Talk:List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach

Redirect
To use the word "keyboard piece" to describe a work for organ and pedals is new. It is WP:OR. It contradicts the musical literature. Unfortunately the word keyboard does not include pedalboard, no matter how pedantic one tries to be. Musicologists do not write in that way. Just to bring the point home, a book on the "Keyboard works of Johann Sebastian Bach" will not usually contain anything on organ works, even "manualiter" works such as BWV 689. If editors want to experiment with new terminology, the best advice is to restrict those experiments to their sandbox. Describing an organ piece for two manuals and pedals as a keyboard piece (with pedals) is just disruptive. It seems quite close to vandalism and will of course confuse the reader. Preparing lists on content not so far covered on wikipedia seems like a ploy to disrupt normal editing. Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Jones, Schulenberg:
 * Jones (2006), p. 141: "... the concertos that Bach transcribed for harpsichord (BWV 972–87 and 592a) or organ (BWV 592–6) at Weimar ..." (pp. 142–3 groups these works in a single table; subsequent treatment of these transcriptions, pp. 143–53, does not group by either "harpsichord" or "organ" versions; the concluding paragraph, pp. 152–3, includes both "harpsichord" and "organ" examples in what is termed "keyboard versions")
 * Schulenberg (22013), p. 117: the opening paragraph of the chapter includes manualiter and pedaliter arrangements in what is termed "keyboard versions"
 * ibid., p. 120: Schulenberg mentions Marshall (1986) as questioning the "... traditional division of Bach's manualiter and pedaliter transcriptions between harpsichord and organ ..."
 * ibid., p. 121: here Schulenberg mentions "Bach's later Italian Concerto" in the context of the Weimar transcriptions.
 * Williams:
 * Williams (2016), p. 361: "... If the first work in the new book, the Italian Concerto, was some years old before it was published twice in 1735, perhaps it did not originally specify two manuals, any more than the transcriptions of Vivaldi's string concertos had done so during the Weimar years. ..."
 * ibid., p. 362: "... The [Italian] Concerto is full of details [Bach] learnt from transcribing Italian works twenty years previously, ..."
 * ibid., pages 367 and 369: on these pages it is clear that Williams includes "organ", "harpsichord" and/or "early fortepiano" in what he calls "keyboard" in the context of Bach's and Handel's concertos for these instruments.
 * Maybe the thing is about translating pedaliter to "keyboard with pedals" and manualiter to "keyboard without pedals"? Or using "solo keyboard" instead of "keyboard without accompaniment"? Terminology can be clarified and/or replaced but is, as such, irrelevant for the appreciation of whether or not the topic deserves a separate page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Weimar transcriptions (after Jones 2006, pp. 142–3) Basing myself primarily on the table pp. 142–3 in The Creative Development of Johann Sebastian Bach, Volume I: 1695–1717 – Music to Delight the Spirit by Richard D. P. Jones (OUP, 2006; ISBN 9780191513244), and a bit on "8: The Concerto Transcriptions", pp. 117–139 in The Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach by David Schulenberg (Routledge, 22013; ISBN 9781136091469), e.g. for the manualiter (m) / pedaliter (p) distinctions, and on other sources as indicated by footnoted references, I'd think this sortable table would do well in mainspace:

Not in the table: --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Manuscripts of the arrangements (both Jones and Schulenberg list the principal manuscripts in their tables);
 * Early variants and lost works, e.g.:
 * BWV 972a – earlier version of BWV 972
 * BWV Anh. 213 – Concerto in F major for solo organ (lost), after an unidentified concerto by Georg Philipp Telemann
 * Doubtful works
 * "Torelli" attribution of the model for BWV 979
 * Proposed attributions of the models for BWV 977, 983 and 986
 * Francis Schonken's line of reasoning seems to have nothing to do with music, the secondary sources or helping the reader. He is pushing his own WP:POV, which seems to be unsupported by any sources that discuss these works in depth. I believe that he has not read either Peter Williams' 2016 CUP book or Rampe's 2013 volume on the concertos published by Laaber.  These two texts, which discuss these concertos over several pages or chapters, give a rather clear overview. They contradict almost everything suggested above in Francis Schonken's attempted "reasoning". It seems to be based solely on semantics and has northing to do with the musical compositions of Bach or their purpose.


 * There is no article on the organ arrangements of concertos by Bach on wikipedia. The standard encyclopedic reference for that is the 2003 CUP book on the organ music of Bach by Peter Williams. Francis Schonken likes creating these tables or lists, but they convey nothing. The reader has to go to books to find out anything of any use, which is hardly the purpose of wikipedia. In the case of Bach's music, lists are not a suitable way to convey information. His compositions, particularly in this case, have survived in a haphazard way where there is considerable mystery. The order and purpose that appears in his life and works is conveyed in prose in the Bach literature. Since its purpose is to reflect these texts, the same should be true on wikipedia.


