Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 6

JS Bach recording

 * Copied from User talk:Graham87.

Hi Graham. I can't say I think much of that recording. The harpsichord sounds very muffled and the acoustics are nothing to write home about. The interpretation has a few good points, but it flits over what is usually regarded as a grander opening. At break-neck speed, it could be handled better than she does. Are you willing to consider moving this to the appropriate section down the bottom? PS the info-page is inadequate: year, details? Tony  (talk)  16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the acoustics and the rushed nature of the recording ... I added it because it was a piece mentioned in the text and there happened to be a free version available. There's no information about the recording besides the Readme file from Pandora Music - it's obviously a live recording (as found in the subdirectory) and it's performed on an electro-acoustic harpsichord. Perhaps the prelude to English Suite No. 1 or another movement from English Suite No. 1 would be a more suitable recording to use as a sample as it was performed on an acoustic harpsichord. My favourite free Bach recordings performed on historical instruments are the Italian Concerto and Flute sonata in B minor harpsichord recordings, but they of course belong in a later part of the article. I've removed the recording and mention of the excerpt for now; all Bach recordings are now at Gallery of works by Johann Sebastian Bach. Graham 87 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I could still organise the required letter of permission from the owner of a very good modern recording of that movement: the one that was taken down by the copyright police a few years ago. But it's such a lot of bother. Tony   (talk)  02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Even then, I'm unsure whether just a single recording in the body of the article would be appropriate. Tony  (talk)  02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Name?
I don't know how, or if you can edit titles, but Bach's name is misspelled. "Sebastien" is spelled with an e, NOT an a, as it is spelled here. It should be Johann Sebastien Bach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.135.96 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rrrright... - Dudesleeper / Talk  18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be Jean Sebastien Ruisseau? Eusebeus (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's the proper German spelling that's with an e, the Americanization is probably with an a, but either way, it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.135.96 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You think, but are sure it's wrong? - Dudesleeper / Talk  22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Point to a single authorititave English-language or German-language source - one will do - that spells it "Sebastien" and I'll be prepared to engage in debate with you about this. Otherwise, your claim is without foundation.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * References please? Gary King ( talk ) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please go to this site, and SEE FOR YOURSELF that BACH'S signature is Johann Sebastian Bach,

that is Sebastian with TWO A's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.228.161 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In Civilization II
See. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Legatissimo supremo. Baroque music is supposed to be crisp and dance-like, not porridge! Tony   (talk)  09:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed in Weimar section.
Please correct a mistake in the Weimar section, namely the paragraph which mentions the 48 preludes and fugues. It states that they are paired in major and relative minor keys - this is incorrect - they are simply paired as major and minor keys. This can be verified by looking at any score of the preludes and fugues. For example, prelude and fugue 1 is in C major, where as no.2 is in C minor - if it were the relative minor, it would be in A minor. If still not convinced, please consult any well-informed musician.Jamespelham1978 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Each fugue is paired with a prelude in the same key, but there are no other explicit pairings. I agree that introducing the concept of relative minor makes it appear that the pairing scheme or the order is other than it really is: it's just one in each set for each major and minor key.  I wonder if the discussion of the '48' should be moved out of the Weimar section: the heading is "Weimar (1708-17)", but the 48 were apparently collected in 1722 and 1744.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth revisited
I removed the "OS" and "NS" tags from his dates because I knew of no evidence to support them. I now see this issue has been raised before.

Reviving that discussion here, it seems to me eminently sensible:
 * not only to make it absolutely clear whether "21 March 1685" is a Julian or a Gregorian date,
 * but also to show the corresponding date in the other calendar.

We do this with lots of other biographies, via use of the LATER DATE YEAR template.

This would show up as:
 * Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March 1685 – 28 July 1750) ....

I appreciate this will raise some hackles. Music lovers are used to seeing the date "21 March 1685" and only that date, as Bach’s birthday, and quoting a different date seems like sacrilege. However, we're not here to placate ourselves but to tell it like it was. We do a similar thing for William Shakespeare, via a footnote saying that his widely-known death date 23 April 1616 (OS) is equivalent to 3 May 1616 (NS).

