Talk:Orgelbüchlein/Archive 1

Comments
The old text (most of which is commented in the source) featured misguided information and titles in French… don't understand that, since the collection is written in German by a German composer. Furthermore, the former text compared the Orgelbüchlein with cyclical works such as the St. Matthew Passion… this is not the case; the Orgelbüchlein is simply a collection of chorale preludes. The reason it seems that they are composed in four cycles is that the preludes span the church year. The collection was not designed to be performed all at once, as were the truly cyclical works. I'll add more to this article shortly, but currently it is more accurate than it was before. Cor anglais 16 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bach wrote many sets of Chorale preludes of organ; including the Achtzehn, Einzelne and Kirnberger chorale works.


 * Orgelbüchlein consists of 4 cycles, or larger movements. The use of cycles are quite common in Bach's secular (religious, as oppose to instrumental) works, for example the St Matthew Passion (Bach) consists of 2 parts. The first cycle is the 'Cycle de Noël' and consists of 19 preludes, the second 'Cycle de Pâques' and consists of the subsequent 13 preludes, the third 'Cycle de Pentecôte' consists of 3 preludes, and the final cycle 'Glaubensleider' consists of the final 10 preludes. Each prelude is given a name (Eg: The first prelude in the 'Cycle of Noël' is 'Viens, maintenant, Sauveur des païens' or 'Come now, Saviour of the heathen'), probably synonymous with Bach's own faith in the Lutherian (Martin Luther) church.


 * This is the old text referred to above. I have removed it from the source and placed it here. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 03:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Week/Lent
I changed the heading for the Lenten chorales from
 * Seven for each day of the Holy Week

to
 * Seven for Lent

because Bach did not intend to write only seven Lenten chorale preludes, one for each day of Holy Week. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not complete planned chorale preludes for Lenten chorales such as "O Traurigkeit," "Herzliebster Jesu," and four others. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll fix List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach too, then. Jashiin 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Editions"
Okay, so, there's a title for a section which might be quite interesting (I would outline the differences between the presentation of the buchlein in the three major editions: i.e. Novello prints each one preceded by it's Chorale harmonised in the style of Bach [if not by JSB himself], Barenreiter publishes the tunes at the front, in the hymnbook style, and the prelude style, and God knows what Peters does).

BUT

No one's written anything!iPhil 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Title Page
In my opinion, "dem Nächsten" is better translated as "to [my] neighbor", rather than "to the next one", which seems a little awkward. Any objections? —EvanCortens (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever. Reading Peter Williams' book on organ works now and he translates it as "neighbor". --Jashiin (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious POV
I think the article as it stands suffers from a religious POV. The Orgelbüchlein is unquestionably a showcase of how organ preludes can be construed, and Bach states as much on the title page. That it is also a religious statement is pure speculation, not substantiated by any evidence in the article or sources outside it. The analyses of the individual pieces do give some hints as to religious meaning of some aspects of the compositions, but this is also quite subjective. I think the analyses are very useful, but perhaps better split off into separate articles. I don't think the full lyrics are justified in the context of this article, but they might be if the analyses are given in separate articles. Finally, there is an overload of images relating to the content of the hymns used in the organ preludes; I think the relation to the Orgelbüchlein is too tenuous here. Since the article has not been attended to in a while, I took the liberty of removing the religious bias in the text and the choice of images. Zwart (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All the works are written to religious text and a traditional hymn. Each chorale was headed by Bach with the first line of the hymn and, according to almost all commentators, the musical form of the work reflects the text in various ways. That can be found in the main sources (Williams and Stinson). The images are relevant to the texts of the chorales, which largely are devoted to a given period of the liturgical year. The word "liturgical" refers to religious practices, Lutheran for the monst part. The chorale presludes are not like the WTC as they echo the text and contain the chorale line, in the ways described in the sources. Please read the sources, even if you disagree with them. It is WP:OR to present a point of view of this body of Bach's sacred organ music which does not accord with sources. The analyses of the individual pieces are drawn form the sources. They are not subjective; they are just summaries from the two main books. There are 46 chorale preludes and I only had time in early 2012 to finish a fraction of them. I don't see how it's possible the article without reference to the sources: that's all I use. I cannot see any justification for writing 46 separate articles. With the exception of the 2 manual and pedal preludes, these are short works and mostly interrelated. The start section on the history is still largely unwritten, because I'm occupied with other matters at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. But the chorale preludes are not written to religious texts, they are built on the melody of a church hymn. While it is entirely possible that Bach was inspired by the lyrics of the hymns, it is not evident that this was more significant than the inspiration he might have gotten from the melodies themselves. We just don't know. The liturgical origin of the cycle need not reflect any particular religious motivation: the practical motivation (the need to create material for the service) suffices. As for sources, I checked Geck's analysis (pp. 502ff of the English edition of Bach: Leben und Werk) before editing, to be on the safe side regarding OR. My problem with the images is that they deflect the attention from the choral preludes as musical compositions, which is what the article should be about first and foremost. Of course the images would be fine in articles about the hymns themselves. As for writing separate articles on the individual choral preludes, I think there is no other option if you want to describe each one of them as thoroughly as the first couple. It's not unusual to have separate articles for individual opus numbers (BWV numbers in this case). The alternative would be an unwieldy article. Zwart (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW I have not yet written the analysis of BWV622, one of the most complex of chorale preludes. Almost all commentators agree that the eight chorale lines reflect the hymn text fairly closely. The chromaticism in the last line possibly reflecting the dragging of the cross. That is the sources say, some more guardedly than othere, and that is what the article will say. But please don't edit war over an article an article that you don't intend to contribute to. Your statements here are WP:OR/personal opinion: they are not based on sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is no problem with quoting analyses that see a particular religious significance in a musical motif, although it should be done cautiously, as such an analysis is by definition subjective. I take issue with your assessment of my contributions as OR. I'm not expressing any personal opinion, I'm just demanding that statements made in an article be backed up by evidence or references. I do not intend to wage an edit war, but I will exercise the right of any Wikipedian to improve articles according to Wikipedia standards. Articles are not owned by anyone. Zwart (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Mathsci, I think you are out of line reverting before this discussion is over. Please address my point that the music has no lyrics and that therefore the connection with the images is indirect at best. Also stop framing my contribution as vandalizing. Zwart (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not what the sources say. So if you don't wish to respect the sources, how can you possibly discuss edits to the article? Both Williams and Stinson refer to the texts as do most other prior commentators. I'm sorry I cannot help if you don't like that. There is no religious POV behind the article: I have just carefully followed the sources. Why contradict the sources with your own WP:OR, which just seems like personal opinion. There is nothing controversial in there being a significant religious aspect to the pieces. The dedication even makes that clear, according to the sources; it is just one of several aspects as the commentators point out. Splitting was already discussed for Clavier-Übung III and ruled out. There is no need to go through that discussion again. There is no natural way of splitting this article. I can't see any point in a standalone article about a three minute prelude, with no reference to anything: that is just barmy. But your arguments fail for the same reason that they fail for cantatas. The sacred cantatas are religious works, where the text has obvious relevant. It would make no sense to break up the cantatas into separate movements. That is the equivalent of what you are suggesting here. Just as a matter of interest do you have any previous experience of writing detailed wikipedia articles on baroque music, instrumental, orchestral or choral?