 * As I have already written, Francis Schonken's invention of terminology like "Concerto for keyboard (with pedals)" is something that cannot be found in any book and was invented by him. Organ music and keyboard music are separate topics in modern scholarship. Wilfully confusing the two in the list was purely disruptive and does not help the reader in any way whatsoever, in fact quite the contrary. As usual Francis Schonken produces walls of text to support his original research, but that does not explain in any way why he created these musically illiterate titles. They are of no benefit to the reader, particularly when they are just lists referring to compositions which are not described in any way at all on wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by reading the sources, understanding them and then adding that content to wikipedia. This list was not written in that way. It was disruptive and totally unhelpful to the reader. Adding concerto as a category to existing articles is a reasonable thing to do. But again that is not always so clear. Do we add "concerto" to an article on a "Sonate auf Concertenart" like one of the sonatas for viola da gamba and obbligato harpsichord? To me the important thing is to have the content somewhere on wikipedia in the first place, which certainly is not what is happening with this list.  Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "... pedals ..." (see also my previous reply on this): note that the table format I proposed above no longer requires the expression "with pedals" (it uses pedaliter instead, per the Schulenberg source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Schulenberg's book on keyboard music discusses the harpsichord transcriptions in detail; Williams' book on organ music does not. Williams book discusses the organ transcriptions for 2 manuals and pedals in detail; Schulenberg's book does not. The harpsichord is a percussive instrument, which is why Schulenberg refers to filling in chords in the left hand. That technique is not applicable on a pipe organ (or even a chamber organ). Schulenberg refers tangentially to the organ transcriptions but that is understandable in deciding the origin, purpose and intended instrument of certain concerto transcriptions. Your misrepresentation of Schulenberg and Williams is a disservice to the reader. Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Williams (2016), pp. 139ff. gives an overview of the Weimar transcriptions for solo keyboard ("... Bach's keyboard transcriptions made at Weimar ..."), including as well those for solo organ as those for solo harpsichord (BTW also linking to various other concertos by Bach and his contemporaries).
 * Re. "... discusses ... in detail ..." – less detailed overviews (e.g. Jones 2006; Williams 2016) keep the Weimar transcriptions together as a stage in Bach's dealings with the Italian and Italianate concerto. I'd support developing more detailed descriptions of the individual concertos in Wikipedia (WP:SOFIXIT). That is however a topic irrelevant to the discussion here: that the article title starts with "List of..." should be tell-tale that this page aims at an overview, not a detailed description of individual concertos. There are enough reliable sources for Bach's solo keyboard concertos as a topic notable in its own right (and that is independent of anticipated more detailed descriptions given elsewhere). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This list is unjustified and unsourced. The only detailed treatments of the transcriptions occur in Schulenberg (harpsichord transcriptions) and Williams, 2003 (organ transcriptions). There is no book by Jones written in 2016. The 2013 book does not discuss the organ transcriptions in any detail; all references are en passant. The organ transcriptions are not treated in any detail in Williams' 2016 book. Bach's transcription of Vivaldi's concertos is mentioned only in connection with his organ playing in Weimar and his association with Walther who championed Italian concertos (page 133). The encyclopedic references do not support your own personal WP:POV and the other references only mention the works en passant. I have access to Williams 2016 book through my university library. How do you have access? Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse Jones 2006 with Williams 2016. Detailed narratives of individual concertos are irrelevant for overview articles (see above). As long as reliable sources like Jones 2006 and Williams 2016 contain an overview of all the concertos, as well the manualiter (harpsichord) as the pedaliter (organ) ones, such overview is worth of note. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a Jones reference from 2007 (the year it was published); but I don't see how that helps. In the sections on "concerto transcriptions", Jones discusses the concertos Bach chose to transcribe, what Bach learnt from them and how they relate to Bach's own compositions and the development of his style. Jones does not discuss in much detail how Bach transcribed then, except for a brief mention of "interventions". Jones' first book investigates how Bach became familiar with the works of Italian composers in Weimar. For example, in discussing toccatas, Jones only lists those that can be dated to the Weimar period. The title of the book is "The creative development of Bach"; like the more recent books of Wolff, Geck and Williams, Jones is writing a "musical biography". The groupings are governed by the time and place of composition, in this case Bach's Weimar period. They are not classifications, just a convenient way of charting Bach's "creative development" in Weimar. The title makes it clear that it is not an encyclopedia but a long essay-like work.


 * This list was not an "overview article". It was a bare list on a topic that you invented yourself, a piece of  WP:OR. You now say that the main sources, Schulenberg and Williams, must be disregarded. These sources contradict a point of view that you invented, so I can see why you want to disregard them. However, if we write articles on the keyboard transcriptions, Schulenberg is the main reference; likewise Williams for the organ transcriptions. I am not aware of any others at the moment. (Jones' 2007 book describes Bach's reception of Italian  composers and the purpose of the transcriptions; so is complementary.) There are not dual standards for articles and "overview" lists. Your "overview" was just POV-pushing, which in this case was quite unhelpful to the reader. Some of the organ sonatas are like concertos; some of the chorale preludes are written like concerto movements. That is stated or discussed in articles in a nuanced way; but a list cannot explain that kind of thing. Overviews in Bach scholarship are expressed in paragraphs of prose, not lists.


 * It is possible to write an article on the concerto transcriptions and that article would not be remotely like a list or table. The only thing resembling a table would be the table of contents. Mathsci (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the format of the page I was thinking about a list with an extended introduction (somewhat like List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach) or a list-article cross-over (somewhat like Church cantata (Bach)). Other examples of what I call an overview article include Chorale cantata (Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach started out life as a well-intentioned article on the motets. It was poorly sourced (the book on the Bach motets was not mentioned). Then you came along a year ago and moved it to a list. The sources are now even worse, with many primary sources and a lot of pseudo-scholarship, almost all due to you. It is a truly dreadful article. "Bach's motets are his only vocal works that kept repertoire without interruption". Pidgin English written by you using Spitta (1884?) as a source. Mozart only heard the works when he was in Leipzig in 1789, so why write that? The 1995 book by Melamed is not even in the references. In it he assesses Spitta as a historical commentator. Yet you composed text directly from Spitta. You presumably want to do the same thing here. You made no effort to find sources and concocted your own commentary on the reception. But what about Mozart and the motets? You don't mention that; yet it's easy enough to find.  My impression is that these Bach scholars know how to write about the motets. You seem to have gone out of your way to ignore what they have written and instead create your own narrative using primary sources. The article was moving in a reasonable direction until you started editing it.  So I'm sorry, that was a very poor example to choose. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I added the 1995 book by Melamed as a reference with my first content contribution to the article . No improvements to the format or structure of the page are suggested above (afaics the suggestions involve content and references, not a modification of the page's structure). Are there any suggestions about article structure that may be applied to an overview page about the concertos Johann Sebastian Bach wrote for unaccompanied keyboard instruments? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't use the book of Melamed at all. From what you have written, you are in general not disposed to using reliable secondary sources for writing content about Bach's music on wikipedia. You like creating content from bare lists and 1880s references. My own feeling is that the Motets should be moved back to an article. That might at least encourage other editors to improve it using secondary sources.

