Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 16

Solo violin pieces
The solo cello suites are mentioned since recently in the Lead. Then why not the sonatas and partitas for solo violin? Marlindale (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not every piece he ever composed? Because we do need to draw a line somewhere, and I'd actually suggest we remove the cello suites rather than adding more. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those "known for" sections in ledes (and boxes...) become weed patches where everyone adds their own idea of what is best known, and inevitably develop into rather ridiculously long lists. (How to pick and maintain just a few is of course not such an easy question.) Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The cello suites are often considered to be not only among Bach's most important works, but among the finest musical compositions in history. If anything should be removed, it's the Brandenburg Variations. I would also replace the Goldberg Variations with The Well-Tempered Clavier. For evidence of the significance of both works I would include, see some of the sources cited in the lead sections of the articles on both. AndrewOne (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nikkimaria and Antandrus, and (although I realize this is a talk page and not article space) I'd like to see a reliable source that supports the statement, "The cello suites are often considered to be not only among Bach's most important works, but among the finest musical compositions in history." Kirk Leonard (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend you skim the second paragraph of this article and read below:
 * Philadelphia Chamber Music Society: "Not only do the Cello Suites rank among Bach’s greatest achievements; they are widely considered among the most profound of all classical music works."
 * Steven Isserlis: "Bach’s 6 Suites for solo cello [are] among the greatest, and most beloved, pieces of music ever written"
 * Gary S. Dalkin: "A newcomer to this music would not learn that these suites are considered among the most profound of all classical works"
 * Kenneth Furie: "Bach's six suites for unaccompanied cello (BWV 1007-12) […] are not only the greatest music written for the instrument but in the running for the greatest music ever written."
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOne (talk • contribs)
 * Hmmm ... Looks pretty compelling. But what do others, such as and, think? Kirk Leonard (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the intro can do without the cello suites, for the time being. A more thorough rewrite of the intro might be possible: I mean, if it gets extended to four paragraphs (instead of two now) there would likely be some room for the music in the BWV 1001–1040 range, but probably not before one or two examples of the BWV 525–771 range, also "among the greatest, and most beloved, [etc., etc.] pieces of music ever written", are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Francis. I was wobbly about the recent insertion, too. Slippery slope situation. Tony   (talk)  04:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Francis that the lead needs a rewrite, - a broader topic than this particular question, about which I don't care much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't make the solo violin & cello compositions really work in my proposal below (see also Gerda's first suggestion below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead needs expansion/revert of recent additions
As per WP:LEAD, an article's lead should summarize the article's content. Having that in mind, I made some additions to it that were recently reverted by User:Softlavender. I think the additions improved the lead, and should be restored, but of course I'm open to discussion. The lead currently makes no mention of Bach's life or death, or of any of the music positions he held (see my additions), and it's awfully short given the size of the topic and scope of the article. Kirk Leonard (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The revert was justified by this hidden comment:


 * 1) This article is written in British English, including maximised use of "-ise" and its variants, as opposed to "-ize".
 * 2) Please don't add unnecessary statements to the lead; propose changes on the talk page first.
 * I'd remove that hidden comment: the first point is covered by the British English template on this talk page (and would anyhow not be seen by editors editing sections of the article); the second is counterproductive, as the revert mentioned above has shown: it was used against content that was not by any measure "unnecessary" (FYI permanent semiprotection is active on the page and would prevent most types of "unnecessary statements" without adding counterproductive & un-Wikipedian red tape). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Four-paragraph intro