 * I think the removal of the images, a help to the reader and something very particular to wikipedia, is not helpful and you should wait until the article is finished, before further discussion. The images took a huge amount of time to locate and download. Many have been transferred to commons.


 * You're being very defensive. First, what you should do is modify the text about the Orgelbüchlein being a religious statement by at least adding a reference, but preferably by some hedging. After all we are not talking about an established fact here. Second, there is a difference between music reflecting some religious theme (like the coming of Christ) and music making a religious statement. There is also a difference between writing a composition in the mood of a particular liturgical setting and making a religious statement. So give me the evidence that there is any religious statement being made and then the text can stay. Third, while I appreciate the effort you put in trying to embellish the article, you have to keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not a comprehensive web site: it's just an encyclopedia article. That means that the images have to make sense in the context of the article. The pictures are beautiful and should find a place in Wikipedia articles, but not here. There is a lot to say about a choral prelude like "Christ lag in Todesbanden" but it would have to be about the musical composition and not about Christ. About your question: no, in fact, I have never written anything about baroque music in Wikipedia articles. Why do you ask? Zwart (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Geck's Life of Bach has almost nothing on the Orgelbüchlein, although it is sometimes useful for historical details. There are specialist books on the complete Bach Organ Music (Williams) and on just the Orgelbüchlein (all aspects, Stinson). You are not discussing usable sources at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You would think that if the Orgelbüchlein made a religious statement, Geck would find a place for mentioning this in the 10 or so pages on the subject. But he only talks about the music, as should this article. Zwart (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources do not say that the Orgelbüchlein makes a "religious statement", so I am not quite sure why you are writing that. The sources do examine the possible reasons for writing the collection, which was not published during Bach's lifetime. If Stinson and Williams make reference to the religious aspect, for example the original use of some of the chorale preludes during actual masses, then the article mentions that and it is not censored. Geck goes into detail about Schweitzer and Bach. I read on page 18 of Johann Sebastian Bach, that Widor and Scwheitzer, "find common ground in discussing the pictorial richness and symbolism of this music" (Page 18). There seems to be hardly any detail in Geck on the OB, compared with the sources devoted to an encyclopedic discussions of his organ music. I do not see Geck as a principal source, because of the lack of detail: it mostly contains titbits relating to the history and reception. In writing a wikipedia article, the main sources are usually located at the outset: these are followed in writing the article.  The are 90 pages in Williams and over 200 pages in Stinson. No reasonable explanation has been given for not following those sources: censoring them would be perverse, to put it mildly. Here is part of what Stinson writes about BWV 622 (I presume yuu have Stinson and both editions of Williams at hand): "This Passiontide chorale, which Bach set in the OB as an ornamental chorale,, is probably the most beloved piece in the collection—and one of Bahc's most acclaimed organ chorales altogether. Widor is said to have found it 'the finest piece of instrumental musica written.' O Mensch deserves its exalted status, first of all, to bach's vivid depictionpf the melancholy chorale text, as one can see in the appogiutura "sigh' figures in measures 12 and 21 and, expecially, in the chromaticism in measures 18-19 and 22-24. Most striking is the C flat major chord at the end of the penultimate measure. As Williams (1981) points outs, Bach used the same chord at the very same juncture in his setting of O Mensch in the 1725 version of the St John Passion (Bach later recycled the noverment in the St Matthew Passion.) Bach accompanies this chord with an adagissimo marking, slowing the tempo from adagio assai. The marking conincides with the word lange ('long upon the cross') in the first stanza, and, since the notes become 'longer' must refer specifically to it. We almost expect this of Bach, given his penchant for deicting 'long' words suach as lang ('long'), Verlangen ('longing'), and ewig ('eternal') with long notes. But rarely in OB does Bach prtray a specific word, as he does here. The passage is, to quote Spitta, 'full of imagination and powerful feeling.' " He continues, but already has several pages prior to this analysing the actual composing score (reproduced in the wikipedia article). Here is part of what Williams writes: "In view of the great legth of the original hymn (and considering the Whit associations of the melody), it is reasonable to see the chorale i n partocular relation to verse 1 of the text. Althogh such key words as bewein, Sünde, Toten, Krankheit, geopfert, schwere Bürd, Kreuze and even lange are bound to be suggestive, it is misleading to seek specific references to such words just at the relevant moments in the melody. Nothing in the music specifially suggests Toten or schwere Bürd, though a fully systematic 'musical sign-language' could have supllied them. Gegopfert (bb 19-20) is preceded, not accompanied, by the chromatic bass; even Kreuze precedes and does not coincide with the well-known C flat chord. Nevertheless the reference to lange does seem clear [...]" There are undoubtedly other shcolarly articles on this chorale prelude. In writing the article, texts such as those above are briefly summarised, possibly using other scholarly sources, such as journal articles. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for censorship. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning any of the scholarship you mention, and I think it should be included in the description of the individual choral preludes. My edit had to do with the Orgelbüchlein making "a religious statement" according to the article. My problem with that is not that I don't like it, but that it is not properly referenced. Don't you agree that if no reference can be given for the Orgelbüchlein making a religious statement, as you seem to admit, the phrase should not be in the article? Zwart (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * re. "We don't normally add citations in the lede [...]" – please see WP:LEADCITE. Avoiding references in the lead section can only be done by consensus. "The Orgelbüchlein is [...] a religious statement [...]" is not mentioned elsewhere in the article: the current body of the article does not make clear why it is mentioned in the lead section. If you want to keep the material in the lead section without reference there, a practical solution would be to elaborate it, properly referenced, in the body of the article. Can you live with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Excessive primary sources
Repeating the OP above: "I don't think the full lyrics are justified in the context of this article, but they might be if the analyses are given in separate articles. Finally, there is an overload of images relating to the content of the hymns used in the organ preludes; I think the relation to the Orgelbüchlein is too tenuous here."

