably, given this fact, Sebastian Bach would call himself Deutscher, so we're allowed to call him one. Perhaps someone else can explain what qualifies a person to be German, but for a start there's the fact that Bach and his ancestors spoke a member of a group of languages called German and lived in German-speaking territory for a long time. — Eru·tuon 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
re. "Perhaps someone else can explain what qualifies a person to be German" – The last thing we need is editors giving their interpretations and reasonings about Germanness and the like. We simply look at sources, e.g. Bach's first biography, translated in the 20th century, p. 18 ([1]):

Bach was an equally finished player, ... the young German...

(bolding added) – that's of course not the only reliable source calling Bach a German. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It is true that a sense of "Germanness" existed in Central Europe from the Middle Ages onwards, but "German" in this sense does not have anything to do with being German in our modern sense. At that time, the Swiss and the Dutch called themselves teutsch/duytsch, too, so according to this logic, all Swiss people and Dutchmen would have to be called "Germans" in their respective articles. Wikipedia shouldn't use such ambiguous categories nobody can define. Germans in the modern sense of the word and as a clearly defined group of people have existed since 1871. This entire "German" problem concerns all articles about so-called "Germans" who had lived before that year, not just Bach of course. Wikipedia should really reconsider its policy concerning this "national stuff". -- Orthographicus (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yet everyone calls Bach "German". Likewise Martin Luther, who's two centuries older still. Unless you can find some reliable sources that state otherwise, this is WP:FRINGE. Rwessel (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
German not in the sense of nationality, of course. He spoke German. Like Verdi Italian, although where he was born was French at the time of his birth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Re. "but (whatever) in this sense does not have anything to do with being (whatever) in our modern sense" – indeed, beware us of WP:PRESENTISM. Afaik in Bach's time one of the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor was "King in Germany", which was probably an anachronism, the Kingdom of Germany having evaporated in the Holy Roman Empire. But sufficient for people in Bach's time to know they were "German" (apart from speaking the language).
Afaik the borders of the duchies and electorates (and other types of subdivisions of the Holy Roman Empire) changed often, and the places Bach lived were certainly not always "Saxony", as Gerda already pointed out. I'm not completely certain about Lüneburg, where Bach lived for some time, but seems to have been outside the Duchy/Electorate of Saxony when he lived there, etc.
Re. "nationality", of course not, afaik "nationality" is a 19th century invention. Passports didn't exist. If you moved somewhere you lived exclusively by the rules that were applicable in that region without an embassy or consulate handing out rights connected with your previous country.
Re. "Wikipedia shouldn't use ... ambiguous categories nobody can define" – again, Wikipedia uses the categories as apparent from reliable sources, not those resulting from the WP:OR of Wikipedians wielding righteousness of sorts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is such a problem, why just Bach? Why not the thousands upon thousands of other historical figures on WP with the same "problem"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it actually does concern all of them, Melodia. And to Francis Schonken: then, why are Joseph Haydn and Desiderius Erasmus, f.ex., not called "German" in their respective article although they lived in the "Kingdom of Germany" and called themselves "German" during their lifetime. It doesn't make sense to turn an 18th-century Saxon into a German while excluding an 18th-century Austrian or a 16th-century Dutchman who referred to himself as a German (although he also called himself a Frenchman and, cosmopolite that he was, didn't pay much value to questions of "nationality" in general). The entire "nationality policy" of Wikipedia doesn't make much sense to be honest. Bach was as "German" as Erasmus and Haydn. It would be much better to omit this ominous category "German" for those who weren't citizens of the German nation state founded in 1871 altogether. -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, on Wikipedia we must follow what reliable sources say, and they call Bach a German. Saying Germanness is incorrect because it only applies to Bach, not to Erasmus or Haydn, is original research and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Anyway, Bach is German under either definition, the wider one (including the Netherlands, part of Belgium, and Austria) or the narrower (including only the area of modern Germany). But this isn't a place for arguing over whether Germanness is a rigorous concept; the appropriate place would be on the talk page of the Germans article. Please go there. — Eru·tuon 17:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Haydn, seriously? The Austrian composer? —Wahoofive (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't this a subject of discussion recently (bey which I mean since at leat 2011) on the Mozart talk page? For example, [[2]]? Surely reading through some of the reams of deathless prose in those discussions might forestall endless repetition here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I see and recognize that this obviously isn't the forum to discuss this, and that, for the time being, Bach remains a "German". But I have to reply to Wahoofive nonetheless, saying: Bach, seriously? The Saxon composer? Bach and Haydn were equally "German". -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, yes, in the sense of nationality although obviously not citizenship... but the clearer way to express it is "ethnicity", you're right. — LlywelynII 11:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
How can he have been a German although Germany was only founded 121 years after his death? We might call him Saxon, but not German. And don't mention ethnicity because how would a dubious "German" ethnic group be defined?
The same as any other ethnic group: by accepted self-identification or by recognition of a person's participation in a cultural or language group. As you're very well aware, Germany has been a nation of people long before it was politically unified and "nation" is a 12th-century concept, not a 19th-century one. I'm sorry you've miseducated yourself but, while you're welcome to carry on a crusade for your preferred usages for terms and categories elsewhere, this is WP:NOTAFORUM for WP:FRINGE restrictions on people's WP:COMMONly-accepted ENGLISH ethnicities. — LlywelynII 11:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It is astonishing how all of you succeed in not answering the fundamental question. You mention, Llywelyn, self-definition. But this self-definition also includes people Wikipedia does not call German, like Erasmus or Haydn. And I say: either or. Either we use the modern definition of nationality according to which Bach was not German, or we call everyone according to their self-definition which would turn Erasmus and Haydn into Germans. But the current policy doesn't make any sense at all. -- Orthographicus (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we just follow the sources. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It's clear to me that many commentators here are failing to distinguish between ethnicity and nationality. German ethnicity has existed for far longer than the nationality. Ethnicity is a cultural concept, nationality is a legal status. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Couperin