 * Notes

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Brief comments, not much time:
 * If we mention cello and violin solo works, we should find room to not only say "cantatas", but "mostly church cantatas" and their cycles, perhaps even chorale cantatas which were something very specific for him (his format), and were appreciated right away.
 * I suggest to say "around 200 extant cantatas", instead of "hundreds" which points more at 500, for me ;)
 * We should not stop in the 19th century, but mention NBA, and perhaps HIP as a movement that relied heavily on renewed interest in his music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks very good so far, Francis (certainly an improvement over what's there now). I think I'll focus on copyediting additions others have agreed to, as my time is also very limited, and it's more than a little frustrating to have 40-50 minutes work undone in an instant. Kirk Leonard (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for it to be implied in the second sentence that the Brandenburg Concertos are more significant than The Well-Tempered Clavier; of the latter, professor Yo Tomita wrote that no other work from the Baroque era "has been so well-cherished, frequently performed and thoroughly studied than this work of Bach's", and its pages "are felt by many to be the most flawlessly crafted, brilliantly designed music ever composed." AndrewOne (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "implied ... that [...] are more significant than [...]" (emphasis added) – no, the second sentence of the lead paragraph proposal implies nothing of the kind. It starts with "He is known for ..." (emphasis added). Being known for something doesn't imply that that is necessarily the most significant. E.g. none of Tomita's characterisations imply Bach is "better known" for The Well-Tempered Clavier than for the Brandenburg Concertos (that professor is far too intelligent for that). Further, it is not as if The Well-Tempered Clavier isn't mentioned in the lead in my proposal (albeit not in the second sentence: it is not possible to cram everything of significance in the second sentence, is it?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have problems with all of them, sorry to say. But there's some good, too. Tony   (talk)  07:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you have issues with so many compositions by Bach. Wikipedia is however an inclusive system, so, whether you're an adept of any of the composer's work or not, could you maybe present on this talk page what would be your ideal wording, and choice of examples (or not), for the article's lead section? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not the works: the openings proposed above, of course. Tony   (talk)  05:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please write out on this talk page what you would see as the article's lead section. I don't understand what you mean by "openings proposed above" (emphasis added): thus far I see only one worked-out proposal for an opening of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the lead section of a page on a composer should not discuss the composer's most famous works before the works that scholars consider most central to that composer's career and achievement. The same should hold for biographies in general, which is why it is good that the lead section of the page on William Shakespeare, for example, mentions Hamlet and King Lear instead of Romeo and Juliet. AndrewOne (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose not to use the current lead section of Shakespeare's article as an example here, for instance, in the lead paragraph it has "...two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship..." (which are neither "most famous works" nor "central to the author’s career and achievement" – so what is that doing in a lead paragraph?); and the named tragedies you mention only appear in the 3rd paragraph, two paragraphs later than where his "154 sonnets" are mentioned (are Shakespeare's sonnets perhaps not "considered some of the finest works in the English language", as the intro of that article now seems to imply?). So no, this Shakespeare comparison is going nowhere.
 * Regarding the principle you propose: "the lead section of a page on a composer (author) should not discuss the composer's (author's) most famous works before the works that scholars consider most central to that composer's (author's) career and achievement", apart from the fact that the current lead section of the Shakespeare article does not follow that principle at all,
 * The lead paragraph is much about recognisability of the topic of the page (i.e., offer whoever starts reading the page, experienced about the subject area or not, some possible points of recognition): well-known works are not out of place there
 * Scholars tend to disagree: what is significant for one scholar may be unsignificant for another (e.g. Schübler Chorales: "so beautiful, so new and full of invention [...] that they will never become out-of-date, but will survive all revolutions of fashion in music" according to some scholarship, and "it is not clear what aim [Bach] had in view in publishing the six chorales, [...] they [...] do not even go particularly well on the organ" according to other scholarship).
 * I think the principle should be: what is representative for the composer's work – which has less of the "famous" vs. "significant according to scholars" false dichotomy: all works currently mentioned in the 4-paragraph lead proposal belong in the "most representative" category (Brandenburg Concertos, Goldberg Variations, St Matthew Passion, Mass in B minor — works published by the composer — cantatas (sacred and secular), Latin church music, Passions, oratorios, motets, four-part chorales, sacred songs, compositions for organ and for other keyboard instruments, suites (for orchestra and as chamber music), concertos for violin and for harpsichord, canons and fugues — The Well-Tempered Clavier, arrangements, Air on the G String)
 * Note that this is not about mere popularity, nor about how much has been written about a work in scholarly literature, e.g. "The Well-Tempered Clavier" is mentioned in this proposal, not the "most popular" item of that collection in its "most popular" format, i.e. Ave Maria (Bach/Gounod). Similarly, no organ work is mentioned by name because the "most popular" one, BWV 565, has a somewhat unclear status in scholarship (although an entire forest must have vanished to get all the scholarly commentaries about that work printed). Neither of these "popular" works is very representative for Bach's output, despite the reams of scholarly commentary, so no need to mention them in the lead.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Francis Schonken: Thanks for your response. You make some good points. Still, I disagree on certain things, and I believe you may have misunderstood some of my own points.
 * I used the page on William Shakespeare as an example because the lead section informs readers of the works that are most widely viewed by scholars as masterpieces (Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello). I was not talking specifically about the first paragraph of the lead section. As soon as one reads the third paragraph, one knows which works of Shakespeare are most widely acclaimed. As this is part of the lead section, it is sufficient. Because the article's mentioning of which works are most universally acclaimed is relevant to my own earlier argument, my Shakespeare comparison was not in fact "going nowhere".
 * Regarding your first and third bullet points, nothing I wrote goes against them. I did not suggest that there is no place in the lead section for which works are best-known among the public, or which works are most representative of the artist's oeuvre; I simply expressed disagreement with the idea of listing this without informing readers of which works are most widely acclaimed among professionals of the field.
 * Your second bullet point is true in what you are explicitly saying, but not in what you're implying. Scholars can certainly disagree on the merits of a particular work, but of course there are works considered masterpieces by virtual consensus (Mass in B minor) and non-consensus masterpieces (Schübler Chorales). In short, the fact that scholars often disagree does not mean that general opinion is unknowable or nonexistent. AndrewOne (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Above you wrote "... the lead section of a page on a composer should not discuss the composer's most famous works before the works that scholars consider most central to that composer's career and achievement ..." (emphasis added). Afaik a lead paragraph comes before the third paragraph of the lead section, thus my point #1 above was a pertinent reply to what you said.
 * Arguably Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakespeare's masterpieces (and widely viewed so, by scholars and non-scholars alike). Yet the lead section of the author's article does not mention this play, based on a selection of three quoted scholars. Thus the "select a few scholars" approach (omitting the others) does not seem to work, which illustrates that the second point of my reply is valid, and also underpins my argument not to use the Shakespeare article as a favourable point of comparison.
 * Re. my third point not going against anything you said: it goes against your proposal to use the intro of the Shakespeare article as a model for the Bach article: whatever way it is turned, the "two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship" are not among Shakespeare's most representative works (however much scholars have penned about these works), so an article intro that doesn't know how to distinguish between "highly representative" works and "less representative" works should be rejected as an inspiring model. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated

 * applied some further updates to the 4-paragraph proposal, and, as suggestions have been replied to (without further objections), I'd go ahead with this: seems, generally speaking, like an improvement over the current lead section (which of course also doesn't exclude further improvements). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Concertos & suites (3rd paragraph)
Here are the compositions I'd like to see covered by the "He composed concertos, for instance for violin and for harpsichord, and suites, as chamber music as well as for orchestra" sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the lead section: (Brandenburg Concertos are already mentioned in the lead paragraph, doesn't need to be repeated in the third paragraph) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Concertos (without implying he wrote only for these two instruments):
 * for violin: BWV 1041–1043 (without implying these were the only ones he wrote for that instrument)
 * for harpsichord: BWV 1052–1065 (without implying these were the only ones he wrote for that instrument)
 * Suites (without implying these were the only suites he wrote):
 * as chamber music ("in" chamber music wouldn't work): BWV 1002, 1004, 1006–1013
 * for orchestra: BWV 1066–1069

Lede survey of works
I think Francis & I agree in looking askance at attempting to sort Bach's output into concerti & suites; the reverted version is hardly better: "He composed concertos, for instance for violin and for harpsichord, and suites, as chamber music as well as for orchestra." The Brandenburgs are uncomfortably astride this dichotomy, while any other chamber music I can think of falls under Sonata. Anyone care to be bold? Sparafucil (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (see above –– I already started a topic about this) --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Bach family?
It looks like the list of his children are only available under the pages for his wives. Kortoso (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove "See also" section?
the "See also" section currently has one entry (Calov Bible, which is already linked from higher up on the page) — remove the entire section? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Add cause of death
Was not Jack the Ripper (!) as Wikidata says at "manner of death" property... But was not also natural, see eg. this link, "... ophthalmologist says both Handel and Bach underwent eye surgery at the hands of an 'oculist' called the Chevalier John Taylor". --Krauss (talk)
 * Hi Krauss, looks like the Wikidata entry was vandalized and this has now been reverted. If you want to discuss what should be listed in the Wikidata entry, you should discuss that there (although note that they use different parameters for manner vs cause of death). It looks like sources disagree about the exact cause of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

prolific
perhaps it is good also to emphasize what many scholars also recognize, which is that bach is one of the most prolific composers to ever have lived. a note to this effect, requiring over 150 CD's in the Bach 2000 project, was removed Fsikkema (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite nonsensical, or more politely: WP:OR. Brilliant Classics' Schubert Edition has 69 CDs, doesn't contain all the works of this composer, and the composer reached only half the age of Bach. Lost works can't be recorded: e.g. Stölzel, a contemporary of Bach, composed much more than Bach: has more extant cantatas than Bach, has many, many, many times more *lost* cantatas than Bach. Who is more prolific? No serious modern scholar would say Bach was amongst the more prolific composers of his generation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