An applicable policy is WP:PRIMARY: "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]".

Primary sources with a tenuous relation to the Orgelbüchlein should of course be completely avoided, e.g. a hymn that is in no way about the burial of Christ should not be illustrated by a painting about that theme. If no reliable secundary source links the fourth stanza of "Christ lag in Todesbanden" to BWV 625 the text of that stanza should not be used to "illustrate" the organ prelude. etc.

For the hymns that have a separate Wikipedia article the solution is simple (at least for text and translation of these hymns): move the primary source material to the article on the hymn. Probably there are other compositions based on that hymn: why should extensive primary source material on the hymn be given in any of these articles?

It can be condoned to have some primary source material related to such hymns in this article as long as there is no separate article on the hymn, but after that a link to the article on the hymn has to suffise: instead this article should give a description of the composition (which voice has the cantus firmus etc.), based on secondary sources, not this excess of primary source material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no POV at all.


 * The article is unfinished and I have resumed editing it following your blanking. I said I would do so here.


 * The two main texts used for the commentary on individual chorale preludes (there are 54 of them if I remember rightly) are Williams (Cambridge University Press) and Stinson (Oxford University Press). The commentary is a precis of what they write and that frequently makes reference to individual words in the text, which the cantus firmus follows. A particularly good example of that is BWV 622. Williams writes carefully about the word painting for the final adagissimo. All commentators comment on the two sets of chromatically rising scales in the pedal which they point out is not uncommon in Bach's musical iconography. The texts were chosen by carefully looking at what Williams and Stinson quoted themselves. So blame them, not me.


 * A major part of the creation of this article involved the musical quotations, written in lilypond, and the audio files in midi that could be created from the lilypond files. I had to add all the ornamentation by hand—all the notes of each trill—for the audio files (e.g. in BWV 622) and find a means to produce tempo changes and pauses (as marked in the scores).


 * Clavier-Übung III provides a clearer idea of what the finished article should look like. It has a different structure, but nevertheless there will be longer sections about the different types of Chorale Preludes before the detailed analysis; and sections on the reception of OB from Bach's time to the present. Although Stinson has a chapter on that, it is discussed in numerous other sources, many of which I already used for Clvbng III.


 * From what you write, you haven't looked at either of the sources. Please do so. Then we can continue this discussion. And please wait until I add the commentary on BWv 625 before blanking parts of the article again. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for disturbing you by replacing a deadlink by a working link. It was not my intention to disturb you with an edit to a section that had no in use template.
 * The section with an in use template hasn't been edited for several hours now, so per the template instructions I'll replace it with an under construction template.
 * Re. "blanking parts of the article": I did no such thing.
 * In your above reply you missed what I said, and replied to things I didn't say.
 * The entombement image is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove it again.
 * The text of stanzas 1 and 4 of Luther's hymn is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove them again. They are contained in the "Christ lag in Todesbanden" article.
 * The explanation of BWV 625 in the article on the hymn is inappropriate in that article, at least it is better in its place in the article on BWV 625. I'll transfer that explanation to here.
 * In fact it's simple: instead of having the text of the hymn in the article on the organ piece, and the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the hymn, we have the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the organ piece, and the text of the hymn in the article on the hymn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: what is the particular relevance of showing the score of the end of BWV 625? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * After being discharged from Papworth Hospital after an unforeseen health emergency at midnight on 11 May, I am resuming editing the article from the state in which I left it when I added the "in use" tag. Francis Schonken's questions here show that he has not mastered the relevant parts of Williams' book and might indeed have difficulty in reading musical scores.


 * My text quotations are the same as in Williams (I have opted for complete verses throughout the article).
 * My musical quotation is the same as in Williams (his explanation of how the accompanying motif is derived from the original chorale melody).


 * Unreasonable questions, but obvious answers. Mathsci (talk)
 * Please respond to the remarks. Please don't use names of Wikipedia editors in section headers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. #5: File:Holbeindeadchrist.jpg seems a much better fit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral subsection header 1
I am not quite sure why Francis Schonken is vandalising this article. He removed the musical quote from the beginning of BWV 625. Presumably he did that because he didn't like it. He also broke the established format for each of the 45 chorale preludes. He presumbably did that because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He refuses to use the main sources. He arbitrarily copy-pasted content I have added elsewhere back into this article, without attribution. Williams quotes verses 1 and 4, yet Schonken decides to paste in verses 3 and 4. Why? Presumably because Francis Schoenken thinks he doesn't need to use sources. I have reverted these changes. I will be adding extra commentary and while that happens Francis Schonken should stay away. Removing the musical quotation from the beginning of BWV 625 was pure vandalism. No resonable person could justify that, given the format of wikipedia articles on Bach organ music. I am not quite not quite how somebody can edit in such an obnoxious way. So far he has proved himself talentless as far as creating content on Bach organ music is concerned. In addition he is acting like a bully. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "He removed the musical quote from the beginning of BWV 625.": I didn't, File:Bwv625-preview.jpg (that is: "the musical quote from the beginning of BWV 625") was in the article after all my edits. Instead of false accusations, please respond to the remarks, suggestions and questions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) I looked at the changes he made.What did Francis Schonken do when he vandalised the article? He copy-pasted in verses 3 and 4 that I had added to Christ lag in Todesbanden, with the format I had created there. It was mindless copy-pasting, but quickly done with a lot of peripheral damage to the text. Verse 4 was mentioned in the text but not verse 3; verse 1 is also mentioned. Francis Schonken also juggled around the positioning of the text so that it no longer conformed with any of the other 44 chorale preludes. That is unhelpful to the reader. They cannot see the text when it is being referred to. I more more or less followed Williams is the order of discussion, because with 45 chorale prelude some uniform method is need. Francis Schonken's juggling about also shows that he has not looked at the rest of the article. He then decided to add verse 1 as a caption in an image with an English translation. That is also also very unhelpful to the reader.Apart from removing sourced content about the origins of the hymn and the musical quotation from the beginning of the prelude (presumably he was deleting in such a frenzied haste that he didn't even notice his vandalism), he copy-pasted content from Terry, with the following brief sentences:


 * I don't find this helpful; and it's not the way wikipedia is normally written. There was already a detailed discussion of the motif from Williams, summarising how various commentators thought the motif might represent the "bonds of death" or "the rolling away of the stone". No need to copy paste the entirety of Terry's comments in this way, as mere duplication. That was appalling editing. Terry uses the word "instinct" in an archaic way that would confuse the reader. Before composing my content, I did look in Spitta, Schweitzer and Terry, but found no extra information that could usefully be to the article. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:TPO#Section headings and WP:TALKNEW#Keep headings neutral I gave this section a more neutral heading. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral subsection header 2
Since Francis Schonken is denying what he did, here is the mess that he created. Note the absence of the musical quotation for the beginning of the piece. The poor choice of illustration. The image he added was of "Christ ist erstanden". That shows extraordinary perversity and zero communication skills. Perhaps he thought that his image could somehow replace the two carefully crafted sourced sentences that he simply blanked in a vandalism spree. The blanked information would be telepathically conveyed to the reader. Because of his blanking, there is an abrupt beginning of the commentary because Schonken blanked what preceded it. Why? Because he HE DIDN'T LIKE IT. That it summarised Williams was irrelevant for him. Here is the result of his vandalism:

Based on Luther's "Christ lag in Todesbanden". The sharp on the second note was a more modern departure, already adopted by the composer-organists Bruhns, Böhm and Scheidt and by Bach himself in his early cantata Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4. The chorale prelude is in four parts for single manual and pedals, with the cantus firmus in the soprano voice. It closely follows the four voices of Bach's earlier harmonisation in the four-part chorale BWV 278, with virtually no changes in the cantus firmus. The two accompanying inner parts and pedal are elaborated by a single motif of four or eight semiquavers descending in steps. It is derived from the final descending notes of the melody:
 * BWV 625 Christ lag in Todesbanden [Christ lay in the bonds of death]
 * BWV625-conclusion-extract.jpeg

The semiquaver motif runs continuously throughout the piece, passing from one lower voice to another. Commentators have given different interpretations of what the motif might symbolise: for it was "the bonds of death" (Todesbanden) and for Hermann Keller "the rolling away of the stone". Some have also seen the suspensions between bars as representing "the bonds of death". These interpretations can depend on the presumed tempo of the chorale prelude. A very slow tempo was adopted by the school of late nineteenth and early twentieth century French organists, such as Guilmant and Dupré: for them the mood of the chorale prelude was quiet, inward-looking and mournful; Dupré even saw in the descending semiquavers "the descent by the holy women, step by step, to the tomb".

At a faster tempo, as has become more common, the mood becomes more exultant and vigorous, with a climax at the words Gott loben und dankbar sein ("praise our God right heartily"), where the music becomes increasingly chromatic. suggests that the motif might then resemble the Gewalt ("power") motif in the cello part of BWV 4, verse 3; and that the turmoil created by the rapidly changing harmonies in some bars might echo the word Krieg ("war") in verse 4.

Terry comments: "The short movement is instinct with the triumph of Easter. The Pedal, its jubilant rhythm notwithstanding, interprets the sinister word “Todesbanden” (Death’s dark prison). The semiquaver Pedal phrases may symbolize the rolling away of the sepulchral stone."

Here for comparison is what I created:Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * BWV 625 Christ lag in Todesbanden [Christ lay in the bonds of death]

Below are the first and fourth verses of Martin Luther's Easter hymn "Christ lag in Todesbanden" with the English translation of Paul England. The text and melody of the cantus firmus are derived from the older Victimae paschali laudes, one of the principal hymns for Easter. The same melody had already been used for a version of Christ ist erstanden, another Lutheran Easter hymn. The sharp on the second note was a more modern departure, already adopted by the composer-organists Bruhns, Böhm and Scheidt and by Bach himself in his early cantata Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4. The chorale prelude is in four parts for single manual and pedals, with the cantus firmus in the soprano voice. It closely follows the four voices of Bach's earlier harmonisation in the four-part chorale BWV 278, with virtually no changes in the cantus firmus. The two accompanying inner parts and pedal are elaborated by a single motif of four or eight semiquavers descending in steps. It is derived from the final descending notes of the melody:
 * BWV625-conclusion-extract.jpeg

The semiquaver motif runs continuously throughout the piece, passing from one lower voice to another. Commentators have given different interpretations of what the motif might symbolise: for it was "the bonds of death" (Todesbanden) and for Hermann Keller "the rolling away of the stone". Some have also seen the suspensions between bars as representing "the bonds of death". These interpretations can depend on the presumed tempo of the chorale prelude. A very slow tempo was adopted by the school of late nineteenth and early twentieth century French organists, such as Guilmant and Dupré: for them the mood of the chorale prelude was quiet, inward-looking and mournful; Dupré even saw in the descending semiquavers "the descent by the holy women, step by step, to the tomb". At a faster tempo, as has become more common, the mood becomes more exultant and vigorous, with a climax at the words Gott loben und dankbar sein ("praise our God right heartily"), where the music becomes increasingly chromatic. suggests that the motif might then resemble the Gewalt ("power") motif in the cello part of BWV 4, verse 3; and that the turmoil created by the rapidly changing harmonies in some bars might echo the word Krieg ("war") in verse 4.


 * Again, please don't use names of editors in section titles, it is not allowed, see Talk page guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In this wall of text (etc.) I still can't find a response to my initial remarks and suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, don't use names of editors in section titles, it is not allowed, see Talk page guidelines. Further, I formally deny that any of the quotes above is how I improved the section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First question. Why did you remove the first musical quote from the start of the chorale prelude? Was it a mistake? Second question. Why does the image say Christ ist erstanden, with no explanation in the text? Why does the text begin abruptly? Why did you blank the first two sourced sentences? Why did you copy-paste content instead of attempting to paraphrase and summarise? Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the remarks and suggestions I made above.
 * I responded to your false accusation way above: "Re. "He removed the musical quote from the beginning of BWV 625.": I didn't, File:Bwv625-preview.jpg (that is: "the musical quote from the beginning of BWV 625") was in the article after all my edits. Instead of false accusations, please respond to the remarks, suggestions and questions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)"