This article doesn't mention François Couperin once, yet it should, because he was a significant influence on Sebastian Bach. I haven't read much scholarly work on their relationship, but my impression from playing Bach's keyboard works is that Bach was impressed by Couperin's demonstration of the expressive capabilities of the harpsichord and therefore tried his hand at writing pieces that did the same thing. It's worth explaining this in the article, if scholars have written about it. — Eru·tuon 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not so long ago I tried to find more on this too in reliable sources, but wasn't too successful. What I remembered having heard is that Bach gave Couperin's L'art de toucher le clavecin to his sons as study material. That fact I couldn't find corroborated directly. Here are some facts that aren't too difficult to get confirmed reliable-source-wise:
  • BWV Anh. 183 is a piece by Couperin that ended up as No. 6 in Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach#The 1725 notebook. So Bach knew Couperin, sure, at last from the 1720s.
  • Bach's son Carl Philipp Emanuel wrote a keyboard method that is constantly compared with Couperin's L'art de toucher..., for instance the use of the thumb (turning the thumb under the other fingers when playing a scale); that use of the thumb would've been something J. S. Bach practiced, learnt his sons, and is something occurring marginally in Couperin's method (as one of the earliest instances ever of using the thumb when playing a keyboard).
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that Couperin should be mentioned as an influence and commend the original poster. A referenced mention would be an improvement, indeed. Jusdafax 14:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    Some refs:
    • Couperin in Forkel:
      • [3] – Forkel doesn't like Couperin (of course not, an agenda of his Bach-biography was illustrating German superiority)
      • [4]–[5] – The fingering issue, again Forkel goes through some length to "prove" Bach preceded Couperin on the thumb practice
    • Couperin in Spitta:
      • [6] – Bach already coming into contact with music by the French composers, including Couperin, in the Lüneburg period (which ended 1703)
      • [7] – Discussion of Capriccio on the departure of a beloved brother (one of Bach's earliest compositions): Spitta writes several pages on how the composition "derives" from Kuhnau – Couperin mentioned once, tangentially
      • [8] – Tangential mentioning of Couperin (in connection to Buxtehude), seemingly most of all intended to add a sneer to "Frenchmen" (read: no love lost between this German author and French music)
      • [9] – Louis Marchand (chickening out of a competition with Bach) not inferior to Couperin
      • [10] – fingering/piano method issue
      • [11] – Spitta sneering at Kuhnau, Couperin, Marchand, and (about a century preemptively) at Historically informed performance
      • [12] – more sneers at Couperin, the guy didn't really know how to compose a suite...
      • [13] – ...nor a passacaglio
      • [14] – about the liberty of naming movements in a suite "à la Couperin" (Spitta's italics)
    • Couperin in Eidam
      • Ch. I: Bach copying Couperin's music in Lüneburg; Eidam sees this as an illustration that Bach was interested in music in general (i.e. not exclusively in church music)
      • Ch. III: Eidam contradicts Spitta that the Capriccio on the departure of a beloved brother would be derived rather from Kuhnau than from Couperin.
      • Ch. IV: Couperin mentioned tangentially (French lute music didn't influence Bach's organ compositions, nor those by French organ composers such as ..., Couperin, ...)
      • Ch. XXVI: tangentially Couperin is mentioned among other composers of Bach's generation and earlier who weren't committed to contrapuntal music (Eidam opposes the idea that galant music was the first music style that didn't care about counterpoint)
      • Ch. XXX: (tangential) Bach's music not more typical for the baroque style than ..., Couperin, ...
    Reading all that I get the impression that the reason Couperin is not mentioned more often in connection to Bach is primarily that in the first century of Bach biographies the German biographers didn't like the French composers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the overview of what these three biographers say. I wonder if all these references to Couperin are referring to François, rather than his uncle Louis; the fact that Eidam refers to Couperin as an organ composer suggests to me he's talking about Louis, since François composed more for the harpsichord, but I could be wrong because I'm not very familiar with their music.
I wonder if Christoph Wolff and John Eliot Gardiner discuss François Couperin's influence in their Bach biographies. I briefly got their books out from the library, and vaguely recall his name. However, I don't think I have the energy to try to read their books again at the moment. — Eru·tuon 18:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops: François served as organist at two positions, so of course Eidam could be talking about him. As you can see, I haven't read very much about him and his life. A good reason not to presume to write about him in this article. — Eru·tuon 20:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
(e.c.) Hogwood does!
Re. Eidam: according to the index these are all about "Couperin, François". Note (1) François composed for the organ too; (2) organ and harpsichord weren't too far apart in those days (see e.g. also a short treatise by Rameau mentioned in the Hogwood link, Rameau mentions both harpsichord and organ in the title of this essay on playing technique) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Schulenberg seems to mention Couperin (both François and Louis) a few times. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI: this is when Elvis Couperin left the building ... replaced by a piece of bloat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Caption to image of bible page