One of my concerns about mixing NS and OS dates in a lead para is that it's unsound in principle - it's mixing apples and oranges. Also, we stand to mislead some people about the true span of his life. He actually lived 10 days less than deducting "21 March 1685" from "28 July 1750" would lead one to believe. Use the same calendar for both dates, and only then will the calculation come out correctly. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've raised a similar issue with Handel - see here. --  JackofOz (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a really good idea about the O.S.—anything to avoid that ugly clutter right at the start. I wonder whether you could do the same thing for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky? But why did you relink the dates? MOSNUM no longer encourages this, and the other date fragments in the main text are not linked. It's better to allow the high-value links to breathe, don't you think? Tony   (talk)  11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tchaikovsky has been in this format for a long time, as have many other Russians who lived between 1582 and 1918.  I'm not too familiar with MOSNUM, so thanks for the reminder.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes much more sense using the same calendar to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBoothby (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. We seem to have a consensus so I've made the change to the article.  I must say it really hits one in the eye, particularly one who's only ever seen the 21 March date in the literature.  But I'm sure we'll get used to it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And how interesting that this edit happened on the anniversary of his death. (I notice stuff like that). --  JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No tag needed
"...and brought it to its ultimate maturity" is not controverial. No "citation needed" tag required. — J M Rice (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I've added a NPOV tag to the lead for reasons I suspect the current editors of this page were already aware of. Example: the article refers to his "unrivalled control of harmonic and motivic organisation in composition..." Prove he was unrivaled. The lead is full of statements like this.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 09:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unrivalled" is not a good word, I agree; but in the lead for a widely accepted iconic artist, some license is permissable, as long as supported in the body of the text by (referenced) details. You would do well to raise the issue here before slapping an unexplained NPOV tag.
 * You may wish to list here any other epithets or statements, as specifically as possible, that might require scrutiny in this light. Tony   (talk)  09:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that your concerns might be discussed in a collaborative manner, rather than the combative frame you appear to be pursuing. Tony   (talk)  09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the instructions in the POV template: "Place POV-section at the top of the disputed section, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page." I put up the tag and then went to describe why in the talk page. You reverted it before I could finish.


 * Where is his status as unrivaled supported in the body?


 * Also, actually read the tag. Tell me, what does it say after "please"?  "Do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."  lol and you're calling me combative.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 09:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're rude and combative: best not to laugh at other editors, especially those who've been here for a long time. No wonder you've been blocked for edit warring at least once, and warned on other occasions. Taking issue with a single word in the article does not warrant a NPOV tag. I think you'd better present your entire case for NPOV, in detail, here, forthwith. Otherwise, I'll be bringing others in to resolve this.

Go ahead, then ... Tony  (talk)  09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

67% of your messages have included a personal attack and you're calling me rude, lol. I don't see what my two month old block has to do with editting this article. Looks like you've been warned for civility, but that's beside the point. Here are my issues: Note that the last two are verifiable, just lacking sources.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "...drew together the strands of the Baroque period and brought it to its ultimate maturity."
 * "...he enriched the prevailing German style with a robust contrapuntal technique..."
 * "...an unrivalled control of harmonic and motivic organisation..."
 * "Revered for their intellectual depth and technical and artistic beauty..."
 * "...he is now widely considered to be one of the greatest composers in the Western tradition."