The phrase that you are using, "concerto for unaccompanied keyboard instrument," is gibberish. I understand that you like using it, because you keep using it. But you cannot force it on readers.

The literature is rather clear on "the concerto transcriptions": that is what they are called. They are concertos transcribed in 1713–1714 by Bach, for various reasons, partly to please his employer, partly to assimilate the genre. They were probably designed as court or chapel music: harpsichord for the court; and organ for the chapel. As such they are related to all the concertos Bach wrote, not just those for harpsichord. That is how academics discuss this material.

So to reitierate: "concertos for unaccompanied keyboard instrument" is just gibberish. "Concerto transcriptions" is correct and conveys quite concisely what it means. William Crotch arranged Handel's Concerti grossi Op.6 for keyboard. I wouldn't not described those as "Concertos for unaccompanied keyboard by William Crotch", but according to your logic we should. William Crotch preferred to have as title page "Twelve Grand Concertos composed about the year 1737 by G.F. Handel adapted for the organ or pianoforte by Wm. Crotch, Professor of Music in the University of Oxford and Principal of the Royal Academy of Music in London." So no, no, no to the gibberish phrase "concerto for unaccompanied keyboard instrument". Mathsci (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the 1970s someone in Iowa wrote a dissertation titled The German Unaccompanied Keyboard Concerto in the Early 18th Century: Including Works of Walther, Bach, and Their Contemporaries. That dissertation is listed as a source in Schulenberg 2013. For me "Unaccompanied keyboard concerto (Bach)" would work as an article in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The actual section titles you used were "Keyboard with pedals (organ)" and "Keyboard without pedals (harpsichord)". Those were the actual terms you used and all that needs to be discussed here. Can you start by explaining which source uses either of the section titles. There is no need to get sidetracked on hypothetical articles. As I wrote, the term Concerto transcription is self-explanatory. In his book on the concertos, Siegbert Rampe uses the phrase Konzertbearbeitungen für Orgel. That title matches a huge number of entries in the Bach literature; it also used for many of the published editions. just search in the literature for things like "Johann Sebastian Bachs Konzertbearbeitungen nach Vivaldi und anderen ..." and see what comes up.  "Transcriptions" is the word used to qualify Concerto by Schulenberg to describe BWV 525–530 and BWV 972–987.  Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Instead of explaining obsolete choices I'd propose to group the content of the page along these lines:
 * ==Concerto transcriptions==
 * ==Original compositions==
 * ==Doubtful works==

Time to get to work I suppose. With the suggestions above about content, references, structure, terminology, etc. it might take some time to work out an improved basic structure of the page. I propose to proceed with that. The restructuring may also indicate whether a renaming of the page would be opportune. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no point in a list. It helps the reader in no way at all and is contrary to the way articles on music are written (I mean the original material of musicologists in books or journals). Instead of being lazy and not looking for sources, I suggest you try to write an article that is not a list on just the concerto transcriptions. So to repeat: it should not be a list and not use any primary sources. You've been told about three sources: all the content on the concerto transcriptions in those three sources should be summarised in an article. Writing a proper article involves gathering a comprehensive list of secondary sources in the areas I've mentioned (brief history of the Italian concerto, Bach's duties in Weimar w.r.t. organ compositions, brief description of each harpsichord transcription, brief description of each organ transcription, Bach's reception of concertos by Italian composers + adaptation of genre in his own compositions). I have mentioned the three most significant ones, none of which can be disregarded.


 * Otherwise I cannot see how any useful content is added to wikipedia. The concerto transcriptions have a quite different status to Bach's own compositions and have a quite separate history and function. Above I have very briefly given an summary/overview of what Richard Jones has written in the first volume on the development of Bach's music.


 * So I see no point in creating lists about content that is not discussed in any substantial way on wikipedia. If you're too lazy to create a proper article, that does justify any kind of list. Trying to disguise a list as an article is equally bad. Any content must be sourced to books and journals. Anything sourced to the Bach Archive or outdated sources will be deleted. So I am sorry, no list. Repeatedly asking me will not change that. Mathsci (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which article title would you propose for such page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not as if it is such a complex step to move a list page to a more appropriate title when editors want to develop it into an article (compare ). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic of concerto transcription is a tiny topic. You don't seem even to be thinking about sources. Anything like a list, anything prepared using the Bach Archive, anything not using the three sources I have mentioned, is likely to be deleted or redirected. The way to think about this is to look at the number of pages in the sources. That is not particularly difficult. 26 pages in Williams on the transcriptions for organ. 23 pages in Schulenberg on the transcriptions for harpsichord. 11 pages in Jones on the history and reception. There are also sources in German, e.g. the 2008 book of Rampe on the keyboard and organ works, published by Laaber. I don't agree about changing a list into an article. With the list of motets, it would take me about five minutes. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Preparation
Preparing content creation, contributions welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Malcolm Boyd. Bach. Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN 9780195307719
 * Werner Breig. "Composition as arrangement and adaptation", pp. 154–170 in The Cambridge Companion to Bach, edited by John Butt. Cambridge University Press, 1997. ISBN 9780521587808
 * Richard D. P. Jones. The Creative Development of Johann Sebastian Bach: Music to Delight the Spirit, Volume I: 1695-1717. Oxford University Press, 2007. ISBN 9780198164401
 * Richard D. P. Jones. The Creative Development of Johann Sebastian Bach: Music to Delight the Spirit, Volume II: 1717-1750. Oxford University Press, 2013 ISBN 9780191503849
 * David Schulenberg. The Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach. Routledge, 2013. ISBN 9781136091469
 * Michael Talbot. The Vivaldi Compendium. Boydell Press, 2011. ISBN 9781843836704
 * Peter Williams. The Organ Music of J. S. Bach. Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 9780521891158
 * Peter Williams. A Musical Biography. Cambridge University Press, 2016. ISBN 9781107139251
 * Christoph Wolff. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. W. W. Norton, 2001. ISBN 9780393322569