organ with special temperament?
Article says: "In August 1703, he became the organist at the New Church, with light duties, a relatively generous salary, and a fine new organ tuned in a temperament that allowed music written in a wider range of keys to be played." - If that is the case, I think a citation is needed, along with some explanation. Also, I thought Bach was the main pioneer of equal temperament. I could be wrong. AAABBB222 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "...citation is needed..." – correct
 * Re. "...equal temperament..." – incorrect, it would have said "...all keys..." if equal temperament was intended, instead it says "...wider range of keys...", thus some type of "temperament", but certainly not the "equal" temperament. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, compelling logic. More likely one of the many compromise tuning systems (Werkmeister III or Kirnberger III); Wolff had good reason to be careful in his wording. Tony (talk)  11:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Re citation - Wolff (The Learned Musician, 2013) has that the organ in the New Church in Arnstadt used Weckmeister's "innovative tuning system", "which allowed the organist to play in any key without spoiling its distinctive characteristics" (p. 81) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? First, if "innovative" is Wolff's term, we need to be attribute it to him, or paraphrase it. Second ... it was probably unwise of Wolff to write that, unless that organ (which has since been replaced twice) really was built in equal temperament. Try playing in F-sharp major in Werkmeister III. Sour. Tony  (talk)  11:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sourness is the "distinctive characteristic" of that key. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Children
It's difficult to find information on his children in the article. It's scattered about. Some kind of table or perhaps a link to a separate article (something like "Bach Lineage") is recommended. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.233.255.211 (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article Bach family is linked four times in the article (start of the second paragraph of the intro; first sentence of the "Life" section; see also under the "Childhood" section title; start of the title of the second navigation box at the bottom of the article) – I suppose that is what you are looking for, and I consider it linked often enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Life section
The life section seems to be acting like an opening but it isn't the opening and IMO should be removed because all it is doing is duplicating. Anything of value should be in the opening. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The introduction (opening, lead) is a summary, intentionally repetitive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs the attention of an expert in the subject - and a native English editor?
This article as it stands strikes me as the work of one or more enthusiastic amateurs. While it is full of interesting content, it also suffers from an occasionally gushing style eg "subtle, elaborate planning to create a religiously and musically powerful expression", "his compositions are to a large extent considered as laying down the rules for the evolving scheme that would dominate musical expression in the next centuries". The English also contains infelicities eg "putting his foot down on the tonal system", "Bach was less imbued" that suggest an excellent but non-native competence. Potentially the basis of an outstanding article, but essentially unfinished. Dimwight2 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with the sentiment above. In prior years, this article was so smooth and connected like a professional magazine article. But now it sounds like a Google translation where sentences are processed one by one independent of each other instead of being melted together like a good stew. Angry bee (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019
(THE PARAGRAPH BELOW IS "X", THE SOURCE, WHAT IS TO BE CHANGED - ONE PARAGRAPH, REPLACED WITH THE PARAGRAPH BELOW IT) MUSICAL STYLE To a large extent, Bach's musical style fits in the conventions of his day, which is the final stage of the baroque style. When his contemporaries such as Handel, Telemann and Vivaldi wrote concertos he did so too. When they wrote suites, he did so too. Similar with recitatives followed by da capo arias, four-part choral music, use of basso continuo etc. The specifics of his style lie with characteristics such as his skill in contrapuntal invention and motivic control and his talent for writing tightly woven music of powerful sonority. From an early age, he imbued himself with the compositions of his contemporaries and of prior generations, all of what was available from European composers, such as the French, the Italian, and those from all parts of Germany, and there is little of it that didn't appear in his own music.[95]

NEW PARAGRAPH MUSICAL STYLE Bach's music reflects the conventions of his day, the late stage of the Baroque period. From an early age, he studied the works of his musical contemporaries, those of prior generations and also of French and Italian composers and those influences were reflected in his music. Like his contemporaries Handel, Telemann and Vivaldi, Bach composed concertos, suites, recitatives, da capo arias, and four part choral music and employed basso continuo. Bach's unmistakable style is characterized by consummate contrapuntal invention and motivic control and he had a genius for a tightly-woven form combined with robust sonority.

REASON for CHANGE 1. Source paragraph is confusing - talks about the period, contemporaries, then style, then education. New paragraph talks about period, education and influences, contemporaries, and finally style. 2. "To a large extent" is so vague as to add nothing. "Final stage" sounds melodramatic. Action film-y. 3 Eliminates awkward phrases "fits in" "Which is", the "he did so, too" motif, "such as" 4. Eliminates the Gilbert and Sullivan-sh "specifics of characteristics" 5. Better word choices "studied" rather than "imbued". "Reflected" rather than "Appeared" (implies plagiarism, I think.) 6. "Consummate" rather than the pallid "skillful", "Robust" rather than "powerful", which is vague. Vitamins are "powerful", I hear all the time. 7. New paragraph sounds better read aloud. 2601:8C:4003:1095:750C:1D51:EE11:B479 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

""Final stage" sounds melodramatic. Action film-y. "

Not at all. Baroque music was falling out of style between the 1730s and the 1750s, and the innovative Classical period was emerging. Reduced complexity, clearer texture, and more song-like melodies, under the influence of Galant music.Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done but retained "final stage" (as opposed to late stage) per User:Dimadick. NiciVampireHeart 00:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019
Change that Bach was born in Eisenach, Germany to Eisenach, Duchy of Saxe-Eisenach. In 1685 Germany did not exist.

Also change that he died in Leipzig, Germany to Leipzig, Electorate of Saxony 2600:8800:6780:224B:2952:272F:906B:3CCA (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The article mentions that already. An infobox about a composers is not the right place to present a diversion into the complicated statehood of Germany. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I see no mention of his being born in "Eisenach, Germany", his death in "Leipzig, Germany", or any connection of J.S. Bach with the present-day Federal Republic of Germany. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of "great"
The article says Bach was born "into a great musical family." I removed "great", but Imaginatorium reverted with the edit summary 'rv good faith; "great" means "of large stature", which it was. It's not, like, "spiffing", like.'.

great, among other definitions, gives:
 * Of larger size or more importance than others of its kind.
 * Of significant importance or consequence; important.
 * Impressive or striking.
 * (applied to persons) Endowed with extraordinary powers; of exceptional talents or achievements; uncommonly gifted; able to accomplish vast results; remarkable; strong; powerful; mighty; noble.
 * Skilful or adroit.

