Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Corrections in "Legacy" section

The section on JSB's legacy is somewhat disorganized and seems to collect a lot of random facts. But that's a minor issue that deserves attention later. A more pressing problem is the number of factual errors and misleading assertions. For example:

"After his death, Bach's reputation as a composer declined; his work was regarded as old-fashioned in favour of the emerging classical style."

Lots of musicologists have made that argument over the years. It's not really true that he was "old-fashioned" in his lifetime, as the cited reference says (although he did compose in some genres and styles that had fallen out of fashion, this isn't true of all or even the majority of his works). One could also argue about influence of early "classical style" (whatever that means) on some of his works (e.g., Vivaldi). Even more important, this argument is not usually made anymore among many historians (since this was basically true of all composers before the 19th century), so it seems pretty bad to have to cite a book on BEETHOVEN not even written by a music scholar to make a claim this out of date.

"Initially he was remembered more as a player, teacher and as the father of his children, most notably Johann Christian and Carl Philipp Emanuel...."

This is perhaps misleading, since most composers of that era were "remembered" as performers, teachers, and fathers, since almost ALL compositions were forgotten after a generation or so. It would have actually been much more remarkable if his music had continued to be performed. (And actually it was, in a way, even outside of keyboard works and continued occasional performances in Leipzig... e.g., CPEB and other composers sometimes took whole sections of JSB's work and reworked them in their music; witness the many versions of CPEB's passions that incorporated (sometimes unaltered) material from his father's passions, half a century before the "revival" of St. Matthew by Mendelssohn.) It's true that JSB's immediate legacy was the high quality of his students (including his sons) who went on to have successful careers at many of the most important courts around the Germanic world and beyond in the next generation... and a LOT of them wrote treatises based on JSB's teaching methods for the emerging class of amateur musicians.

"During this time, his most widely known works were those for keyboard. Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin were among his most prominent admirers. On a visit to the Thomasschule, for example, Mozart heard a performance of one of the motets (BWV 225)..."

So many contradictions. According to the last paragraph, Bach was basically unknown as a composer, but here we learn that Bach was apparent admired by arguably some of the most successful composers of the next couple generations. Which one is it? Bach's most widely-known works were for keyboard. True, because those were among the few that were published, whereas the others could only circulate among his students privately. Unlike some other composers, most of JSB's works were unpublished, so is it any wonder that it was difficult for people to learn of his compositions without being able to acquire them? But then we hear that Mozart heard a motet... so why do we have an example of a vocal piece here when the paragraph starts with saying the keyboard works were widely known? And why was the vocal work performed if his work had been forgotten?

Hint -- this is indicative of a wider problem in the typical historical narrative of JSB's legacy. The reality was that JSB's reputation was not revived at one sudden moment with Mendelssohn and the St. Matthew. His many students, and then their students, had been working for years to keep his methods of teaching and even some of his works alive. People who studied with Bach's students collected his music and then encouraged more students to study it -- witness the chain where Sarah Levy (a major JSB collector in late 18th century Berlin) studied with and admired CPEB and WFB, convinced Zelter -- another JSB fan -- to teach her great-nephew Mendelssohn, etc. The reality is that JSB was never forgotten among musicians, particularly in Leipzig and Berlin (where clusters of JSB students worked and actively conspired to preserve JSB's legacy in the second half of the 18th century). If the argument is that JSB's music wasn't known as well to the general public because it wasn't regularly performed, well we had better start putting that statement in just about every composer's bio who died before about 1800. Posthumous "reputation" of a composer in the 18th century meant something very different from what it meant later, and as far as that goes compared to most of his contemporaries, JSB's reputation arguably INCREASED cumulatively rather than decreased after his death.

"The revival of the composer's reputation among the wider public was prompted in part by Johann Nikolaus Forkel's 1802 biography, which was read by Beethoven. 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..."