Progress:
 * Started listing eligible sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You added content which was just a list. I have removed it. I told you that a list of any kind was unacceptable and would be removed. With WP:IDHT, you went ahead and produced one on the article page. That is disruptive and tendentious editing. What you wrote did not have one coherent sentence describing these transcriptions. Nothing at all. In those circumstances, please develop the article in your own user space. 06:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, your Wp:IDHT extended in other disruptive ways. You used the Bach Acrhive as a source: but it is a primary source, so unusable on wikipedia. You also included sections on original compositions by Bach which have nothing to with his transcriptions: Italian concerto is an example. More WP:IDHT and disruption. Why are you doing this? Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All you did was mildly modify the list. You did not modify any of the references. Just WP:IDHT. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit through a in use template in such disruptive way. What was unclear about "...it might take some time to work out an improved basic structure of the page" (which I wrote above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bach transcribed seven concertos by Antonio Vivaldi for solo harpsichord (RV 230, 265, 299, 310, 316, 381 and 813), and three for solo organ (RV 208, 522 and 565). One of these concertos, RV 813, used to be attributed to Giuseppe Torelli. This attribution to Torelli of the model for BWV 979 is encountered in Bach scholarship.

Later Bach would arrange Vivaldi's Op. 3 No. 10 (RV 580) to a concerto for four harpsichords and strings (BWV 1065).

Apart from the concertos after models by Antonio Vivaldi (including one formerly attributed to Torelli), Bach also transcribed concertos by the Venetian brothers Alessandro and Benedetto Marcello. Benedetto was a more prolific composer than his elder brother Alessandro.


 * ====Benedetto Marcello's Op. 1 No. 2====

Benedetto Marcello's Op. 1, containing twelve concerti à cinque, was published in 1708. The second concerto in that collection, in E minor, had a violino principale in its first two movements.
 * BWV 981 – Concerto in C minor, after Benedetto Marcello's Concerto Op. 1 No. 2


 * ====Alessandro Marcello's Oboe concerto====

Bach based his transcription of Marcello's oboe concerto on a lost manuscript that was circulating before the concerto was published in 1717.
 * BWV 974 – Concerto in D minor, after Alessandro Marcello's Oboe Concerto in D minor

BWV 597

Progress (continued): Again a list and unhelpful table, so reverted. You have not incorporated any substantive material from the three main sources. That is the fundamental problem. You have again reproduced an unacceptable piece of original research that you concocted yourself. It is is list/table form (the table as created here I think). That is the fundamental problem. You have obviously formed your own personal views on a possible relationship between the transcriptions and two of Bach's mature original compositions (Italian concerto, Double concerto in C major). Apart from words in the title, these pieces do not belong together. You try to justify a connection by misrepresenting sources.
 * "Collapse" template instead of "Hide" template, works better on talk pages afaics.
 * Updated table proposal (manuscript info per table in Jones 2007; Bach Digital links; added BWV 972a); FYI, the "Bach Digital"/BDW links in tables were discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanded preparation, will continue work on further improvements in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But why should the reader be subjected to your own views, which do not represent the literature at all?

Schulenberg, Williams and Jones write very clearly about the transcriptions. Yet you have been unable to summarise any of their prose in the article. But again you're pushing the idea that these works belong together. It seems that you "reasoning" rests on the word "concerto". But these authors also discuss the different use of concerto at that time. Bach himself used the word "concerto" to describe first movements of many of the Leipzig cantatas, even those with chorus. BWV 39 is an example.

I don't think anything that these authors write is hard to summarise. Their texts are aimed at a readership with some musical training. The transcriptions are rather specialised works, unlike the Italian concerto which is played by schoolchildren. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Re "... lists ...":
 * Respectable scholars produce lists in their writings (see above)
 * In Wikipedia:
 * Sortable lists have an added bonus
 * Lists are no "impediment" to producing readable prose, on the contrary: they work as an invitation to do so
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec)

Apart from concertos which came to be seen as orchestral pieces, Johann Sebastian Bach wrote concertos for a single player, such as the Italian Concerto. Comparably, the original version of BWV 1061, a concerto for two harpsichords, lacks ripieno strings.