Some of these seem like subjective opinions to me, which would make them not neutral. It's not clear which of these meanings the article has in mind, so for the purposes of determining neutrality it's important to consider all of them. The following text doesn't seem to support the notion that the family was important before Johann Sebastian became famous...his father was "director of the town musicians" and other relatives were professional musicians. Being the most famous musician in one town does not seem important enough to make these folks among the great musical families of Europe. I've put a "citation needed" tag on "great", since if that claim is to be sustained it should be substantiated, but I still think it should be removed because it is seems to be over-enthusiastically praising its subject, rather than being neutral. A more specific word like "skilled" would be better, or just avoiding any adjectives by saying something like "a family with many musicians". -- Beland (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at Bach family. When JS was born the family already numbered several significant composers, with articles. Your attempts to introduce a note of bathos should not succeed. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep "great" in this article, it should contain some of those details that support the claim. -- Beland (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It also requires a citation; Verifiability requires that material that has been or is likely to be challenged has inline citations. -- Beland (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Groan. Slonimsky says "member of an illustrious family". I think "great" is a simpler and better wording, but how silly do you want to be? Do we quote Slonimsky? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Illustrious" is a great word, which would add some color to the article. Given this is a subjective opinion, I'd say we'd want the article to say that Slonimsky called the family that. (This follows the guidance at WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) -- Beland (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think "great" is simpler. Is there any other family like it? - See Bach family and its refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Bach family was of importance in the history of music for nearly two hundred years." 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, wikisource, nothing particularly subjective about that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Important" does sound more neutral than "great", which is probably why EB used it. -- Beland (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think it helps to give a dictionary list of definitions suggests that your "neutrality" meter needs recalibrating. "Important" and "great" are different words, with different meanings: to be "of importance in the history of music" specifically relates the family to the history of music; to say that the family is "great" is less specific, but tells us the family was of significantly greater importance than average. I find it ironic that you are calling for copyediting, which normally means choosing wording for readability and flow, to narrate content supported by references, while your argument here would turn it into unreadable lawyerspeak. I mean, you do, surely, really understand that "great" has this general meaning, not just the popular whizzbang? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you say "great musical family", it has the connotation of being both influential (or powerful) and good ("uncommonly gifted" and "skillful" as the dictionary definitions point out), as opposed to "important musical family" which I read as influential but could be good or bad. To say that the family had both impact on the future of music and was good seems like more of an opinion than just saying they had an impact on the future of music. It's perfectly possible for the phrasing to be accurate, well-referenced, neutral, and smooth. Wikipedia is not here to create opinionated content because it sounds better than neutral content. I would expect the use of "great" here to be one of the issues that a good copyeditor would find and fix. -- Beland (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Great" is fine with me. The single most significant family in the entire history of Western music -- over a hundred documented musicians over several centuries, and hundreds more besides -- a family so closely associated with talented musicians that the very word "Bach" came into colloquial usage in Thuringia to mean "musician" (e.g. "hey there's a bunch of Bachs staying at the inn this week" even though none were named Bach). Christoph Wolff writes in the NG "...[the Bach family] produced musicians of every kind in number beyond parallel: from fiddlers and town musicians to organists, Kantors, court musicians and Kapellmeisters. ... The unusual concentration of musical talent within a single family and territory has long interested scholars concerned with genealogy, heredity and talent... [it] remains a unique phenomenon." Antandrus (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The article is making a more specific claim than that, namely that JS Bach's family was already important in music before he was born. We could, however, change that, if sources are just talking about his family including his descendants. -- Beland (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an issue, in that the post-JS composers are generally more important, or at least better-remembered, than those up to the point JS was born, which is what the statement referred to. But Beland's suggestions at top "saying something like "a family with many musicians"" would be misleading understatement, and absurdly bathetic. A modified claim with "illustrious", "significant", "notable" or "famous" might be better for the family at that point. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Need for a copyedit
I have twice added the copyedit tag and Johnbod has twice removed it, most recently with the edit summary "rem tag - seems fine - details of complaints needed on talk". As I pointed out in my edit summary, detailed complaints have been raised on Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/Archive_16 by Dimwight2 and Angry bee. The specifics mentioned there don't seem to have been addressed, and they are asking for someone to read the whole article and clean up rough patches, which is what the copyedit tag exists to request. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No "specifics" are mentioned there at all! This was nearly a year ago, and there has been a lot of editing in the meantime. There are several well-qualified editors who have made major contributions in the past, and it would certainly be good for one of more of them to give it a check-over. But a vague hand-waving tag referring to nothing is no use to anyone. Such a tag only invites non-specialists to take a look, which is probably the last thing we need.  Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of specific examples: "Bach was less imbued" remains in the article, and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Similarly, "Bach putting his foot down on the tonal system" remains, though presumably means something like "putting his stamp on...". Imaginatorium (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well someone should work through it, and/or post a notice at the classical music project requesting that. A general tag is more likely to do harm than good. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the tag is to request that someone from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors do exactly that; not sure what the harm is that you are worried about. There are about 800 articles similarly tagged and waiting for copyedit, and the Guild is actively working on this list. If the language is unclear to non-specialists, then it needs improvement. Any autoconfirmed user can edit the article if they see rough language. If this article was so fragile that non-experts in music couldn't safely touch it, I don't think Wikipedia would work as crowdsourced project. Someone from the Guild who has experience copyediting dozens of articles is certainly more likely than a random person to ask questions of experts if there's something they can't resolve on their own. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * THe WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is exactly what I'm worried about! Their enthusiastic but rather low-skilled members are precisely what is not needed here. Them or like-minded drive-bys. "If the language is unclear to non-specialists", then how can a non-specialist improve it without damaging the meaning? I've seen the damage they can do. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't seem like the previous contributions have resulted in a highly polished article. Non-specialists are helpful in pointing out jargon, finding more accessible ways to say the things that experts say after some careful reading, and for unclear passages they don't have the expertise to fix themselves, they can leave a tag or ask on the talk page or do research and learn enough to do so. Wikipedia is supposed to welcome all contributions, and it's a collaboration between people with complementary skills. It seems like not a single word of this article can be changed without tremendous scrutiny by previous contributors, so I really wouldn't worry the article would stay broken for long if any contributions are making it worse rather than better.
 * Do other editors feel placing this tag is reasonable? The alternative (in addition to telling the Guild their contributions are unwelcome) would be for me, a non-expert in music, to do a readthrough and fix or tag all the problems of phrasing, neutrality, and sourcing I find. Personally I'd rather be working on other projects like the Wikipedia-wide spell check, but I wouldn't mind learning more about Bach. -- Beland (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Johnbod writes: "THe WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is exactly what I'm worried about! Their enthusiastic but rather low-skilled members are precisely what is not needed here." Yeah, exactly. I'll try to make time to go through it. Tony (talk)  01:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony, that's ideal (as a specialist in both prose and music of the period)! Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That will take several goes, and I'll have to post here queries about any changes in wording I plan that might first need feedback. Like ... I'd remove this, as being vague (and if the box sets were mentioned specifically, it might count as undue promotion: "His music was further popularised through a multitude of arrangements, including for instance the Air on the G String, and of recordings, for instance three different box sets with complete performances of the composer's works marking the 250th anniversary of his death ." Tony (talk)  04:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There have been some "copyedits" to the article, but oh dear. A few errors have been corrected, but I don't think I can count it as an overall improvement. Specifically:

Imaginatorium (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS / numbers / figures or words / sentence 1: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. All those changes need to be reverted.
 * The description of the seal said: "It contains the letters J S B superimposed over their mirror image topped with a crown." Could be better written, but it has been changed to mean something completely different.
 * And the great Bach family? It's now "extensive". This is a total joke. This was the greatest musical family in history, AFAIK; my handy Musical Dictionary lists 50-something Bachs, of which JS is number 27 chronologically. "Great" does not mean "Um, like big, like, very big, and like good, yes definitely good". It means "great": a basic word whose meaning cannot be conveyed in totality by a list of different "definitions", especially such a list created on a wiki. What, I have to wonder, would our "copyeditor" do with the Great Dictator, or indeed just the Great War.
 * I am responding to a request for copy editing. I did this rather quickly this morning and may have left a few glitches. I will respond to your comments when I can. Jmar67 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am wasting my time here when I am reverted without discussion. Jmar67 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that wasn't intentional. Reverted my edit. — Eru·tuon 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me address the criticism above:


 * 1) Seal: the original made no sense to me. I wanted to check the German but did not have time to look at it. The current wording is accurate imho but omits the flanking letters. I will suggest something here.
 * 2) You can't mix numerals and words in proximity like this. I do not like to see numbers written out and therefore used numerals. The exceptional use of numerals under 10 is prescribed by MOS (commonly called "cats and dogs") in this case.
 * 3) "great": This sounds like "super family". I assumed the German was "große Familie". The sentence goes on to explain in that context.
 * I am willing to talk about any changes I make. Jmar67 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The flanking letters are apparently not in the actual seal, but added to illustrate its composition. The German article does not have them. I was confused by this as well. — Eru·tuon 22:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Initial copy edit completed. Will read through again as time permits. Jmar67 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Remove "Also in this century, overviews of what is best in classical music typically include a great deal of Bach. For example, in The Telegraph's list of the 168 best classical music recordings, Bach's music is featured more often than that of any other composer.[218]". WP:SYNTH based on a single example which does not explicitly mention this "fact". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That citation is an example, but by no means a single. There are many more. The Classic 100 Countdowns by Australian radio station ABC Classic show Bach as a dominant figure for the genres in which he composed. But I agree that the section "21st century" is weak and the article wouldn't lose anything if it were removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Even then, and in addition to being pretty weak, it's still WP:SYNTH as no where is there a proper source saying "Overviews of what is best in classical music typically include Bach" (even if that's probably true) - basing this on one's reading of "top hits according to x/y/z" (since that's pretty much what it is) is "improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - The IP has a point about WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I've removed the text for now unless a reliable source can be found to support the assertion. Marianna251<b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 20:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A separate section for recitative-aria pairs and perhaps other...

 * Hello. This will be a long post and I may not express myself correctly. I hope for your patience; My suggestion may not seem readily clear because I don't know the appropriate terminology. However, I think this Bach article needs a separate section discussing the use of roles in Passions etc., recitative, commentary, etc. I suggest this because it could be linked to in several articles about individual works, eg. or whatever.
 * I wrote a footnote for Fallt mit Danken, fallt mit Loben, BWV 248 IV which Gerda correctly suggests is inadequate. The footnote was: "Singers in Bach's oratorios could play different roles: recitative, ensemble commentary, solo commentary (accompanying the recitative, or as an aria). Each of these roles was written in a different musical style to help guide listeners into understanding the difference between narrative and commentary. " [Other sources can be consulted e.g. Choral Masterworks: A Listener's Guide etc.]
 * Gerda's response:
 * "Fallt mit Danken, fallt mit Loben, BWV 248 IV!. It is one of six cantatas of the Christmas Oratorio, therefore I believe a general footnote, such as what you worded, should not be at one movement of one of these cantatas, but generally at the whole piece article, if not even higher in "hierarchy". <P> As for the wording: "Singers in Bach's oratorios could play different roles: recitative, ensemble commentary, solo commentary (accompanying the recitative, or as an aria). Each of these roles was written in a different musical style to help guide listeners into understanding the difference between narrative and commentary.", I have a few questions: <P> # Singers - I think the basic distinction is between solo singing and choir singing, ensemble being rare, - only then would I distinguish narrative and commentary<P># no idea what "accompanying a recitative" means, - a singer "carries" the recitative, accompanied by basso continuo only (recitativo secco), or by additional obbligato instrument(s) (recitativo accompagnato).<P> We could refine the wording here, and then you could take it for discussion to the oratorio's talk. <P> Please check out if Bach cantata and Evangelist are of any help."
 * "Fallt mit Danken, fallt mit Loben, BWV 248 IV!. It is one of six cantatas of the Christmas Oratorio, therefore I believe a general footnote, such as what you worded, should not be at one movement of one of these cantatas, but generally at the whole piece article, if not even higher in "hierarchy". <P> As for the wording: "Singers in Bach's oratorios could play different roles: recitative, ensemble commentary, solo commentary (accompanying the recitative, or as an aria). Each of these roles was written in a different musical style to help guide listeners into understanding the difference between narrative and commentary.", I have a few questions: <P> # Singers - I think the basic distinction is between solo singing and choir singing, ensemble being rare, - only then would I distinguish narrative and commentary<P># no idea what "accompanying a recitative" means, - a singer "carries" the recitative, accompanied by basso continuo only (recitativo secco), or by additional obbligato instrument(s) (recitativo accompagnato).<P> We could refine the wording here, and then you could take it for discussion to the oratorio's talk. <P> Please check out if Bach cantata and Evangelist are of any help."


 * ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding: whan I said "higher in the hierarchy", I didn't mean Bach, but Bach cantata and Passions (Bach), but - having slept over it - it's such a common thing that it should perhaps go to Recitative and aria. Bach oratorio or Mozart opera or Beethoven "scene": it's more or less the same concept, which should not (need to be) repeated for every single occurence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can start working on it in your userspace and move it into maispace when done? I'll help if I can... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I posted some ideas at User talk:Lingzhi2/Recitative and aria. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * suggestion: maybe we should have a proper article on Erdmann Neumeister's Geistliche Cantaten (1702), which is seen as the introduction of the "recitative and aria" structuring principle in Protestant German sacred music. I don't think we should have a separate section on "recitative and aria" in Bach's biography article: it is adequately covered by the second sentence of the Johann Sebastian Bach section: "Like his contemporaries Handel, Telemann and Vivaldi, Bach composed concertos, suites, recitatives, da capo arias, and four-part choral music and employed basso continuo." – this is not specific for Bach, nor was Bach among the "earliest adopters" of the principle in his music: e.g. Bach's BWV 4, one of his earliest known vocal compositions (1707) does not use "recitative and aria" pairs, at a time when that structuring principle was already commonly used by "his contemporaries Handel, Telemann and Vivaldi" – if I remember correctly Bach only started to use "recitative and aria" pairs over a decade after Neumeister's publication: before that he stayed closer to Geistliches Konzert and such forms he knew, e.g. from his ancestors (as, for example, the pieces collected in the Altbachisches Archiv: the so-called cantatas in that collection can only retro-actively be indicated as such). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, - I think Lingzhi meant rather an independent article about rec+aria, and began in a sandbox. I agree that it doesn't belong in Bach's bio, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neumeister was critical to the development of the musical cantata. A stand-alone article could be the right way to go. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  08:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Several misleading statements in the first paragraphs
This statement is misleading: "The Bach family already counted several composers when Johann Sebastian was born as the last child of a city musician in Eisenach." Another Wikipedia article, "Bach Family," states "The Bach family was of importance in the history of music for nearly two hundred years, with over 50 known musicians and several notable composers, the best-known of whom was Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750)." Although the first-cited statement above is not false, it is misleading in that it underrates the importance of the Bach family to German music, for a reader unfamiliar with the subject. <ref: Encyclopedia Britannica Online: article :Johann Sebastian Bach, Introductory section>, <ref: Wikipedia: Bach family>