 * I am removing this tag. Not to mince words: calling his article NPOV is asinine. These are style and peacock points, not PoV issues. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling the lead POV. "The neutrality of this section is disputed." Each point issue I raised came with a POV: that Bach was awesome. You could call each individual point a violation of some specific policy, but the underlying theme is a POV push. I'll ask you not to remove tags while a dispute is active. If you truely believe that these are all peacock terms, why didn't you replace the NPOV tag with a peacock tag?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't post a peacock tag because it's quite unnecessary. The right way to do this is to collaboratively work out ways in which such wording might be altered, here. However, Fury, you've put paid to the idea of collaborative interactions with your aggressive behaviour. Tony  (talk)  03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you've chosen to delete the tag without even commenting on the issues I've raised. I'm restoring it since it was deleted without reason.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 04:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The tag wouldn't be a problem if it were seen by editors only, since we're the ones who work out disputes. Unfortunately, readers outnumber editors by hundreds, if not thousands, to one, as evident here -- that's August only.  Placing this huge and disruptive tag in the reader's face is a disservice to our readers -- and we must always think of them first.
 * If you want the mail truck to stop in front of your house, you can throw a hand grenade at it. That will work.  The truck will stop.  However there may be a more elegant solution, such as lifting the little flag on the mailbox.
 * Discussing the issues with the wording on which you disagree, in a friendly and collegial manner, may be a better way to call attention to your idea than putting a giant "POV" tag on the article.
 * Looking at your bulleted list above, the five items are not controversial in any way, and each can be documented and cited in the article. I also don't see why we can't change specific wordings that you find objectionable.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is nice to read a civil response with constructive points, my thanks to you, Antadrus. You made an interesting point about tags in general, but that would imply that we should never use tags.  Tags are introduced for the benefit of the reader.  They are warnings about possible issues that the readers may follow up on by reading the talk page.  We let them make their own decisions, rather than implying through silence that every statement has the consensus of the community.
 * I am not tagging the entire article, the tag says "this section." It is unfortunate that it is the lead, but there's nothing I can do about that.
 * You say that the disputed statements are uncontroversial and can be cited. Do so.  Prove me wrong.  That's all I ask.  So for not even the slightest effort has been made to address my points besides calling me combative and saying that the matters aren't controversial.  If I wanted to be a real dick, I would've deleted the statements outright, so give me a little credit here.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see a 3RRR report: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Tony  (talk)  05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I echo Antandrus' point above and have thus removed this needlessly disruptive tag again. Three longstanding editors (if I can place myself in the august company of Antandrus and Tony) have now weighed in and rejected the claims of NPOV. Eusebeus (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the statements cited above are quite bold. I don't know whether this is a NPOV issue or a style issue, but I can understand why someone would be suspicious of them (particularly if the person is not familiar with classical music but is familiar with Wikipedia policies). In this particular case it is very easy to add a couple of citations - from, say, New Grove and Wolff's book - to avoid conflicts of such kind in the future. I would add a citation from Grove Online myself, but given the current situation I'm worried if I am going to get the same treatment AzureFury is getting.

A tag is a perfectly legitimate way of expressing concerns and I can't understand all the fighting. Furthermore, I believe that, all things considered, the article requires a couple more tags - for instance, a "provide references" one (or whatever it is called - I forget). Because for 75 kilobytes of text we only have 25 citations, half of them are websites, and NONE of the standard monographs on Bach (Wolff, Williams..) are used. Even the bibliography section is a mess (with links to.. Amazon.com? Isn't this advertising, isn't this forbidden on Wikipedia?) So I can't say I'm surprised to see a citation problem. --Jashiin (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In a major article that is visited by thousands a day, it's inappropriate to whack a big POV box right at the top. Best to work it through here so we don't look like fools. Tony   (talk)  16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, this debate is absurd. Here is what Groves says in its lead, for the record, so we can put paid to this NPOV nonsense:

"The most important member of the family, his genius combined outstanding performing musicianship with supreme creative powers in which forceful and original inventiveness, technical mastery and intellectual control are perfectly balanced. While it was in the former capacity, as a keyboard virtuoso, that in his lifetime he acquired an almost legendary fame, it is the latter virtues and accomplishments, as a composer, that by the end of the 18th century earned him a unique historical position. His musical language was distinctive and extraordinarily varied, drawing together and surmounting the techniques, the styles and the general achievements of his own and earlier generations and leading on to new perspectives which later ages have received and understood in a great variety of ways."

Genius, outstanding, supreme creative powers, original, mastery, legendary, unique, etc etc etc. If this kind of description is good enough for Groves (I assume we all know what Groves is), then I don't see it being a problem here. If you like, throw in the Groves cite since it matches the superlatives used in our lede. FWIW, German entry states categorically: Er gilt heute als einer der größten Tonschöpfer aller Zeiten, der die spätere Musik wesentlich beeinflusst hat und dessen Werke im Original und in zahllosen Bearbeitungen weltweit präsent sind.

French:

Compositeur de l'époque baroque dont il symbolise et personnifie l'apogée, il eut une influence majeure et durable dans le développement de la musique occidentale ; de grands compositeurs, tels que Mozart et Beethoven, reconnurent en lui un maître insurpassable.