Progress (continued): You added "two harpsichord concerto" as a solo keyboard concerto. In the list you seemed unable to write that the organ transcriptions were written for two keyboards and pedals. Nothing you have so far put on the article page seemed remotely useful to a reader. It was confused. The inability to write a sentence saying that Bach transcribed concertos for the harpsichord and the organ is hard to explain. Sentences like that are not hard to write. Nothing you have written on wikipedia gives the impression that you have any serious acquaintance with the scholarly literature on Bach, except what you can retrieve from the web. You write in the article that Richard Jones wrongly attributed BWV 979 to Torelli but he doesn't write that explicitly. Similarly Schulenberg put a questionmark next to Torelli for BWV 979 in 2006; he subsequently published an update in 2016. He writes, "Sardelli (2005, 75–7) argues plausibly that the model of BWV 979 is an early work of Vivaldi, not Torelli, and the original concerto is now listed as R. 813. Because the argument rests almost entirely on style analysis, the re-attribution to Vivaldi cannot be considered entirely conclusive, but the case against Torelli’s authorship does seem strong." Mathsci (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Starting WP:Lead section rewrite proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Before doing that, please tell me what the title is? If it is unchanged and you want to pursue your own idea to link the transcriptions with the Italian concerto and the Double harpsichord concerto in C major, that is completely unacceptable and disruptive. You have been told that several times. Ignoring it with WP:IDHT and persisting with something that has been rejected is disruptive. Use WP:BRD and discuss things here. At the moment you have represented on this talk page to be doing one thing ( a possible article on the concerto transcriptions) and then in the article do the contrary, That is disruptive and tendentious editing. Locking the article in a list format is of no help. Please explain yourself here. If you want to create an article about the transcriptions, you can do so. In your user space for example.  They were written in 1713-1714 in Weimar, so you have no need to mention compositions composed 10 or 20 years later. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * re. "Before doing that, please tell me what the title is?" – You didn't answer my question above: "Which article title would you propose for such page?" . --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede above misrepresents the literature. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see pages 80 to 83 and see well-written prose about the purpose of the transcriptions. I see a discussion of the open-ended way the word concerto was used at the time of Bach, as echoed in other literature (e.g. for the 1st movement of BWV 39). But the wikipedia use of concerto unfortunately does not coincide with Bach's use. For example we will not put BWV 39 in the category "Concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach", even if the first movement has "concerto" in the title. Bach could equally well have written the word Concerto above his sonatas for organ. Boyd is making that point; and mentions the Italian Concerto en passant. He is discussing the difference between modern terminology and that used in the early eighteenth century. But the titles of our articles reflect modern terminology. It's quite easy to avoid any confusion by not creating any in the first place. Boyd discusses the Overture in the French style and the Italian concerto together, but as contrasting keyboard works. each based on an idealised orchestral model. The Italian concerto is described separately in just two sentences. The grouping in this hold-all chapter from a short book could be in principle be misused to justify making a list article containing all of Bach instrumental, orchestral and keyboard works; or indeed any arbitrary selection. It is a short book, extremely well-written but obviously with everything condensed to fit the short space allotted to books in the series. I think it does not justify the list. Apart from the use of the word "concerto", in his introductory paragraph about Italian terms, Boyd does not group together any of the works you mention. He mentions that the transcriptions were written as part of Bach's assimilation of contemporary Italianate concertos and also to satisfy his employer; he explains that they were crucial for Bach's own concerto writing; he describes the harpsichord concertos and in particular that the C major concerto probably originated as Leipzig Hausmusik; and then talks about the mature Italian concerto. But all of these items are widely separated in different sections. Putting them together as if they were compositions of the same genre is crazy. Bach made the transcriptions for performance in the court or chapel at Weimar. Bach probably wrote the double concerto jointly as Hausmusik and for concerts at the Collegium Musicum. The Italian Concerto was a published work, part of Bach's legacy to the world, his own distillation and perfecting of keyboard writing. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The "unaccompanied keyboard concerto" is a distinct genre, and appears as such in scholarly literature (see above). This is a page about Bach's contributions to that genre. An appropriate structure, and prose text with appropriate references allows to elucidate the above-mentioned distinctions in mainspace. There's more than enough input to get the development started. Much of the comments on this page are getting repetitive, so, unless a more suitable article title is suggested, I see no reason to stall that development. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 2016 Schulenberg update (which I hadn't seen yet): before that I had only seen the "Torelli" name appear in Bach scholarship (with or without question mark) for the model of BWV 979. Note that Schulenberg's 2016 update is a web resource. You make suggestions for an expansion of mainspace content, thanks. So now please stop deleting mainspace content that has been tagged for "expansion".
 * Re. "... "two harpsichord concerto" as a solo keyboard concerto" – at List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert there had been a discussion whether "solo piano compositions" included the composer's piano duets (Series VII/1 of the New Schubert Edition): I was told it did. So if the appreciation of the English language is a bit different here I'd be happy to move to "unaccompanied keyboard concerto", as I proposed before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

One of these concertos, RV 813, used to be tentatively attributed to Giuseppe Torelli. This tentative attribution to Torelli of the model for BWV 979 is encountered in Bach scholarship. In 2005 Federico Maria Sardelli argued ("plausibly" but "not entirely conclusive" according to David Schulenberg) that the concerto is an early work by Vivaldi. Sardelli's arguments against authorship by Torelli are deemed "strong" by Schulenberg.

Progress (continued):
 * Proposed update of the RV 813 attribution issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you deliberately misunderstand.

I chose the above as an example of your editing style, which I think is of exceptionally low quality. In the list there were almost no sentences in English: when you did compose a sentence, it had a constipated feel, communicating almost nothing and managing to bungle musical terms, almost to the point of musical illiteracy. Shorthand phrases like "Italian and Italianate concertos" for the concertos of the Venetian school (Bach's contemporaries) and its imitators is an example. But they are the main point of the topic: you could not even convey that to the reader, because there was no attempt to summarise what is in the literature. That is easy to explain, but you have never made any attempt to do so.