This is true, although I don't know what why we care about Beethoven here. Again, note that all of this preceded the revival by Mendelssohn in 1829. That latter event isn't put in such a prominent place in this article, but it is in other articles (e.g., Mendelssohn). Of course the fact that Mendelssohn and Schumann got on the JSB bandwagon in the 1830s meant that it became a driving force to rediscover old music and essentially founded the idea of historical musicology, but that's perhaps the larger point of that "revival." JSB's generation was the first that saw just a few composers have their works continue to be performed well after their death (e.g., Handel and Corelli, and they were very unusual exceptions; witness, for example, the complete disappearance of Vivaldi from history until the 1930s), so the trajectory of JSB's reputation after death was not at all unusual, and interest in him was actually quite extraordinary compared to most older music at the time. It was only in the 19th century that it could be expected for works to outlive their composers significantly, except in truly exceptional cases (and then usually more for pedagogical reasons than for actual performance).

Dozens of interesting documents about the reality of Bach's legacy have been circulating around for years. Check out "The New Bach Reader" for a good introduction to Bach's actual legacy with the original documents.

"Although Bach fathered 20 children, only 10 survived infancy. He has no known descendants living today. His great-granddaughter—Frau Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine Ritter, who died 13 May 1871—was his last known descendant."

Really? A citation from an article published in 1930? It's true that the JSB line was thought to be extinct for a while, but new descendants have been known since they introduced themselves to a Bach scholar in 1979, and information about the descendants through WFB to a family who mostly lives in Oklahoma, USA, has been available in published form for more than a few years now. See "Bach Perspectives" (2002).

I could go on. This is just the tip of the iceberg and just one section of the article. There are other sprinklings of inaccuracies throughout the article, but this section is misleading and sometimes wrong. (And yes, Tony, before you get on my case about not editing this myself, just be aware that you're one of the main reasons I don't edit Wikipedia anymore, along with some other obnoxious editors. But I can't stand incorrect nonsense about JSB, so here's some help...) 65.96.161.79 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New journal discovered

{{editsemiprotected}}

A new journal that belonged to Johann Christoph, Johann Sebastian's older brother, was recently discovered in Ohrdruf. One entry states that "[Bach] was always witty and good-humored, and frequently noted that his music career only started from his high soprano voice."

I would like to post this on the Wikipedia page but cannot since it is semi-protected. Thank you!

An interesting bit of information, but you should provide a reference, i.e. the article or the book you've found it in. Google, Google News, and Google Scholar returned no relevant results no matter how I searched. --Jashiin (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jashiin: I did the same search and came up empty. Please provide reliable sources; we need to do that for any information added. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the IP's contributions. It's been making a lot of unsourced nonsense to composer pages, so I'd just as soon dismiss this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I can't believe I was so gullible. I guess the exciting prospect of a discovery of Johann Christian's journal kind of went to my head. Good job catching this vandal, Melodia! --Jashiin (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

edit date

born 21 March sources: multiple in public domain 71.230.175.228 (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC) P. Kates pk@Liebesfreud.org

You might find Old Style and New Style dates to be helpful. Look at the chart for correction of Julian to Gregorian dates in this subsection; they were 10 days apart between 1500 and 1700 (e.g. 21 March to 31 March). Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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

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)

References

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)

References

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)

References

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Composers Project Assessment of Johann Sebastian Bach: 2009-01-03 This is an assessment of article Johann Sebastian Bach by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. Origins/family background/studies Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? good Early career Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? good Mature career; Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? good List(s) of works Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. good Critical appreciation Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? good Illustrations and sound clips Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) good References, sources and bibliography Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article is well-referenced; some inline citations. Some quotations are uncited. Structure and compliance with WP MOS Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) good Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Summary This is a fine, generally well-written article. The man's life and works are covered in detail. The style and reception of his music are fairly well covered; I note a lack of explicit mention of his music's popularity during his lifetime; it is clear that he was highly thought-of by any number of influential people, but comments on popular reception appear to be lacking. There are a few misplaced paragraphs: the section on "Death" mentions things that have little to do with his death. The article, while redirecting to the composition list for media, could include some media (perhaps in sideboxes, rather than in a separate media section, to avoid the tendency of the list to just grow). I note that the article does not have a large number (relative to its length, anyway) of inline citations; I also note the talk page discussions on GA review surrounding this. There are some things left that MOS requires citation for -- I found at least one uncited quotation. I also note discussion about POV and PEACOCK allegations -- these are (to me) stylistic rather than factually-flawed issues that may or may not be problematic. Bach is clearly a great figure; this article (unlike the article on Beethoven) is a respectable reflection of that. Article is arguably A-class; its flaws (other than the contested inline-citation issue) are mostly stylistic. Magic♪piano 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 19:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)