 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your version (see above) does not have the first musical quote. I just copied the source as you had left it, exactly as above. Here is the diff link to the section so you can look again to see what havoc you created. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above :
 * Please reply to the remarks and suggestions I made (way up) above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please click on the diff to see what you created. Here it is. You removed the first musical quotation. Diffs don't lie. It is not possible to start any discussion with you until you explain why you removed that image (created by me 4 or 5 years ago). Perhaps it was a mistake. Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken admints to removing the quote. Why was he wasting my time by lying? Instead of edit warring while the in use sign is up, I suggest that he discusses his proposals. I think all his suggestions only harm the article. But we can discuss each of them one by one here. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, saw it now too. It was not my intention to remove it, it was an error, and I restored it (and struck my comments in that respect above). Let's move on after this distraction inadvertently caused by me: please can you now answer to the other suggestions and remarks I gave above? And again, it is not allowed to use names of editors in section titles, so please remove such distractions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPO#Section headings and WP:TALKNEW#Keep headings neutral I gave this section a more neutral heading. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Uniform structure: ongoing edits to create content for section BWV 625-630
I have put an "in use" tag on BWV 625-630 and will complete that segment at my own pace. Since I have been ill, and have not yet actually recovered, I cannot tell how long it will take. It could take a month or even longer. I think the section on BWV 625 by me was reasonably well written. It took a long time to think about and write. It is the same scheme for each of the forty five chorale preludes, taking Williams as a model. Francis Schonken is a late arrival, tinkering around with just one of the chorale preludes. Encyclopedias are normally written in a uniform way. That is the same with this article and each of the 44 or 45 individual sections on the preludes. There is a uniform structure. Title, midi file in lilypond, musical quotation from 1st bars, relevant text and translation, short discussion of original hymn, musical analysis of chorale, brief discussion of musical iconography, possible other material if there is a musicological connection with other compositions (not necessarily by Bach). Not every chorale prelude has an accompanying wikipedia article on the hymn; where there is, that content might be duplicated in this article. That is the case here. Christ lag in Todesbanden is not a WP:RS. This article or section is written therefore as if that article on the hymn did not exist. Terry, Schweitzer and Spitta are not reliable secondary sources for musical criticism. Each has its historical context, usually provided by modern commentators. I would have thought that was self-evident. Francis Schonken's copy-pasting from Terry shows otherwise. His muddling of the text destroyed the uniformity. The chorale preludes of OB are miniature works of perfection; the aesthetic of this multimedia article should hopefully reflect that. Mathsci (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, can you please reply to the remarks and suggestions given above, and remove your distractions from this page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I find none of your suggestions so far improve the article. Quite the contrary. All you have done here is delete or mangle the text and duplicate content by copy-pasting from poor sources (Terry).
 * Your response was disruptive and time-wasting when I explained that you had deleted the first musical quotation. Yet you persisted and barely apologized when you realised you were wrong.
 * If you want to acquire skills in creating content on Bach's organ music, why not try creating Bach organ sonatas BWV 625–630? These are some of the finest organ pieces Bach wrote (BWV 528 has a movement that is also a sinfonia from one of the cantatas). Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, can you please reply to the remarks and suggestions given above, and remove your distractions from this page? Creating further distractions is of course far from constructive.
 * Something seems wrong with your Schweitzer 1911a quote in the BWV&625 paragraphs, and I placed a tag accordingly. Can you please address this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you look in Williams? Or don't you bother looking at sources? You seem to make no effort at all to check the secondary sources. If you were less lazy, then you see that Williams gives numbers for the primary sources of Schweitzer (in fact his 1905 book on Bach) and Keller (1948). If you're not looking at the secondary source, what exactly are you discussing here? It is you after all that thought that copy-pasting from Terry was acceptable; obviously it wasn't. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In Schweitzer 1905 it is p. 66 ("... les liens de la mort..."). Can't find a parallel passage in Schweitzer 1911. It starts with quoting correctly of course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed structure leads to excessive article length
Above wrote: Replying to that one: last year I wrote ( – emphasis added), More recently here:

Summarizing: --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Let's assume I know both the Orgelbüchlein and the Clavier-Übung III pages, and their structure, for some time now.
 * 2) The structure is suboptimal (and that is a euphemism) while leading to pages that take too long to load.
 * 3) Any suggestions to address this issue (that is apart from the suggestions already given above)?
 * Wait until the article is completed (in a few months). It's not even half written and isn't particularly easy to write. There can be a discussion here only if it's based on the main sources (Williams & Stinson). You initially appeared here complaining about a religious POV. You eventually dropped that criticism. But only to shift on to something else, equally pointless. What you've written above is not constructive. Please make a serious effort to look at Williams and Stinson if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are just wasting my time. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoting Williams (2003) in an article on a Bach organ composition last year (at least I gave a link to an on-line copy of Williams' book). So please stop the diversions. Clavier-Übung III is too long and its article length will be cut down sooner or later. That is not the topic here. Expanding Orgelbüchlein to a similar length is the topic here: it will never be stable, so my intention is to spare you frustration later. Please think about this article's structure now, before expanding it to unreasonable length. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only relevant thing is whether you are familiar with pages 227-316 in Williams (the chapter on OB) or the whole of Stinson's book on OB. Your link to Williams was to Belgian google books. The whole of BWV 625 is visible there (I checked) but lots of pages are not viewable. How do you access those other pages? If you cannot read that part of the book, how do you propose to discuss the article?  Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "The only relevant thing is whether you are familiar with pages 227-316 in Williams (the chapter on OB) or the whole of Stinson's book on OB" – Fail to agree there, the only relevant thing in this talk page section is the over-all length and structure of the article. Yes we'll have more Williams, and Stinson (and Terry and others for that matter), as appropriate to the specific OB chorale preludes. Then we'll have to reduce something else if wanting to avoid that the article length grows out of proportion. So I already proposed two steps:
 * Get rid of imagery that is not or only vaguely related to the article topic – at least replace unrelated images by more on-topic ones (a point I made early above, repeating 's concerns, still without reply);
 * Reduce chorale texts (also repeating a comment by Zwart a long time ago, without real answer thus far).
 * Please give some attention to these concerns, and please get rid of your diversions on this page, as already suggested multiple times. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No you cannot discuss the article without the book. You don't seem to be interested in creating content; otherwise you would have acquired the book. The current more or less completed entries from OB are: BWV 599, 600, 601, 602, 622, 625, 631, 639, 643 (9 chorale preludes). The ones without analysis are: BWV 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 623, 624, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 640, 641, 642, 644 (37 chorale preludes, although 633 and 634 are variants of each other). So only one fifth of the work has been done. Your comments have nothing to do with creating that content. Any discussion of what might possibly happen to the finished article must wait until that content has been added. There is also the section on reception. So please allow the article to be completed. There is no point in trying to obstruct its creation as you are doing now. That is classic disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, on several levels as pointed out above. You were the one misquoting Williams, I was the one finding that out (see above), enough on this side-topic. The article's structure and length is problematic. Either you engage on this topic on this talk page, or it will be handled by your fellow-editors, whenever it suits them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did I misquote Williams? Do you mean I wrote instead of ?   I'm editing the article now with the "in use" sign on all the chorale preludes, so please go and find something else to do. I'm dotting through the chorale preludes in my own order. You used Terry as a secondary source. Fine for words and translations, but not for commentary or analysis. Anyway I am currently starting a new batch of chorale preludes. The first is visible on Belgian google books, but not the others. Mathsci (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, you continue to ignore the topics I raised in this talk page section (and above): for the time being the suggestions already given appear in order to address the concerns I outlined. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV far from restored
Adapted some section header levels above as all of this is still part of the problems first outlined some years ago by Zwart. I'll be placing a NPOV related tag on the article now, linking to this section. The latest drive for unbalance seems to be tilting this article too much towards one or two sources (as if they were the only ones writing on individual chorale preludes in this collection). The NPOV policy and other core content policies demand to let all rpresentative reliable sources speak for themselves, and not filter them through the perspective of one or two of them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * These are the main sources in the subject in the English language. No others give a comprehensive treatment of topic. Here again are the books which you have an unnatural prejudice about.