'''BACH MADE HIS TRANSCRIPTIONS IN 1713-1714 WHILE IN SERVICE AT THE COURT IN WEIMAR. HE DID SO PARTLY TO ACQUAINT HIMSELF WITH THE INSTRUMENTAL CONCERTOS OF THE VENETIAN SCHOOL—IN PARTICULAR OF HIS CONTEMPORARY VIVALDI—AND PARTLY TO SATISFY HIS EMPLOYER JOHANN ERNST BY PRODUCING VERSIONS OF CONCERTOS THAT COULD BE PERFORMED BY A SINGLE PLAYER EITHER IN THE CHAPEL (ORGAN) OR IN THE COURT (HARPSICHORD). HIS TRANSCRIPTIONS FOLLOWED A MORE WIDE SPREAD TRADITION IN GERMANY. THE CONCERTOS OF THE VENETIAN SCHOOL HAD A PROFOUND INFLUENCE ON THE INSTRUMENTAL CONCERTOS THAT BACH LATER COMPOSED HIMSELF, ONLY A FEW OF WHICH SURVIVE TODAY.'''

You deliberately chose to ignore the history and the purpose. And you continued to use primary sources from the Bach archive.

Your use of the word "pedaliter" is an inadequate shorthand for two keyboards and pedals. Nobody writing about organ music would use the term in that context; and no musical score (manualiter is used and usually means a single manual in Bach's case). It is pointless and unhelpful to make no distinction between organ and harpsichord.

Your references to Jones and Schulenberg were inappropriate, written as if you were putting these supposed experts, writing in 2006 and 2007, in their place in wikipedia's voice. In 2006 Schulenberg placed a question-mark next to Torelli, which has a clear meaning, and in addition provided a footnote mentioning Vivaldi. Yet, in the only reference to his book, all you could manage was a misreading of Schulenberg's text. Even when corrected, you did not change that description. You seem to lack WP:COMPETENCE in using secondary sources. Again this is just looking at one detail. Everywhere you created similar problems, too numerous to list here. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can the bold allcaps text above (reformatted) be used in mainspace? I'd have only a small suggestion: the court/chapel distinction is maybe a bit confusing – Bach's organ transcriptions were intended for the Weimar court chapel afaik, so they would be for the court as much as the harpsichord versions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC) (reworded 14:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC))


 * Schematically I'd approach the history of Bach's keyboard concertos in this way (going through the three stages sketched by Boyd):
 * Absorbing the concerto format (period: mostly Weimar but started earlier); relevance for keyboard concertos: apart from absorbing and elaborating the form (which is relevant for all of Bach's concertos) there's the more specific aspect of converting (solo) violin idiom (and to a lesser extent oboe idiom) to keyboard (harpsichord/organ) idiom (see what the scholars write about this) – this centers mostly around the Weimar concerto transcriptions.
 * Creating his own concerto compositions (period: mostly Köthen but started earlier and continued probably well into the Leipzig era); relevance for keyboard concertos: apart from creating the models for later transcriptions, there is the fifth Brandenburg Concerto (with its extended keyboard cadenza etc) – the unaccompanied keyboard concertos of this stage are BWV 971 and 1061a (these two compositions are often linked with one another in scholarly literature).
 * (third stage not relevant for Bach's unaccompanied keyboard concertos, apart from BWV 1065 in some way echoing the Weimar transcriptions of Vivaldi violin concertos, and in general solo violin/oboe idiom again being translated in keyboard idiom)
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The transcription of Vivaldi's four violin concerto for four harpsichords has no relevance here; the phrase is "in some way echoing the Weimar transcriptions of Vivaldi violin concertos" is an invention of Francis Schonken. There is no mention of that in the article on BWV 1065 in Rampe's 2013 book. The fifth Brandenburg concerto is irrelevant to the stated topic. What's written above does not address the concerto transcriptions. Boyd's paperback is written for a general readership; it is not part of the "scholarly literature". Apart from academic textbooks, more often than not that takes place in collections entitled Bach Perspectives, Bach Jahrbuch. Bach-Studien, etc. Francis Schonken seems quite unaware of that literature; and appears not to have access to it, unless by accident parts of it are on the web. The book of Schulenberg on Keyboard Works is a scholarly text. it discusses the Italian concerto, but has only a one-line footnote on the two harpsichord concerto. The 9 page article on the two harpsichord concerto and its supposed precursor in Rampe's 2013 book makes no reference either to the Italian concerto or to the concerto transcriptions.

Francis Schonken has given no argument that links the two harpsichord concerto with the concerto transcriptions. We just have to take his word for it. He boasts that what he writes is in the literature, but that unfortunately does not seem to be the case at all. The opposite seems to be true: so far he has been unable to point to any passage in the literature that has a direct and detailed discussion of the two harpsichord concerto within the framework or context of his personal essay. Given that, I see no justification for the reader having Francis Schonken's unsourced point of view inflicted upon them in wikipedia's voice. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Manuscripts
Starting a list of manuscripts:

Around 1715 Johann Bernhard Bach, Johann Sebastian's second cousin, copied 12 of the concerto transcriptions in a single manuscript. This manuscript, shelf mark P 280 in the Berlin State Library, starts with the harpsichord transcriptions BWV 973–981, followed by the organ transcription BWV 592, and ends with BWV 982. The sequence of the concertos in this manuscript is possibly as intended by the composer. The first transcription contained in the volume is very elaborated. Gradually the keyboard settings become less elaborated, until, towards the end of the volume, some appear to be incomplete. Other hand copies of the keyboard transcriptions survived as separate manuscripts or were at some point grouped in convolutes. For the organ transcriptions there is no known sequence that may go back to Bach's time. P 330 is Bach's autograph of BWV 596, written around 1714–17. Wilhelm Friedemann Bach later wrote on this manuscript that it was one of his own compositions, copied by his father. In the 20th century the assertion by the son was shown to be incorrect, and the transcription was attributed to the father.