Son œuvre est remarquable en tous points : par sa rigueur et sa richesse harmonique, mélodique ou contrapuntique, sa perfection formelle, sa maîtrise technique, sa pédagogie, la hauteur de son inspiration et le nombre de ses compositions. Elle échappe à la gradation traditionnelle avec la formation, la période de maturité puis le déclin : la qualité des œuvres de jeunesse égale celle des compositions plus tardives.

Il fut un musicien complet qui maîtrisait la facture des instruments tout autant que la technique instrumentale, la composition comme l'improvisation, la pédagogie comme la gestion d'une institution musicale.

So I suggest we calm this tempest, since this article is in no way a deviation from standard encyclopedic ledes found elsewhere. Eusebeus (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the lede, and some extracts from the following paragraphs, from Nicolas Slonimsky, Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (1991).
 * Supreme arbiter and lawgiver of music, a master comparable in greatness of stature with Aristotle in philosophy and Leonardo da Vinci in art; ... the rhetorical phrase that Johann Sebastian Bach was not a mere stream but a whole ocean of music ("Nicht Bach aber Meer haben wir hier") epitomizes Bach's encompassing magnitude. Yet despite the grandeur of the phenomenon of Bach, he was not an isolated figure dwelling in the splendor of his genius apart from the zeitgeist, the spirit of his time.  ... it is the beauty and totality of development that makes Bach's work vastly superior to those of any of his putative predecessors.  ... The advent of Bach marked the greatest flowering of Baroque music; his name became a synonym for perfection.  [on the Brandenberg concertos] ... They represent the crowning achievement of the Baroque. ...
 * Then there follows a description of the Art of Fugue and Musical Offering, adequately summarising Bach as the culmination of contrapuntal practice up to that time. I can similarly extract bits from Tovey, Wolff, even Grout's general history of music to address the five bulleted points.
 * Do we want cites in the lede? Personally, I don't like them, preferring to cite in the detailed portions of the text that explain what was first said in the lede, but I'm ok with doing so if others insist.
 * "unrivalled control of harmonic and motivic organisation in composition..." -- until Beethoven. Maybe needs a clarification "up to that time" and then we can cite that too.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We could replace "unrivalled" with "unprecedented" -- that would avoid the inevitable comparison with Beethoven, and would be easier to reference. Lots of musicologists and authors of general histories of music have said something similar, though not in these exact words, of course.  Antandrus  (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets just go ahead and add the citations, then. Bach is a large enough figure in the history in music history that peacock terms aren't really needed.  Its overkill.  We can add a few citable quotes from high profile sources in the opening section to establish the superlatives.  Then in the subsections, we can focus on the influence on later composers and compositions (also easy to cite).  Sure, perhaps other encyclopedias gush freely about Bach without citations, but its not really necessary to do so. My two cents.DavidRF (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eusebeus, to "throw in the Groves cite" is precisely what I suggest. Couple it with a sentence from Slonimsky. Thats it, thats all. Sure, Wolff can use any kind of language in his NG article, and so can Slonimsky, but we can't - we're not experts, and our superlatives will be challenged. This is why Wikipedia is built around citing stuff: if you'd like to call someone a genius, you should cite your sources. --Jashiin (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would disagree with such a move. To my mind it is dilettantish - more suitable to a freshman term paper than an encyclopedic entry. Frankly, the Wiki has worked the way it should. Someone without much familairity with Bach challenged some of the descriptions set out in the lede - we have demonstrated here on the talk page that these terms are fully justified by the standard literature. Why do we need to further compromise the article by citing what are, after all, exceptionally basic facts about Bach? Shall we go around and demand cites for Newton or Heisenberg being great physicist? Or Picasso a famous painter? At a certian point, reference to authority becomes both absurd and amateurish, a kind of "we know so little here on Wikipedia that even the most basic fact must be substantiated." Shall we cite for the earth being round? Honestly, (and I appreciate this is merely my opinion) why slip into amateur hour if we don't have to.