This currently says "reads...", which is plainly wrong, since it is written in German. The original text should be included (particularly since German handwriting is very hard to read for many of us), with a translation. The current translation does not seem very good: "Conscientious" is rather odd, and should surely be something like "devotional". The original text is given as follows, but I am not sure quite what the = means, so I look for help before trying to edit myself.

N[ota] B[ene] Bey einer andächtigen Musiq ist allezeit Gott mit seiner Gnaden= Gegenwart

Imaginatorium (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Re. "=" – I suppose it is a typo from the one making the transcript. The "=" sign is sometimes used as a splitting device (as in Gesang=Buch here), but I can't find it in Bach's handwriting on the image, nor would it make much sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's the version at wikiquote:Johann Sebastian Bach#Quotes (somewhat modernized version of the German I suppose, anyway no "="):

Bei einer andächtigen Musik ist allezeit Gott mit seiner Gnaden Gegenwart

Was however a bit surprised to see "andächtig" translated as "devotional" there, don't know whether that covers the ground better than "conscientious", how it is now translated on the bio page. . --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it is much the best to quote what is written, old spelling and all, then gloss it appropriately. I really do not understand what "conscientious" would mean here; I do not think a piece of music can be conscientious. (A person can be "conscientious", but it basically just means "doing your job properly".) I just looked up "andächtig" at wiktionary, where both suggestions given have religious overtones. So what does andächtig actually mean? I don't know... Imaginatorium (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought a little about this question when it was posted. Probably a better translation of andächtig would be "devout" or "pious". However, Bach was probably using the term in an idiosyncratic way, defined by his own thoughts about music and the purpose for which he created it, that it was somehow motivated by his religious belief. It is probably not synonymous with "sacred"; I'm reminded of something András Schiff said in a video about the French Suites: that they are not the music of an atheist (even though they're not sacred music), but somehow reflect that Bach believed in God. Schiff's words sound like a sort of bare outline of what Bach might have meant by andächtig. — Eru·tuon 03:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyway I got confused by (in Dutch) aandachtig (en: attentive) which seems to be a false friend of (in German) andächtig (en: devotional).
Maybe this would work: "In a music of worship God is always present with his grace" (seems to be aligned with the bible passage were Bach added his remark too)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is that f.....g infobox still there? Tony (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to be divided and still at least a little ongoing (my own chiming in was pretty recent).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox revert