 * 25448 MSM at Conservatoire royal de Bruxelles : Fascicles 3 (BWV 972a) and 4 (BWV 981) at Bach Digital website
 * D-DS Mus. ms. 66 at (BWV 974; ; D-DS Mus. ms. 66 at Bach Digital website)
 * D-LEb Peters Ms. 8 at /Bach Archive: Fascicles 14 (BWV 971), 28 (BWV 984) and 29 (BWV 981) at Bach Digital website
 * D-LEb Peters Ms. 11 at /Bach Archive: (BWV 592; D-LEb Peters Ms. 11 at Bach Digital website)
 * D-LEm Poel. mus. Ms. 29 at (BWV 592a, 973 and 983–4; D-LEm Poel. mus. Ms. 29 at Bach Digital website)
 * D-LEu N.I.5137 and 5138 at Leipzig University Library (BWV 594; RISM Nos. 200020992 and 200020991; D-LEu N.I.5137 and 5138 at Bach Digital website)
 * Mus.ms. Bach P 280 at Berlin State Library (BWV 592 and 973–982; ; D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 280 at Bach Digital website)
 * Mus.ms. Bach P 286 at Berlin State Library : Fascicles 6 (BWV 595) and 7 (BWV 594) at Bach Digital website
 * Mus.ms. Bach P 330 at Berlin State Library (Bach's autograph of BWV 596; ; D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 330 at Bach Digital website)
 * Mus.ms. Bach P 400b and 400c at Berlin State Library (BWV 593 and 594; RISM Nos. 467300036 and 467300037; D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 400b and 400c at Bach Digital website)
 * Mus.ms. Bach P 801 (28) at Berlin State Library ("Concerto di Marcello", BWV 981; ; D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 801, Fascicle 28 at Bach Digital website)
 * Mus.ms. Bach P 804 at Berlin State Library : Fascicles 4 (BWV 974), 15 (BWV 976), 28 (BWV 985), 31 (BWV 592), 34 (BWV 987), 35 (BWV 983), 46 (BWV 986), 52 (BWV 984), 54 (BWV 973), 55 (BWV 972) and 56 (BWV 977) at Bach Digital website
 * Mus.ms. Bach St 139, Fascicle 1 at Berlin State Library (autograph parts of BWV 1061a; D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 139, Faszikel 1 at Bach Digital website)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Primary sources. Not usable for editing. You have been told that on WP:RSN by several editors. That still applies. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Featured and good articles usually list and link the principal primary sources discussed in scholarly literature, especially facsimiles and/or secondary source descriptions of these primary sources, e.g. BWV 243a, BWV 4. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hardly. I am not aware of lists that become good articles or featured articles. As for the "scholarly literature", you appear to have no access to anything not on the web. Even what is available on the web, you appear not to have absorbed. Given your apparent interest in these compositions, you also seem to have missed one general reference; it's not available on the web as far as I know.

Your attempts to discuss the primary sources (manuscripts) as if you were a Bach scholar yourself come across as amateurish and unmusical. Several editors have told you that your use of primary sources is misguided: on WP:RSN you were repeatedly told that using primary sources like the Bach Archive is unacceptable.

As far as I'm aware, lists are not intended to be substitutes for articles. Your editing so far indicates that you refuse to write prose, refuse to summarise the main sources, suppress the main drift of those sources, instead misrepresenting sources to push your own point of view. Your comments here and your editing of the main page unfortunately indicate that you lack the skills or appropriate attitude to write a straightforward article on Bach's concerto transcriptions. There does seem to be something wrong with your attitude: you seem to have entirely forgotten about the reader. So far you have not succeeded in producing anything interesting or musical. The main secondary sources—Schulenberg, Williams and Jones—are full of interesting musical facts about the concerto transcriptions. None of that is on wikipedia; and the only place for that is in an article. Your approach to the main sources seems like that of a "dementor" in a Harry Potter book: you seem to have found a method for draining the life out of secondary sources; instead of summarising them (not so hard), your own WP:POV takes priority and you only these lengthy sources as single citations to support your own point of view. But whatever happened to the poor reader? Mathsci (talk)
 * (e.c.) Progress (continued):
 * Started to write prose regarding manuscripts, (thus far) summarized from Schulenberg, Williams and Jones. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Schulenberg writes on page 119, " For the first eleven concertos, this is the order of the most important source, a manuscript copy by Bach’s Eisenach cousin Johann Bernhard Bach. With the exception of BWV 982, and possibly also BWV 977, the arrangements copied by Bernhard Bach were of Italian works. It is conceivable that the sequence was determined by Sebastian himself; the volume opens with a splendid D-major work of Vivaldi, arrangements of weaker pieces falling toward the end. A few movements in the transcriptions toward the back of the book (e.g., the second adagio of BWV 981) remain incompletely adapted for keyboard performance, as is also the case with several of the transcriptions not included in P 280. Otherwise it is difficult to discern any pattern in the ordering of the works." "Splendid" refers to the quality of Vivaldi's concerto, not of the transcription. "Weaker" refers to the quality of the original concertos. The other comments refer to transcriptions which could not be played as written on a keyboard (i.e. preliminary versions where Bach had not made his own alterations). Your paraphrase says something completely different. But I don't why any of this content is relevant for a list article. Your own knowledge of the literature seems poor in this case. Manuscripts are obviously discussed in detail by editors of Urtext editions. In the past you have been provided with such a discussion of some of these very works by me. The Urtext editor in question indicates that the manuscripts provide valuable information about the reception and performance history of the works: he leaves aside the forgery (JSB indeed forged WFB's letter of application for the post of organist at Dresden), but comments instead that the concerto transcriptions and organ sonatas must have been an important part of W. F. Bach's repertoire. Mathsci (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

List article being used as a POV fork to package original research
I have removed Francis Schonken's attempted list yet again. It is disruptive editing. FS has claimed that there is some substantial piece of literature that discusses the two harpsichord concerto BWV 1061 in relation to Bach's keyboard transcriptions; likewise for the Italian Concerto, BWV 971. That does not seem to be the case. None has been produced.