 * It is unreasonable to criticize either of these books as "POV-pushing". Both have had excellent academic reviews. The book of Williams is definitive, although sometimes a bit dry. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here via AN/I. I wanted to comment on this dispute specifically and not any proposed restrictions etc. so I am here rather than there. Mathsci said above "No you cannot discuss the article without the book. You don't seem to be interested in creating content; otherwise you would have acquired the book", but the issue is not all about those books. There may be other valid sources and besides issues about the appropriateness of the images, inclusion of hymn texts, etc. will not be solved by reference to the sources. Editors who have access to good sources are essential, but others may edit and discuss articles when they do not have access to those sources and core content creators don't own the article. That said, Francis' idea that using two books from major publishers as the basis for the article is not neutral is barking up the wrong tree - you would have to present other sources that present alternative views and are being excluded to make such a claim. We all use convenient sources and that does not make us biased. Suggesting Mathsci is religiously biased is also unhelpful - plainly music related to hymns will have religious connections, and you should focus on fairly reflecting what the available sources say about religious aspects rather than on suspected motives. I suggest you consult the Classical Music WikiProject to see if you can resolve the disagreement about presentation and structure. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation of chorales
The translation of the chorales used in this article, are, in my opinion, not the best approach. They do not accurately reflect the German text upon which Bach inspired himself, as that is not their objective (it is, as you know, to provide a singable version for use in English-speaking churches). As such, I think that using a literal translation would be a better approach. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion. The translations, by various authors, are largely taken from the books of the Bach scholar Charles Sanford Terry. Often they were chosen so that they match both the text and the musical rhythm. Literal translations have been made and appear in the book of Williams, but are under copyright. The same applies to the librettos of the cantatas: these have all been translated into English by Richard Jones for the English edition of Alfred Dürr's monumental book. They cannot be used on wikipedia for copyright reasons. But in the case of BWV 39, the words for the closing chorale were translated into English before Bach wrote his cantata. The translation was by John Christian Jacobi. No translation is ideal, but I cannot see that wikipedians would necessarily improve on the translations in Terry's book. Mathsci (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the following page (among others) has translations of the cantatas (and therefore, of some of the chorales here mentioned (and I'm sure finding/making decent translations for some others wouldn't be so hard...) example BWV 4 "Christ lag in Todesbanden":
 * http://emmanuelmusic.org/notes_translations/translations_cantata/t_bwv004.htm#pab1_7). While not all cantatas are solely based on chorales, the translations there provided are, again, in my opinion, an improvement on the versions already on the page (not to say that those are not good at all, simply they're not the best). My idea is that the literal meaning is sometimes quite different from what is in the "musical" translation, take for example the 4th verse of "Christ lag". So, if I may rephrase my proposition: some chorales would probably deserve a more literal translation, as it would help in the analysis of them (an example is BWV 608 In Dulci Jubilo, where such a translation is already mentioned: " Williams further suggests that the F♯ major chord at bar 25 might be a reference to leuchtet als die Sonne ("shines like the Sun") " although it is not the one shown to the reader in the translation of the verse (which instead reads "And like a bright star shineth", a satisfactory translation (the Sun is indeed a bright star), which however lacks precision). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)#
 * Only translations like these are outside copyright. Literal translations are all under copyright. These translations are taken from the book of Charles Sanford Terry. They have also been used in the wikipedia articles on Lutheran hymns, e.g. Christ lag in Todesbanden. You are misusing this page as a WP:FORUM. "the translations there provided" sounds like French, not English. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As per WP:FORUM:"In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles." That's exactly what we are (attempting to do) doing so your argument is invalid. Also, per WP:NOTFREE, short citations (for example, using only 1 verse (the most representative or whatever...)) are permitted. Also, the page I mentioned does have a copyright notice saying that the website owner is happy to grant authorisation to use the texts, upon request (which sure isn't something impossible to accomplish...) (http://emmanuelmusic.org/notes_translations/nt_notes_transl_cantatas.htm#pab1_7). Therefore, not looking further than "all such translations are copyrighted" will most certainly not help. Furthermore, worst case scenario, we could still go on the German wikipedia and ask people there if they could help us translate those hymns... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have understood WP:COPYVIO. There are about 50 chorales in the OB, so adding one copyrighted verse for each would be impossible. Even just a twelve line verse would be impossible. But mainly I have followed Williams in choosing the verses. There is a German editor who edits the articles on Lutheran hymns; she has not provided any literal translations. I see nothing wrong with the translations chosen by Terry. They convey the sense of each hymn, the mood of each chorale prelude. Only in BWV 622 does the cantus firmus reflect the meaning of each line. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Straw man. I never said "all of them". As well, tell me how many of the chorales have actually 12 line verses (most are much shorter)... However, the "worst offenders" really should be changed. I had in mind, among possible some others, "In dulci jubilo" (where the text is still half latin/half english) and "Christ ist erstanden" (which is often A- in older English B-inaccurate, for example the first line, or the third verse. A better translation, which I am unsure about the copyright (translator died in 1967), is available here (bottom of the page, you have to look at the next pages to find the other 2 verses, but they are there) http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/WSCW1969/page/164). You also seem to have misunderstood my proposition: what I am saying, in plain English (not German, French, Latin, or whatever...) is that the translations aren't always the best possible to help the reader understand the text by which Bach was inspired to write the music (in one way or another), and that at least some of them should be changed, that an effort should be made in that direction... Finally, there being nothing wrong with something does not in any way, shape or form mean that it can't be improved. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Re. "In dulci jubilo"/leuchtet wie die Sonne – maybe something like this:

(extracted from In dulci jubilo). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Francis Schonken, it was because of your disruptive edits to this page and your disruptive edits elsewhere (BWV 4) that you received editing restrictions at WP:ANI. Let me remind of the previous discussion here. You claimed that I had a religious WP:POV. You wrote it repeatedly. You also made edits about the text of BWV 625. You are now just repeating that disruptive behaviour on a similar topic. The fact that you have been following me around has been noted by other editors at WikiProject Classical Music. Here you are repeating the conduct that led to your editing restrictions. You even followed me to WP:ARCA. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There clearly is nothing disruptive in what he did right now, and no matter what he did in the past, that's just a very poor ad hominem... Simply because you don't agree with someone (and that you might have a grudge with him) doesn't mean that whatever they say is wrong. And, yes, the translation in that format seems very well, I don't see what anybody would have against it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The long term conduct problems with Francis Schonken are a matter of record. As is the fact that he follows me around everywhere. His disruption here on this very issue resulted in editing restrictions. They apply to this article and are still in force.

If you read this page, you will see that this article is still being created. There is a "to do" list. I have resumed editing BWV 611.

Another thing that is likely to change is the rendition of the audio files. I now know how to prepare ogg files with special soundfonts for organ; that means the audio files are no longer dependent on the software of readers (a disadvantage of midi files) and improves their quality.

I paused a while during BWV 611 while editing A solis ortus cardine.

Again the problem of translations arose. The two hymns that Luther used were translated in the nineteenth century but not the whole poem. Modern versions have appeared fairly recently, but are under copyright. Because Sedulius' poem became something every schoolboy had to translate, glossaries exist and it was possible to produce a literal translation.

But as I start to create the content for BWV 611, the words of the hymn or their translations are not the problem. The main issue is how exactly it should be played. Mathsci (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. This is an ad hominem, again. It is against wiki policies (refrain from personal attacks). Also, you must assume good faith until proven otherwise and here you are clearly not doing so. And to say that you are blameless would clearly be incorrect, but I will refrain from linking to discussions of whatever you did, I do not wish to engage in personal attacks.
 * 2. Also, per WP:OWNER, you do not own this article and although you might feel possessive about it, that does not mean that I (or anybody else) is barred from contributing to it. Also, disagreements should be calmly resolved, without resorting to attacks or whatever else. So, in a nutshell, great contribution on the article as a whole. However, I am merely trying to propose improvements to details that you may have overlooked.
 * 3. Red herring. I was not talking about BWV 611, nor the audio files, nor your analysis, and I don't see why you brought it up (except to defend your hard work on the article, which I've acknowledged, see number 2).
 * So, please, tell me, do you agree or disagree with my PROPOSAL (and the FORMAT Mr. Schonken proposed, however you feel about him) and WHY. In a nutshell, this is not about you, or anybody else, it is about the improvement I have proposed (in good faith), and if you think it is actually an improvement or not, and if you have a better proposal or not, and most importantly WHY. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal. There is already a rubric at the top of the musical analysis section describing the two main sources and explaining the audio files; it's easy enough to add an explanation about literal vs metrical translations, mentioning that in the text literal translations sometimes appear. I have done so.

I am in the process of creating content on the remainder of that section. The format is uniform for all the chorale preludes and that is forced by the sheer number (46[45] of them). That will take me about a week. If you had not noticed, I had to change the nineteenth century translation for BWV 611. I will explain why. The opening of the Latin Hymn is


 * A solis ortus cardine
 * ad usque terrae limitem
 * christum canamus principem,
 * natum maria virgine.

My translation of that was


 * From the hinge of the rising sun
 * To the farthest edge of the earth
 * Let us sing to Christ our lord
 * Born of the virgin Mary.

Martin Luther changed the order of the pairs of lines, but it is the opening two lines of the Latin Hymn that all commentators use to explain the extraordinary texture of the piece. On the one hand BWV 610 tightly scored and the sudden contrast with BWV 611 its ethereal openness. In the case of In dulci jubilo, the translation conveys that this is a medieval carol. Do you have access to either of the major sources, Stinson's book Orgelbüchlein or Williams' book on the Organ Music of J.S. Bach? Without those, it's not really possible to work out what purpose the text has or which verses are relevant. Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, finally we're going somewhere. Now, In dulci jubilo might be a medieval carol, but that can be easily said in the text analysis of the chorale prelude, and a proper translation of the text to English can be used to help the reader understand the actual text (most persons don't understand Latin). As for "Christ ist Erstanden", the translation I have mentioned above reads as follows:

Text removed as WP:COPYVIO


 * Which already has a less tenuous relationship with the German text. follows a similar pattern and satisfies both criteria: to be singable and (mostly) literal. I do not see any possible objection besides the fact that it probably isn't included in any analysis of Bach. The copyright situation needs to be clarified, but I believe it's PD, so it should be ok. Unless you have something against it, I'll change at least that one. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PLEASE DO NOT ADD COPYVIOS ON THIS PAGE. We cannot use copyright material in the way you think. You cannot even copy-paste it on to this page. At the moment you are talking about chorale preludes marked "not done". What's the point of that? Until I have written the musical commentary, I have no idea what I will need. You don't seem to have been looking at the sources (Williams, Stinson), so you have even less idea. But look at the new content I added. That takes a lot of time and thought to produce. If I look at the list above, it's less than half finished. There are plenty of literal translations but all are under copyright. The translations by the Bach specialists Richard Jones and Peter Williams are better than those you're advocating. But they are unusable. Mathsci (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll concede that we can't do anything about Christ ist erstanden because there doesn't seem to be a (good) translation that is in the public domain. As for In dulci jubilo, I'll concede because I can't find an elegant way to write what I want. There are some further issues with the page, but I'll take that into another discussion thread since this has gone long enough already, and it's about another subject. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Issues as of January 2017
1. The “purpose” sections consists of only a quotation, and that from only one source. It needs to be written as a continuous text, ideally including information from more than one source. The quotation by itself is good, though there should be more evidence to support at least some of the claims made within: mainly “it’s a theological statement”, but also possibly a citation would be needed to more sources that describe as a compositional treatise. (NOT DONE, ideally somebody else can do that)