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was consensus for the infobox, and it looks like it was added, boxing this up because its listed at WP:ANRFC. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox person
| name          = Johann Sebastian Bach
| image         = Johann Sebastian Bach.jpg
| image_size    =
| caption       = Portrait of Bach, aged 61, by [[Elias Gottlob Haussmann|E.G. Haussmann]], 1748
| alt           = 
| birth_date    = 21 March 1685 [[Old Style and New Style dates|(O.S.)]]
| birth_place   = [[Eisenach]], [[duchy of Saxe-Eisenach]]
| birth_name    = 
| death_date    =  {{death date and age|1750|7|28|1685|3|31|df=y}} <!-- 31 March, new style date -->	
| death_place   = [[Leipzig]], Holy Roman Empire
| works = [[List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach|List of compositions]]
| signature     = Johann Sebastian Bach signature.svg
| signature_size     = 300px
}}

An editor seemingly unaware of infobox disagreements made this suggestion, which was promptly reverted. Last time we discussed was 2013, and a different box. This one follows examples Handel and Beethoven, and I support having it. We can still discuss parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Here's what I've been up to lately: sorting through media (images and audio) to capture the best ones for this article. This led me to some category sorting at commons, and while doing all this I realised that for a famous composer we should have some signature pieces in the lead, which for me is a much more stimulating idea than boring infobox discussions. Now there is a special format for the {{listen}} template to include it in an infobox, but the layout of that one isn't equal in all browsers, so I'm not sure we should use it, or rather should have a normal "Listen" template below the lead image.
Apart from the layout issue it's about the choice of the pieces that are most emblematic for the composer. For me that would be, for example, the air from the third suite (preferably not the "on the G string" version), the toccata BWV 565, and "O Haupt ..." (St. Matthew Passion version). Then I got side-tracked by BWV 565 for its possibly-not-by-Bach status, and am currently in the process of overhauling that article (whether or not I'd propose BWV 565 as audio example here is still very much in the balance, suppose I'll be only clear on that once the overhaul of the article on the composition is completed & acceptable).
Well, that was my part of discussing "parameters" before deciding to include an infobox or keep it with a lead image as it is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Key pieces will probably be different for every reader, while a prominent neutral link to the compositions is less obvious in the lead, nor are the life data (formerly persondata) together in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Re. "will probably be different for every reader", true, but that's not the point. It's about the one that would be generally the most recognisable (auditively). Which Bach composition is 14 times (!) on one record? BWV 565 – don't know anything that comes near by comparison. Which is Bach's best picture is the same: "will probably be different for every reader", but we end up making a choice and put it in the lead. Which is the most recognisable article title? may be different depending on reader, but if we don't agree we conduct a WP:RM or whatever and in the end we make a choice.
Images, like audio files, also depend on resolution/quality of the available files, sometimes disappointing for the copyright-free ones, so true: a lot of factors need to be taken into account, that's why I had preferred not to speak about this until I was sure I could propose a coherent choice regarding this composer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Picture: easy, we have only two on the commons, one is debated. Therefore all cantata infoboxes (example) do not have an image of Bach, who when he looked like pictured here composed [only] the Mass in B minor and the Art of Fugue, - he was around 25 years younger at his peak of productivity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Really, why is it always so difficult to have a simple reasonable conversation with you? I spoke about lead images (on composer pages or whatever) in general. For Chopin it wasn't all that easy. We came to a solution. that's all I wanted to illustrate as a comparison with audio files: for audio files it isn't always easy either I suppose. We can come to a conclusion there too, that's what I'm sure of and wanted to illustrate. End of example. End of comparison. I give examples to explain something, please don't run of on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I tried to explain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Given the vast number of people with whom Gerda has perfectly simple and reasonable conversations, that's an unwarranted personal attack. As to why you seem unable to have a simple reasonable conversation with Gerda; that's left as an exercise for the reader. As for "running off at tangent"... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose infobox, specifically the somewhat farfetched (i.e. correct but farfetched) "Holy Roman Empire" references; the signature that became too small; the caption of the image which I like better the way it is currently under the lead image (including the links in that caption, which indeed would be rather confusing in the infobox). For these reasons I'd like to keep the lead image as it is now, and not the infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Besides, the OP of the infobox had blundered on Bach's death date (I corrected it), which shows what kind of a liability these boxes are, if even the proposors of them can't get the facts right? It's just a lot of work to keep checking infoboxes' content in addition to getting the article and its intro right. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
HRE can be replaced (see above). A date is no more likely to be incorrect in an infobox than in prose; in fact your "fix" made things worse. The signature can be any size we want (see above). Captions in infoboxes may also have links. Your remaining objection appears to be "IDONTLIKEIT". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the current:
Thoroughly unsatisfactory, that should probably rather be:
or, with this capitalisation:
or, without redirects:
or,
(but that's again far-fetched, Thuringia wasn't a state at the time, just an indication of a region), or, more recognisable (if region without being exactly a state at the time is OK):
But wait, hadn't we decided to call him "German" following the sources instead of "Saxonian", per the discussion above?
Or, to end the confusion:
(states/regions maybe not so relevant for the infobox, there's little "music" in it, and for me Bach is about the music.) As for his title at death: "Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian court composer" (see Bach's Nekrolog, caption of lead image), the "Royal-Polish" may have been as important to Bach as the "Prince-Electoral Saxonian", but infoboxes are not suitable for such nuances I suppose – so I'd keep it with the last solution I proposed above, i.e.: avoid naming states/regions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "German" in this context is just an ethnonym; where he lived was not a political entity called "Germany" at that time. We can call him "German" but saying he was born and died in "Germany" is historically incorrect. Using "(birth) Eisenach" and "(death) Leipzig" is probably sufficient. If not, "(birth) Eisenach, Saxony" and "(death) Leipzig, Saxony" should be enough. While "(birth) Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach" and "(death) Leipzig, Saxony" could theoretically be used, there seems to be no point ("Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach" is redundant, and there seems no benefit to giving "Electorate of Saxony" vs. just "Saxony". Adding in the "Dutchy of" and "Electorate of" stuff is unnecessary verbiage in an infobox. "Thuringia" would be unhelpful, like writing "Seattle, Pacific Northwest".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support infobox in general, the simple design up there as of right now (see timestamp) looks good to me, the simple link to "list of compositions" seems to be a good way to address the concern about bloat. Let's all keep the discussion on track about this infobox for this article and not bring the past or personalities into it. WP:AFG, WP:NPA. Montanabw(talk) 14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Montanabwl, whom I agree with in every respect. Jusdafax 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I was very opposed to the bloated and highly problematic box proposed 2 years ago, but this simple unbloated version is fine and an asset to the article. For one thing, the lead sentence doesn't even mention his place of birth or death—standard encyclopedic information. That could be remedied, although given the MOS injunction about adding places of birth and death after the dates, the phrasing would end up rather convoluted. However, even if they were added somewhere in the lede, it is convenient to the reader to have it summarised clearly and simply in the box. I'd even go so far to say add the Known for parameter filled with "Composer and musician". Believe it or not, a lot of people don't know who he was or have only a vague idea. I'd be very against using Occupation for that, though. It's horribly anachronistic and unencyclopedic to apply it to people of that era. Voceditenore (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason my 13:55 comment, above, appears odd, and wrongly formatted, is that Francis Schonken insists on inserting his comments out-of-sequence, and has moved one of his, to which mine was a reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I support the simple infobox. Of the place-name options listed by Francis Schonken above, I support listing the states to which Eisenach and Leipzig belonged when Bach was born and died. This is the practice used in the infoboxes for some other famous personalities (René Descartes, Martin Luther, Desiderius Erasmus), and it's less likely to cause controversy than saying Germany, given the previous discussion on this page. — Eru·tuon 00:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a simple infobox. I also agree with Voceditenore above, that this should include a "Known for" line, though I'm not honestly sure how to complete it (perhaps "musician" rather than "composer"). Imaginatorium (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Both; a |known_for= (or, for modern figures, |occupation=) can contain more than one item: |known_for=[[Composer]], [[musician]] (or maybe something more specific). A problem that needs to be resolve is that this isn't the purpose the {{Infobox person|known_for}} parameter was intended, and it's wording doesn't grammatically work well this way. We probably need to add a |notable_as= parameter, and use that in {{Infobox composer}}, instead, since "Known for: Composer" borders on gibberish. I'll go and propose |notable_as= right now at Template talk:Infobox person.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Francis Schonken, but a short infobox, if it can be kept that way, is better than a long one. I see the discussions as to "states" have already begun. Given the section above, who can doubt that the "nationality" question will be far behind? Johnbod (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I personally have never understood what manner of encyclopedic value or context is added by placing the signature so prominently in the infobox (or for that matter, in the article at all), but otherwise the infobox in question seems to present only basic and salient details. I personally wouldn't be opposed a version with up to twice as many parameters, provided they were all relevant details. But as an expedient to avoiding the grueling debates that always arise in composer-related articles with regard to infoboxes because of the polarized opinion, this simplified version will do in a pinch, given the broad support. Snow let's rap 03:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose—I've never liked them. Tony (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a typical biographical infobox, including the list of major works since people seem to want that included. Also agree with Voceditenore's objection to "occupation" as anachronistic, and with Francis Schonken's objection to "Holy Roman Empire" as silly (akin to using "Delhi, British Empire" for someone born there in the early 20th century). I agree with critics that huge autographs in infoboxes are pointless, but doing away with them is a matter for discussion at the bio infobox template's talk page (and I think that would be a lively discussion, because we appear to have nowhere else to put them except as stand-alone images in the article, which I think many would object to). The fact of the matter is that mobile users generally depend heavily on infoboxes to give them a concise précis, whether all of us like the way they appear or not (largely a matter of CSS; propose changes at WT:INFOBOX). At some point the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against infoboxes that WP:CLASSICAL has been advancing for so long (I seem to recall ArbCom ruling that one wikiproject can't push this unilaterally, since any topic is within the scope of multiple projects, e.g. geographical as well as topical ones) has to give way to the practical needs of users, since this is an encyclopedia written for its readers, after all, not for its camps of editors. The overall, WP-wide consensus appears to be that biographical articles above the stub stage should have infoboxes, and most of them do in fact have infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. The infobox is already in the article, I removed it now here, to not count it twice in inclusion counts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Successors counterproductive?

