Talk:List of concertos for harpsichord solo by J. S. Bach

Suggestion
A little dynastic chart for the Saxe-Weimar dukes (and prince) may be helpful to the reader, in order not to confuse the Ernsts:

After the death of their father in 1683, Wilhelm Ernst and his younger brother Johann Ernst had become the co-ruling Dukes of Saxe-Weimar. Wilhelm Ernst resided in the main palace, the Wilhelmsburg, while his brother occupied the nearby as Duke Johann Ernst III. In 1703 Bach had served for a few months as a violinist in Johann Ernst's orchestra. When Johann Ernst died in 1707 he left two sons: his successor Ernst August and, from his second marriage, Prince Johann Ernst. By that time Duke Wilhelm Ernst had become, all but in name, the only ruler of the Duchy. In 1708 Bach applied before the Duke, and entered into service as organist and chamber musician, on the expense of both the Wilhelmsburg and Rotes Schloss courts. He tutored Ernst August, who, on attaining majority in 1709, became the co-ruling Duke. His half-brother had even more musical talents: as a youngster he had learned to play the violin from his valet Gregor Christoph Eilenstein. Bach's cousin Johann Gottfried Walther, who had become organist at Weimar's town church in 1707, taught the Prince keyboard, and, from 1713, composition.

(for the above, apart from the sources already listed in numbered footnotes, Wolff's Learned Musician was also used as a source)

...or something in that vein. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Completely unnecessary. It's quite clear from the prose; and it would be a distraction from the main point of the article, which is about various forms of music-making. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Started to expand with text proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"the co-ruling Dukes" "In 1708 Bach applied before the Duke", "his brother had even more musical talents", "taught the prince keyboard", "on the expense of both the Wilhelmsburg and Rotes Schloss courts"... This is all unreadable and ungrammatical. Nor is what you're trying to write accurate or relevant. You seem not to have understood what the first section is about. Nothing you have suggested seems at all helpful for the reader, quite the contrary. I am making all sorts of of changes and do not need feel I need help at this early stage. Why not try improving L'estro Armonico? You're surely capable of explaining in two or three sentences what Anne Dawson's book is. It's in the sources, so all you have to do is paraphrase them in a clear way. Mathsci (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Re. "I am making all sorts of of changes and do not need feel I need help at this early stage" – wouldn't be too snubbish about help offered, e.g. might help you to avoid WP:OR like "The earliest extant score..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you helping to avoid WP:OR like "The earliest extant score..."? The caption has two references. The second one states in a section marked 'sources', "The chronological positioning of the concerto transcriptions within the central Weimar period is substantiated by two sources. The first is the sole extant autograph from this work group, that of BWV 596." Clear enough. Yet here you are claiming "original research". That is fairly typical of your commentary. It is disruptive trolling. Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "first" of "two sources" does not necessarily mean "earliest". So WP:OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of individual concertos
I have already written a section on BWV 596, the transcription for organ. That is detailed content from Williams (2003}, which cannot be presented in a table in any way at all. It takes quite a bit of space and required some thought. Remarkably it involves the only in-depth discussion of the original concerto that has been placed on wikipedia. The next part of the discussion involves the harpsichord arrangements and the introductory material that can found on pages 117–123. Again this is carefully written prose over a long period of pages. The first step is a careful reading of that content. Part of it will be incorporate in the general section. Part of it will be incorporated as the head of the section on harpsichord transcriptions. There is a slight twist for the harpscihord transcriptions, since other works in the BWV catalogue are harpsichord transcriptions and reference is made to those. Those of Bach's own works are often thought to be by by his students; but there sonatas by other composers that Bach transcribed himself. This will require a little thought after careful reading of Schulenberg who has his own particular style. As far as original concertos go, I intend to start with BWV 976, Bach's transcription of Vivaldi's Op.3, No.12. I might create a "to do" list on this page as a record of which transcriptions have had detailed discussions. Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To do list

 * 1) BWV 592 ❌
 * 2) BWV 593 ❌
 * 3) BWV 594 ❌
 * 4) BWV 595 ❌
 * 5) BWV 596 ✅
 * 6) BWV 972 ❌
 * 7) BWV 973 ❌
 * 8) BWV 974 ❌
 * 9) BWV 975 ❌
 * 10) BWV 976 ❌ in process
 * 11) BWV 978 ❌
 * 12) BWV 979 ❌
 * 13) BWV 980 ❌
 * 14) BWV 981 ❌
 * 15) BWV 982 ❌
 * 16) BWV 983 ❌
 * 17) BWV 984 ❌
 * 18) BWV 985 ❌
 * 19) BWV 986 ❌
 * 20) BWV 987 ❌