The sentences "Throughout the 18th century Bach was mostly renowned as an organist,[5] while his keyboard music, such as The Well-Tempered Clavier, was appreciated for its didactic qualities.[6] The 19th century saw the publication of some major Bach biographies, and by the end of that century all of his known music had been printed." A misleading and even mistaken impression is given in this passage of the nature and development of Bach's reputation. It is well-known that his musical compositions were in large part ignored and forgotten, except by relatively few specialists, until the 1820s. This decade saw a gradual widening of his admirers, climaxed by the public presentation of the St. Matthew Passion in 1829 by a young Felix Mendelssohn. This in turn began a very large groundswell in interest in Bach, with many public concerts over the next years, and then the undertaking of the BWV catalogue. In the article the sinking and then dramatic change for the better of the composer's reputation is completely left out of the introductory sections. In the section of this article titled "18th Century" a more accurate description of the course of his reputation is given; however, the reader who is newly interested in Bach may not read as far as this section. <ref: The New Bach Reader, Ed. Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel, rev. and enlarged by Christoph Wolff, W.W. Norton, 1998, pg. 508>, <ref: Encyclopedia Britannica Online: article :"Johann Sebastian Bach," section: "Reputation and Influence">, <ref: Wikipedia: the present article under, "Johann Sebastian Bach": section "18th Century">

So I ask that the introductory paragraphs be modified to present a more accurate account of his wide musical family, and his reputation with its down and up.

2601:184:C401:91D0:404E:5C90:AEC9:9795 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Charles Zigmund email: chaszigmund@gmail.com
 * Last extended discussion we had, leading to (more or less) the current version of the intro is at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 16. Afaik no new consensus emerged thus far on another version of the intro. Please tell what you would write, replacing which phrases or sentences. For clarity: the last major rewrites of the reception section and of the intro were initiated by me (in that sequence): so saying that the latter would not be a good summary of the former would be, to say the least, a bit surprising: I don't see the disparity – but anything can likely be improved, so I'm open to any proposal that promises further improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That sentence at the opening of this thread needs work: ""The Bach family already counted several composers when Johann Sebastian was born as the last child of a city musician in Eisenach." I'm sure there were numerous last-born children of city musicians in Eisenach. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  08:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

{Suggested Edit} Grammatical mistake hinders compreehension of the Cantata section of this article
Hello. I was just using this page for research and I noticed that under the Cantata section, it states "According to his obituary, Bach would have composed five-year cycles of sacred cantatas, and additional church cantatas for weddings and funerals, for example." "Five-year cycles" would imply that each cycle was five years long whereas, according to the seperate page on the cantatas of J.S. Bach, there were actually five, year-long cylces in which Bach wrote Cantate. Hence, I suggest that it should be changed to According to his obituary, Bach would have composed five year-cycles of sacred cantatas, and additional church cantatas for weddings and funerals, for example. I would edit it myself but it's semi-protected and I haven't edited anything before. Thanks!

TubaMagna (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done – tx for noticing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020
The article states that lute-harpsichord is Bach's personal favorite. To my knowledge, this is an unsubstantiated claim and there is no citation. Toxyxer (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done – including some other similar cleanup. Tx for noticing. Another approach might have been to tag it with a cn or some such, but I removed it per WP:CHALLENGE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time
I think we should delete the "Bach is generally regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time" from the lead paragrah, because neirther the Mozart article, nor the Beethoven's article include any mention of them being generally regarded as "one of the greatest composers of all time", despite the fact the the 3 of them are obviously regarded as so. In the page for Beethoven it is said that he cannot be acknowledged as one of the greatest of all time, because we cannot exclude the consideration of Eastern music. Anyhow, to follow the same guideline with the 3 of them in this aspect, I think we should either delete phrases like "he is considered one of the greatest composers of all time" for all of them, or include phrases like that for all of them. Otherwise, we would be displaying a clear double standard. I don't buy that only Bach deserves a phrase like that, when the three of them are typically cited as the greatest clasical composers.

It is typical to try to follow the same standard of objectivity in different aticles of the same topic, to avoid double standard. For instance, in the Wikipedia pages of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic, it was decided by general consensus to avoid any mention of "he is considered the greatest tennis player of all time", to avoid controversies and being more neutral.