Until a few days ago the article, Reception, 18th Cent., 3d para., said "Bach's successors in Leipzig were rather counterproductive in preserving his legacy." I seem to have found that at least one successor as Cantor, Doles, was productive in the sense of introducing motets to Mozart and performing Passions in 1780. What more can be said about successor Cantors? Marlindale (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we'd better go back to the "...rather counterproductive...". The first few successors were no fan of Bach's music, there's no secret there. Performing a piece of Bach's music when asked, or every now and then performing less than one percent of Bach's output of church music isn't really actively participating in the dissemination of that music. At least, that's what Bach's biographers say, as a general consideration, leaving apart a few exceptions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The correct wording is significant here, in that Bach's successors as well as his family were not effective (ineffective) in promoting his legacy and preserving it. 'Counterproductive' may to the incorrect form of expression to indicate their lack of effectiveness. I am returning the 1829 Mendelssohn date to the lead section because this is already covered in the body of the article as centrally important. Other than occasional "incidents" of his music being performed sporadically after his death, Bach's limited impact was measured for the 79 years up to Mendelssohn by the usefulness of his well-tempered clavier book which at least sustained his reputation, partially, as a keyboard virtuoso. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
1829: nah, it was important but recent scholarship is quite in agreement it was something in a movement that had already started (see amount of publications of Bach music between 1800 and 1829) and was not defined exclusively by the 1829 performance of the St Matthew Passion (e.g. in the 19th-century UK the Revival of music of the first half of the 18th century was not really seen from that perspective). In 1829 the movement gained momentum, and Mendelssohn's efforts were instrumental to that, but that was far from the only thing happening, nor were all further developments of the Revival dependent from that momentum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That is not quite the case, not nearly. The recovery of the Matthew Passion was only because a member of Mendelssohn's family purchased it (salvaged it) from a butcher shop that was using it as wrapping paper. This is well-documented, however, your statement is undocumented here and contradicted by various sources. Your comment appears to refer to Haydn's very sparing UK influence for Bach which you do not document when you state: "(e.g. in the 19th-century UK the Revival of music of the first half of the 18th century was not really seen from that perspective)." Your material is Undocumented and anecdotal. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I put most of the references covering all that in the article (see references – most of it is available on-line), e.g. the UK Revival perspective in the McKay article.
Until this morning the Well-Tempered Clavier article had no reception history section. Details about the reception history of that composition should go in that article (I created a section for it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk pages give a chance for discussion, hoping for consensus or at least a majority opinion. It seems to me that one out of three opinions is not enough. The opinions of others beyond the three of us could be helpful. Marlindale (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Electronic keyboard?