The first work is discussed in detail in Siegbert Rampe's 2013 book on the Concertos of Bach (9 pages on this topic). The current literature is also discussed there. Nothing that FS has been suggesting is supported there. It is his original research and seems unsupported, so without any value whatsoever. He has not mentioned any of the literature cited by Rampe, so presumably has no knowledge of it, contrary to his claims. Why make such claims in that case?

There is valuable content on concertos that can be added to wikipedia with proper use of sources. Examples of that can be found in my own content creation at the moment. In writing about concertos, much of the literature can only be found in libraries. That has been my experience after working in depth on particular concertos. Sometimes individual movements require different sources; that is because the slow movements have a completely structure and history to the outer movements and are usually discussed separately in the literature. That is the case for BWV 1055, the concerto in A major for harpsichord. Even recent literature is often in German.

My own work creating content on the concertos puts me in the position of being to evaluate FS's claims to be acquainted with the literature. That statement seem to be untrue. He has not looked at the book of Rampe and instead has relied on a 220 page short introductory text by Boyd, which does not treat any of the topics in any detail at all. It is written for a non-specialist popular audience: its aim is not to be a scholarly text.

FS has repeatedly claimed that there are substantial portions of text discussing the relationship between BWV 971, BWV 1065 with the early transcriptions. That claim seems to be false. The assertion that they are connected is his original research; the fact that it is unsupported by any literature shows why it is original research.

FS's editing is disruptive. He has not added any substantial content on any of the topics he is discussing. It is better presented elsewhere on wikipedia. The list serves no purpose other than providing a suitable framework for packaging FS's original research while avoiding entering into detail. His ideas seem confused and garbled; and serve no purpose for the reader. FS's aim does not appear to be to help the reader, but just to disrupt wikipedia. Helping the reader involves creating proper content, e.g. my own ongoing efforts on the article of which this is a POV fork. BWV 1044 is another POV fork of the same main article, Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. An article on concerto transcriptions would be justified, but FS has only proposed a list, not an article. Over a prolonged period, he has shown no interest in adding content on any of these works from the 3 main sources (Schulenberg, Williams and Jones).

I am still waiting for FS to cite a lengthy passage in a published academic text (at least one or two pages) which discusses BWV 1061 or BWV 971 in relation to the concerto transcriptions. FS has not produced one so far and I am no aware of any. FS initially proposed his original research for Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. It was rejected there, hence this list article originated as a disruptive POV fork. Mathsci (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposing again to move to "Unaccompanied keyboard concerto (Bach)". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not justified. An article on the Concerto transcriptions (Bach) is obviously justified. So the answer is no. Mathsci (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you would have to seek clarification at WikiProject Music. Essentially you are proposing a new category "unaccompanied keyboard concerto". It is non-standard terminology. There are two compositions of W.F. Bach, BR A12, Sonata for 2 harpsichords in F major (F 10) and BR A13, Concerto for harpsichord solo in G major (F 40), which have these names on wikipedia. The same applies to C.P.E. Bach who used the Italian phrase, Concerto per il cembalo solo for several compositions. He also wrote a large number of organ sonatas, which creates another ambiguity that you might have missed. Mathsci (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "... seek clarification at WikiProject Music" – I initiated Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. Concerto transcriptions (Bach) – Nah, too much overlap with keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach (nearly all of them are concerto transcriptions). Also, article titles are preferably in singular (the other article should in fact be renamed to Keyboard concerto (Bach) – it is different when the article is about a particular set, like Brandenburg Concertos): compare Bach cantata, etc. See Naming conventions (plurals).
 * For J. S. Bach's concertos in which the main or single role goes to the keyboard(s) I think either two pages without significant overlap nor gaps (like Church cantata (Bach) and List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach for the cantatas) or all on a single page with lots of sattelite pages would do best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no intersection at all with Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. In fact none of the content from Williams, Schulenberg and Jones on the concerto transcriptions is on wikipedia at the moment. No Bach scholars mix up Bach's concerto transcriptions with his original compositions as you're doing now. The topics are not treated together in books or journals. Indeed if someone started an article on Concerto transcriptions, it would not be deleted. On the other hand your "logic" could also be used in the following way. There are now articles on all the cantatas. The musical material for the Mass in B minor is largely borrowed from the cantatas. So according to your "logic", the Mass in B minor is just an arrangement of existing works and so does not warrant an article of its own. Similarly most of Handel's Op.3, Op.4 and Op.7. On the other hand those articles do exist, so something must be wrong with that "logic". The Neue Bach Ausgabe and all recent books refer to these as "Concerto transcriptions" or "Concerto arrangements". So we follow what Peter Wollny, Pieter Dirksen, Christoph Wolff, George Stauffer, Peter Williams, Richard Jones, Siegbert Rampe, Werner Breig, etc, write. Content on wikipedia after all is devised using books. That's not about to change. So yes to all the musicians above; and no to Francis Schonken.

As for Keyboard concerto (Bach), there are keyboard concertos by Johann Christian Bach, Johann Sebastian Bach, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. So a rather pointless suggestion; no help to the reader at all. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)