James343e (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The current consensus for the entire intro was decided at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 16 and subsequent paragraphs. I see little reason for changing that consensus, and the argumentation brought forward above has about zero potential to convince me otherwise. Content of Wikipedia articles is not decided by what we don't know, because there's no source brought forward for it ("Estern music"?), but by what is positively said in reliable sources which can be cited (and are indeed cited in the article). I don't care what was decided on talk pages of other articles: there is no reason why it would apply automatically here.
 * For clarity, there's also no "standard of objectivity", see Neutral point of view/FAQ. The standard followed here is neutrality. Common standards for all classical music related articles are explained at WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. Issues that should be applicable to more than one classical music related article can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, or, if only involving composers, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. Wherever the discussion is centralised, a link to that discussion should be provided from all involved articles' talk pages, or whatever decision made before that link is provided is not applicable to articles without such link on their talk page.
 * If that is what people want, namely "one of the greatest composers of all time" on Bach's page (as decided on its talk page), and nothing similar in the intro of Beethoven's article (as decided on its talk page), then that works for me. Further, please provide a link to the Beethoven discussion on this topic: I couldn't find it on the Beethoven talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol at "there is no objectivity", if there is no objectivity then a claim like "there is objectivity" is equally valid as "there is no objectivity", because no assertion can be held as objective if there is no objectivity. If there is no objectivity how do you know the claim "there is no objectivity" is objective? If there is no objectivity, then the claim "there is no objectivity" is not objective, and so I have no reason to believe the claim that there is no objectivity. Wikipedia rules can say whatever they want, but to deny that there is objectivity is ridiculous, any person with a really solid philosophical foundation (not reading modern charlatan pseudophilosophers but real philosophers from the past) knows it.James343e (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think about such value judgments and whatever "consensus" there is for them (and I find some of the recent changes, done in various articles and in a short time span, to be premature and lacking in a solid justification), this will not fly and go down well, as that is how Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are viewed and assessed in most musical literature. (If anything, the accolades reserved for them tend to be far more hyperbolic than a plain statement such as "Considered one of the greatest".) Go ahead and remove it, but it won't take long for someone to put it back. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Toccata quarta Thanks for your educated and non-aggressive comment.James343e (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd probably vote to retain the offending proposition. But if it were removed, ask yourself how long a Martian would take to realise his greatness simply from the length of the article and the detailed treatment—and further, from the sources provided. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  07:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "because we cannot exclude the consideration of Eastern music"
 * You do realise that even taking into consideration all music from all cultures of the world, Bach, Beethoven and other greats of the Western Canon are still considered among "the greatest composers of all time". Such a statement is not intrinsically stating that Eastern composers are "worse" than Western composers, or that Bach is "better" than all Eastern or African composers - such an interpretation is one not made in good faith.
 * I would strongly plead to an editor to restore the original line to Bach's page as he objectively is one of the greatest composers of all time by both a mathematical & music theory analysis of the complexity of his work and also the prolific nature of his output. 106.69.6.10 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Johann Sebastian Bach/Biography" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Johann Sebastian Bach/Biography. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Lutheran vs Protestant
I'd use the more specific term, unless contrasting Protestantism and Catholicism. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  11:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lutheranism also contrasts with Pietism (which is an off-shoot of Lutheranism, but belongs in the Protestant group). The distinction is not without importance for Bach:
 * Leipzig, where he had his last tenure, was outspokenly "Lutheran" – when entering his service there, Bach had to pass a public exam, confirming his strict "Lutheran" adherence.
 * Some of Bach's earlier tenures were rather "Pietist", which was less favourable towards extended church music, thus limiting Bach's possibilities as composer.
 * Some of the "Pietism" worked in Bach's later life, for instance his collaboration to the rather "Pietist" Schemellis Gesangbuch, published 1736 (i.e. during Bach's Leipzig years).
 * This detail doesn't need to go in the general article on the composer, but at least terminology should be correct, thus "Protestant" when referring to Arnstadt and Mühlhausen; "Lutheran" when referring to Leipzig. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  08:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Influence on popular music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E8HUjxroFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:CD10:AC6B:77B4:CD2B (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Songs inspired by Bach" – Paul Simon, Paul McCartney, Carl Wilson, others. Quite educational. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"composer and musician"
Not sure why "musician" is used. I recognize that he was likely familiar with many instruments but his primary one was by far the organ. It might be worth including "keyboardist" and "organ builder" as well but either way at the very least I propose that "was a German composer and musician of the Baroque period" be changed to "was a German composer and organist of the Baroque period" (This would be the same way that Grove refers to him). Otherwise using "organist, keyboardist and violinist" (and maybe organ builder) would be better - Aza24 (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "This would be the same way that Grove refers to him" – quite lacking precision: the Grove reference currently used in the article (1911) has none of the "composer and organist" simplification. You'd be, I suppose, referring to, which is a version of Grove's *not* currently used as a reference in the article. The authors of that more recent Grove article are well-respected Bach scholars, but still: that's only one POV (and one that is far from the most common one) – "composer and musician" is, imho, more neutral, thus more in line with the WP:NPOV policy, and thus more suitable for Wikipedia. For clarity: Bach's first assignment in Weimar was as violinist; "composer and organist" kind of disregards that, and for instance also that three out of four of Bach's Clavierübung publications were for harpsichord, and that in the second half of the 18th century he was generally still better known as harpsichordist than as organist (e.g., when Forkel wrote his Bach biography in the early 19th century nearly no organ compositions could be found, while other keyboard compositions, like the Well-Tempered Clavier, were much more accessible in multiple copies). In general, I see no tangible advantages in the proposed modification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really following the validity of one Grove article over another has to do with anything, that was merely an example of another place that uses it. If Bach was a composer of course he was a "musician", a reader coming to this article would not find that information as helpful as a listing of the instruments he was particularly well versed in; my "composer and organist" suggestion was merely a way to do this. Your notes on his other instruments makes me think that "composer, organist, keyboardist and violinist" would be more appropriate. But frankly I don't think "violinist" even warrants inclusion, it is not really comparable to his accomplishments on the organ and keyboard and I think that leaving it out would not be "disregarding" anything notable. Aza24 (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you an anecdote, FWIW: when I was starting piano lessons my teacher asked what kind of music I liked. Listing Bach among my preferred composers, the teacher reacted that she didn't understand my choice to start piano lessons, instead of violin lessons, if I liked Bach: in her mind Bach's most exquisite music was his violin music. That anecdote aside, any listing of instruments Bach played would inherently be questionable, because we don't know the full array of instruments he played and didn't play, nor which ones were or were not part of the core set of instruments which he'd consider his own (discarding "violinist" because a Wikipedia editor says so would be WP:OR, and because of one reliable source saying so would be WP:POV). And then there's the fact that whatever organ Bach played, it was a keyboard instrument (thus "... organist, keyboardist ..." is kind of a tautology). These are all reasons to avoid a listing of instruments, which is always questionable. I'd not be completely opposed to "... composer and performing musician ...", but am not sure whether that would have much traction from other editors (and also: being a composer and not being a performing musician would be, in Bach's day, so exceptional that it should be mentioned in the lead)., my principal question to you is: why? Why would we change this? I don't see a really compelling reason to change the "musician" qualifier to something else, and the alternatives you proposed are, afaics, really all less suitable. Meaning, your rationale would need to be quite somewhat stronger than what you've been proposing thus far, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also FWIW, here's a "further reading" suggestion: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 223. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, can you please address the substance of Aza24's argument rather than veering into anecdote. Ceoil  (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon? I replied to the substance of the proposal before illustrating with an anecdote. why don't you give us your take on the substance of Aza24's suggestion, before barging in commenting on others that they supposedly didn't do that (while they did)? Tx, I'd be happy to hear what you think on the substance of the OP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the use of a paragraph anecdote did feel somewhat condescending. I understand your point, but you seem to have mostly ignored the actual intent of my proposal in the first place (at least in the comment Ceoil refers to) which if you boil it down, is simply that clarification is worthwhile. The fact that this conversation has developed into what it is furthers the need for clarification. Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "you seem to have mostly ignored the actual intent of my proposal" – that seems to be incorrect... and might be experienced as condescending as a comment to someone who precisely replied to your proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, of course his contributions to violin music are noteworthy, not listing him as a violinist would not degrade that, it would simply highlight that he is remembered and was known for being primarily an organist and keyboardist in his life time. Debussy studied piano at college but he is not remembered for being a pianist and rather by his piano pieces, so it wouldn’t make sense to list him as a pianist, but that doesn’t take away his influence to piano music. As to the “why” I have mentioned why, and you yourself have given a good reason as to why when you say that “ being a composer and not being a performing musician would be, in Bach's day, so exceptional that it should be mentioned in the lead”. Using a word like “musician” does not help anyone, Beethoven was by far known and is by far remembered as a pianist, even if he performed in string quartets, hence his article listing him as a “composer and pianist”. There’s really no POV or OR here, Brittanica itself says that he was primarily renowned as an “organist, keyboardist and organ builder”. I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m not pushing one idea over another, simply putting out suggestions to remove “musician” or at least clarify it. If Bach had played many many instruments at a high level “musician” may be appropriate, but the fact of him being one of the greatest organists and keyboardists of his time is largely devolved of importance by listing him as a “musician”. Perhaps this idea of clarification could work if a second line were added such as “he was primarily an organist and keyboardist but also an experienced violinist (and violist?)... or something along those lines. Aza24 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your Bach/Debussy comparison totally inadequate. Afaik Debussy is more actively remembered as a pianist than Bach as organist. Debussy's piano playing is available on recordings while no recording of Bach's music is of a performance by the composer himself. The "renowned as an ... organ builder" seems totally inadequate too. For clarity, Bach didn't "build" a single organ. He designed a make-over for one organ afaik, and supervised the work being performed on that organ, that is, *intermittently*, while he had already moved to another town while these rebuilding works were executed. Afaik it is usually not too difficult to do better than Brittanica, so I'd not take too many ideas from them. Neither am I pushing one idea, but I suggested that at least a clear rationale would being given, which then can be shared by others, before we change anything. For clarity, I still don't see a clear, convincing rationale for such change. Another idea that might be worth exploring is leaving the "composer" for the first sentence, and explain which instruments he played somewhere else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Debussy is remembered as a pianist more than Bach as an organist... Bach was literally a organist virtuoso, and probably the most famous organist in Germany in his time. There are no recordings of Liszt playing piano but he is undoubtedly remembered as a virtuoso? "Organ builder" is something that I could agree would probably not warrant inclusion, simply a thought. Anyways, the Debussy example steers use off course of discussion (which is my fault), but it seems like we have similar ideas about clarification. Above I proposed we keep musician, but add a line directly afterwards explaining his musicianship (organist, keyboardist etc), is that something you could agree with ? The main difference between our suggestions is that you propose leaving musician out entirely, which would, imo, be odd as it would feel like the sentences would end up boiling down to "Bach was a German composer. He was also a musician" Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "keep musician, but add a line directly afterwards explaining his musicianship (organist, keyboardist etc)" – no, don't think that would be a good idea. Too much detail for the lead paragraph. For clarity, I propose to keep everything as it is now, unless a compelling rationale can be given when something different is proposed. I have seen no such compelling rationale yet. Not for any of the variant proposals. Too many proposals is also not likely going to lead to a broader consensus than the one we had reached at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 16. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Afaik, his son reported that he often conducted from concert master (violin) position. I'd leave musician, but - if not there yet - would point out that he was known in his time as an organ improvisor and organ expert, reviewing instruments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One response to why Bach is described as a "musician" is given in the important source, Christoph Wolff's book "Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician." Wolff begins with a quotation from D. J. Daniel Schubart: "What Newton was as philosopher, Sebastian Bach was as musician." Wolff's prologue explains in detail Bach's progress from learned pupil, to court musician, to organist and so on. Wolff explains carefully in what sense Bach was a musician and why there is a "musical science." The book is full of references to "musicanten" or musicians. As recorded in Bach's obituary, "If ever a musician employed the most hidden secrets of harmony with the most skilled artistry, it was certainly our Bach." Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ernest Newman's English translation of Albert Schweizer's book on JSB originally had the title Jean-Sébastian Bach, Le Musicien-Poète, so again the word "musician" is used. Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we have a difficulty coming from translation. The German word "Musiker" has a very broad meaning which would almost include composing, while the English "musician" seems often understood as an instrumental performer of music only. In Bach's obituary, it's certainly the broad meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Christoph Wolff uses the word Musicanten in German. It was used dismissively by Johann Adolph Scheibe, Bach's former student and later critic, who had a bitter dispute with Johann Abraham Birnbaum, Bach's admirer (cf Clavier-Übung_III). Wolff takes about 10 pages to explain the use of "musician" (as can be verified from the source). In comparing Bach to Newton, Wolff writes, "The sheer scope and breadth of Newton's intellectual endeavors, too, find their analogy in the enormous and unparalleled range of interests and enterprises that characterize Bach: the complete, the learned, the perfect musician." In practical terms, musicians would be performers or instrumentalists: town musicians, court musicians, organists, etc. Chapter 9 of Wolff is devoted to "Musician and Scholar," lasting 45 pages It dsicusses counterpoint in parctive and theory. It also discusses Bach's dealings with his students, with the university and with the clergy.Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth noting is also that this was before the almost watertight divisions of today, in the "classical" tradition, between composing and executing and between executing on different instruments even with the same fundamental playing technique (like piano, harpsichord and organ). If you were a "musician" of some accomplishment, you probably also had some ability in composition; if you could lead an orchestra, you probably did so from one of its instruments (usually, as far as I know, a continuo keyboard or the concert master's violin); if you could master one kind of keyboard you were expected to be able to do something on others too (and in the German-speaking world at least, the clavichord seems to have been a common practice instrument for organists). To convey something of that concisely in modern English, I can't really see how the combination "composer and musician" can be beaten.
 * No, I have no sources at hand. But since this isn't a fringe opinion, perhaps it will resonate with some other user who has. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unclear referencing
There are several unclear references in this article. The citation "Williams 2003" can refer to two different books (The Life... or The Organ Music...). Similarly, "Gardiner 2013" can refer to two books that seem to be the same work in US/UK editions. Depending on which one is actually cited (which is difficult to determine because neither citation gives page numbers), the other one should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your last edit, for now, not for your work on a more coherent referencing system (which I appreciate very much), but for your deletions of files (and less opportune presentation of some others), not even mentioned in the edit summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained in my edit summary why I removed some sound files and images that are presented in the reapective works' articles so that the last images on this page don't run into the references and squash them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Files is "content"; layout is not "content": content deletions are not explained by layout issues, or if you think it does: I don't agree. The layout issues can be addressed differently; which files we retain in this article is an entirely different discussion (and I don't agree that once a file is used in another article, it can't be used here any more: that way we'd lose the lead image). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * & indeed I missed your somewhat cryptic "son et lumière" description. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)