I'm shocked to find a rather nasty-sounding electronic rendition of BWV 903. It was written for harpsichord, right? Why would we present such taudry insults to the memory of Bach when readers can go to YouTube for excellent and free recordings on the right instruments? Tony (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems IMSLP (scores:Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue, BWV 903 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)) has a harpsichord version eligible for transfer to commons. I created a category for the work at commons:Category:BWV 903 – Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue. Anyone interested in uploading a harpsichord (or other contemporary-instrument version) to commons? I'd be happy to use that one instead in the composer article.
As to the ground of the matter:
  1. De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum. If for Tony the current recording is nasty-sounding, I can't argue with that, even if for me all-in-all not too bad for a recording without copyright impediments.
  2. Re. "It was written for harpsichord" – probably, and...? Don't know what this innuendo is supposed to mean. Not as if Bach didn't perform music written for one instrument on another. Not as if performances of Bach's music on instruments he didn't write it for are "taudry insults" (well, in that case he insulted himself quite a lot). And the insults he produced for composers like Vivaldi, Pergolesi and Marcello are near uncountable. What I see is one composer (in this case Kevin MacLeod) producing and performing a version of a work by another composer... what an insult! Macleod is in good company with such insults, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Webern, Gould (with his nasty-sounding humming), probably near to half of the classical composer's Elysium produced similar "taudry insults" to Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tony that the current recording isn't that great, but mainly because of how well it's played, not the instrument. (By electronic, do you mean played on an electric keyboard, or computer-generated somehow? Honest question, because I thought it was just MacLeod playing an organ. Maybe that was a lazy assumption.) Personally, I think the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue was written for the clavichord, to which it seems best suited, but almost any recording would be better than the current one on organ. I like the harpsichord and piano recordings by Stefano Ligoratti that Francis Schonken linked to. If Tony would like to use the harpsichord one so as not to spit on the memory of Bach by using a piano version, that would be fine with me. — Eru·tuon 09:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Four-part harmony

Bach would be aghast to read that section.

And ... I can't see the justification for including an image of "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden", the four-part chorale setting. It is special, but the edition is pretty horrid visually, and chorale harmonisations are not something I'd use to show off his compositional genius. Tony (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Berlin, early 1800s (or late 1700s)

Applegate p.14 confirms that Sara Itzig Levy took harpsichord lessons from WFB who she says spent a decade in Berlin. The WP article on WF doesn't seem to have that about a decade. Neither does Wolff 2013. CPE may also have been in Berlin. Marlindale (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Applegate p. 14 also says "Sara Levy became the leading collector in central Europe of music of the early 18th century, especially of members of the Bach family." Besides paying WF for harpsichord lessons she might have paid him for mss. Applegate further says Sara L. was a "patron" of CPE (who also had mss) Marlindale (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

When you're interested in Sara Levy, see also:
(currently footnote 124 in the article; as a ref it can be called with <ref name="Wolff2005" />)
Here is a list of manuscripts of Bach works she is known to have owned: [15] --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Early public performances at or by the Singakademie