 * Further, anyone who would challenge the precepts of this article, should they do some digging, would find that the editorial base that maintains this article brings an informed and erudite knowledge base, with the ability to cite the standard references and so on, amply demonstrated by some of the above responses. Now, I don't disagree with you for one New York Minute that the article could be better sourced and referenced. But let's draw the line at mucking up the lede by needlessly citing what are universally recognised facts about Bach, his abilities and his legacy.$.02. Eusebeus (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Heisenberg and Newton articles hardly have any peacock terms in the opening paragraphs. I don't think they are really needed either.  Its surprising how impressive a litany of accomplishments sounds.  The Heisenberg article has 168 footnotes.  Picasso's fame is footnoted is the legacy section.  Those little footnotes are not that distracting at all. DavidRF (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is "because it is so easy to find sources, we shouldn't." Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter how true you think something is, if you can't prove it, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. How do you prove he was unrivaled? Have you considered non-Western composers? How do you prove that "the strands of the Baroque period" never improved after Bach was finished with them? If Bach is so great, let his achievements speak for themselves rather than forcing your POV language into this article.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not my argument at all. Disagree with me, fine, but what does this kind of audacious misrepresentation serve? How does this help further your point (whatever it is)? Eusebeus (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You: "Why do we need to further compromise the article by citing what are, after all, exceptionally basic facts about Bach?" Did I misinterpret that?  You are calling this basic information, therefore, easy to find.  You oppose citing it for this reason.  Therefore, you oppose citing it because it is easy to cite.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop a quick explanation as to why I'm pushing for such objectivity. I was recently in a dispute over an artistic film, Unruled Paper (film). An editor defended blatantly POV language and original research fanatically (and was eventually blocked for legal threats). During his rantings, he used the articles on Bach and Beethoven as examples justifying his POV language. If they can praise him without citation, he asserted, why couldn't he? I really don't care about Bach. After this dispute is over, I don't ever intend to return to this article. But consistent enforcement of policy is important, so that's why I think citations are necessary.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading the entirety of this section, the conclusion I have reached is that AzureFury is far too insistent about the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Consistent enforcement of policy is not important; wise enforcement of policy is. Please understand the difference. It would be unwise to praise George W. Bush as one of the great Presidents in American history at this juncture, or to state that McDonald's makes the best french fries ever. Such claims would invite criticism for violating NPOV, and rightly so. Claims about Bach's mastery of musical form, however, are not without justification or historical precedent. Calling his work unrivalled, unprecedented, or other such superlatives do not violate NPOV as they agree not only with current experts in classical music - critics, musicians, and composers - but have agreed with experts for generations. There is vast difference of opinion on the merits of myriad performers, conductors, orchestras, and composers in the classical field. There is as close to unanimity as possible by those experts on the genius and merit of Bach and his works; generally only Mozart and Beethoven are also held in similar regard. It's neither hyperbole, nor POV - it's simply elucidating the general opinions of those who know what they are talking about, which is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia in the first place. P.S. The strands of baroque music never improved after Bach because, as those who know how the history of western classical music played out in the eighteenth century, there really was no baroque music after Bach. His own children were evolving music into what came to be known as the rococo or style galante, a process that began during Bach's later years. For the most part, baroque music ended with Bach - after him there was nowhere to go with it but down.PJtP (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just clunky to require citations in the lead for the sweeping statements that function well (in an article on an iconic figure) to prepare the big picture for the reader. Similarly, some latitude is reasonable in using what might otherwise be undesirable interpersonal epithets in the lead, as long as there's greater detail further down. Tony   (talk)  04:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in the Sinfonias and two part inventions on the Bach Page....
The J. S. Bach page claimed and I quote from the page (under 'other keyboard works')

''The 15 Inventions and 15 Sinfonias (BWV 772–801). These are short two- and three-part contrapuntal works arranged in order of key signatures of increasing sharps and flats, omitting some of the less used ones. The pieces were intended by Bach for instructional purposes.''

This however isn't true. The sinfonias and inventions are NOT written in increasing number of sharps and flats... they are written in chromatic order from C up to B omitting some of the lesser used ones. I have played most of the sinfonias and inventions in piano and was shocked that someone wrote something as erroneous as this.

It's like saying that the Well-tempered Clavier were written in some random order - COMPLETELY NOT TRUE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.68.96 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I've fixed it. Thanks for bringing it up here. According to this essay, they were in the order of key signatures in the Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, but they are in chromatic order in the 1723 fair copy. Graham 87 09:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)