The Singakademie, founded in 1791, got its name according to Applegate when in 1793 it was given the performance space of the (Prussian) Royal Academy of Arts. In its early years it "never gave public performances." But the article mentions, citing a Wolff article, that Sara Levy performed publicly the solo part of a JSB keyboard concerto. In what year was that? Maybe thiis was at the Royal Academy but one could say it was not a performance by the Singakademie if there was no singing? Marlindale (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Sara Levy was playing BWV 1052 (Keyboard concerto No. 1) with the Sing-Akademie in the first decade of the 19th century. It is already mentioned in the article (referenced to the Wolff piece on Levy I mentioned above), in Johann Sebastian Bach#19th century, end of the first paragraph of that section. Also Wolff doesn't give an exact date for that performance but says "almost thirty years" before Mendelssohn's premiere of that concerto (1835), so it must have been second half of the first decade of the 19th century. Please, if I give a suggestion to read something, check it. It may have just the answers you're looking for. Maybe also check what's already in the article. Adding stuff that's already there doesn't make much sense either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you think the Singakademie had its own orchestra? I don't get that impression from Applegate during the early times around 1800. If it didn't, how could it join an orchestral performance? Might Wolff have been mistaken about a performance that was just in the Royal Academy of Arts hall? Marlindale (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the Singakademie must have had an orchestra. A perhaps idle question is, what may have been the fractions of the orchestra that were male and female? Applegate's claim that the chorus was (mainly) female might also have allowed some male solo voices? Marlindale (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding too much detail

I'd like editors to avoid giving the impression there's more to say about Bach-reception in the first 79 years after his death, than in the 79 years that followed. Bach reception between 1750 and 1729 wasn't all that big in that period, so we don't need to mention every single thing that happened in that respect (if we'd do that for the other years after his death we'd soon have an unmanageable article). Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I had put in a mention that Zelter on becoming head of the Sing-Akademie in 1800 began to rehearse JSB motets, although not to perform them publicly. It was reverted. I don't see how that's excess detail. It's a part of the JSB legacy in Berlin. Zelter I believe is considered important in the Revival, sometimes mentioned as second only to Felix Mendelssohn. Very early 1800's was before that keyboard concerto performance.which apparently was in 1805-1810.Marlindale (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Felix Mendelssohn article calls the Sing-Akademie's orchestra "Zelter's orchestra". Zelter was an important teacher of Felix and Fanny when they were young. The Mendelssohn article says that the 1829 St. Matthew Passion performance was done "with the backing of Zelter", not surprisingly since he was head of the Sing-Akad. I don't mean to import any of this into the JSB article but just to get the motet rehearsals mentioned. Marlindale (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing: I'm now not proposing anything specific until I read (Applegate; etc.?) some more. It seems that it was Felix Mendelssohn's idea to put on the St. Matthew Passion. He persuaded a small group including singer Eduard Devrient to start rehearsing it. At some point Mendelssohn and Devrient went to Zelter with their idea. Of the three it seems Devrient was most enthusiastic, or so he wrote. Zelter let himself be persuaded.Marlindale (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was maybe a bit rash in removing. I think it would be useful to discuss here. And keep some perspective. Pölchau was removed, I think Pölchau should be brought back. Wasn't he a member of the Sing-Akademie too? Wasn't the Sing-Akademie involved with Bach's music before Zelter? Wasn't the period they didn't give (much) concerts rather 18th than 19th century? I'd like to keep the account on Bach's reception as chronological as possible (i.e. 18th century developments in the 18th century section etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC still open on the Bach Legacy section and the form of the edit to best address this. Please follow the RfC policies and guidelines and wait for the RfC close prior to making related edits. This section may be moved for discussion to the RfC which is still open. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Impasse?

For some time there have been three users making most edits, User:Francis Schonken, User:Fountains-of-Paris, and myself. Lately User:Fountains-of-Paris, giving as grounds the RfC whose end date should have long passed, has reverted several substantial edits by the other two of us. If we were looking for consensus, how can it make sense for one to outvote two? Marlindale (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You may move this discussion to the section in the RfC dealing with Bach's two composer sons to show good faith. I think that could provide a way to move forward. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

I posted a notice there on the issue whether the RfC has ended. Marlindale (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive_12&oldid=1136847214"