2. The page suffers from WP:OVERLINKING, especially for names. For example, the name “Catherine Winkworth” appears 17 times, all linked to the same page... Terry appears 6 times (the last time in the references, so that one and the first one might be ok), John Christian Jacobi appears 6 times, George MacDonald as well. “Martin Luther” appears a couple of times, and it doesn’t seem to always be linked, but there are again a few instances. As well, every time a book that is in the references is mentioned there’s a link to that, which might not be necessary... (NOT DONE, work in progress as of 6 January)

3. In relation to the above, but more specific, linking all of the following leads to WP:SEAOFBLUE: Hymn title, author, version in another language. For example, “Below is the first verse of Martin Luther's version of the Nunc dimittis, Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin,” has redundant linking: simply linking “Mit Fried und Freud” (while keeping the text for the rest) would be far better, as all the information contained is nicely linked on the page of “Mit Fried und Freud”. There are other examples, but this is the one that I’ve corrected for now, and I’ll keep doing so as I find them. (NOT DONE, work in progress)

4. There are some pieces where citing the whole text of the hymn seems too much, as discussed above, see WP:QUOTE. Sure, the relevant verses (mentioned in the analysis) should by all means be included. However, there are many hymns which as of now aren’t yet analysed. It could be also more efficient to link to the articles instead of writing down the entire text, every single time. This would also help reduce excessive page length, an issue already discussed above. (NOT DONE) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section. BWV 616 is unwritten (see above). Other editors (probably Gerda Arendt) added the links to the hymn article, so I restored them. But why make comments on sections which are not written? And, since you have been told that the content relies on two sources, why have you not looked at the sources to understand what the content might be.


 * I see no point in discussing the content of unfinished sections (those marked red in the "to do" list). All the sections are written as if independent. I think I created wikilinks to each separate section (e.g. so that BWV 626 works). That way, if there is a reference to one of the chorale preludes in another article, a reader can be sent here and be able to navigate the discussion of the chorale prelude without difficulty. That seemed like a sensible thing to do to help the reader. When completed, the article might be too large; it's impossible to tell now, because the musical summaries vary so much from one chorale prelude to another (e.g. I had no idea how long BWV 611 would be). And the history, reception, etc are incomplete. The OB is a large work. The article is only half written, in fact even less than half written.


 * I certainly don't understand the point of editing a section like BWV 616, which you know is unfinished. Having been told that that sections were unfinished, what particular logic was behind that? And how can you tell without looking at the sources which bits of text I will need? It makes no sense to me.


 * I don't see a sea of blue problem in the finished sections.


 * Creating content is a non-trivial task. Adding the content for BWV 611 was hard, done in layers. You haven't said anything positive about this article. You haven't actually mentioned anything related to the music. Creating the content at the moment is the only point. I am sorry about that. If you think that creating the content is a "red herring" and should not take priority, I would say that you have misunderstood how wikipedia functions.


 * Why not create an article yourself so that you can get a clearer idea of what's involved? Your editing history shows that you have had no experience creating content, unless you have used a different IP previously. Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't changed the text at all (since you seem to somehow own it and control every change made to it). I've only added/removed links. I understand you might think of it as a better idea, however, it is highly unlikely someone will only ever read one small part of the article. Also, there's no point in praising your work here and there, the idea behind the talk page is to discuss what could be improved, not what is already good. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Actually, here's a better argument: If every section is independent, why not make an article for every chorale prelude and have this as an article about the general collection, with links to every prelude? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you that "it is highly unlikely someone will only ever read one small part of the article". Somebody interested in the Orgelbüchlein project might want to know about a particular chorale prelude. That is far more likely. For example in the list articles or the articles on hymns, there are direct links to each chorale prelude. So I don't agree with you at all. You are making oassumptions which are unreasonable. I am the one who has created a lot of those links. Somebody reading another article might find a link to BWV 622 and come here. Why should they read any of the rest? Or somebody reading about BWV 4 might come to BWV 625, etc, etc. That was my assumption in writing this article and it seems reasonable; you seem to be dreaming up points to contradict me, whereas I made my decisions carefully with the reader in mind.
 * I've already explained the answer to your second question. But since you don't seem to have taken it in, let me explain it again for you. My first task is to write separate sections for each chorale prelude. The next task is to write the preparatory sections describing the function of the collection and the different types of Orgelbüchlein chorale prelude (canon, ornamental, etc) following the two sources. Then I have to write the section on the reception, which will subdivide into 18th century, 19th century and different countries. Only after that can I decide if there is a more manageable form for the article. There is no point in discussing it now at all. It is unreasonable to propose such a thing at this stage. The result would be a total cessation in my editing here; and I am the only person on wikipedia who creates content of this kind (sad but true). I cannot see how you could have any idea what the new sections will look like (length, format, etc), but I have a fair idea (knowing the sources and past experience); but even then, only very roughly. At the moment you are pushing for trivial cosmetic changes of a rather trivial nature; having Luther several times is not a problem. I have replied to your last question. Why not come back here when the article is in a more finished state? Why the impatience? Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts IP but the history of the article shows it is being actively developed so debating the number of links or other minor issues is pointless at this stage. Wait until there have been no substantive edits for at least two weeks before worrying about such things. Are there any errors in the current text? Any significant topics that are currently not covered? Any inappropriate references? Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Question
For BWV 632, I have the choice between quoting the allemande from the XIII keyboard suite of Dieterich Buxtehude, BuxWV 238 or the 6th variation from the organ partita on Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend by Johann Gottfried Walther. (Is there too much blue in this line.) Which do you think is more appropriate and why? Do you think I should use both or neither? Do you think that if some of the notes are repeated, that would cause a problem? Is including either of these too technical. Or do you think it might be a better idea to find the historic hymnal containing the hymn? Mathsci (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI it is not possible to ping or email an IP. However, these are good questions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha. Ha. I can't come up with a reasonable response to what you insinuate I am doing - I'm not doing this to be funny or whatever. Good laugh, though. Back to serious work: If you put a quote of Walther's work that would probably be as good if not better (the more the merrier, within a reasonable limit), but you'd need to elaborate on the similarities between the 2 works (also, Bach's piece is arpeggiated from beginning to end, not just at the cadences, and there's really no repeats: sure the melody repeats but the accompaniment is ever so slightly different, compare bars 6 and 12, different from repeats found in allemandes and minuets and gigues, which are generally a whole repeat of the section without changes). Also, while you're already mentioning Buxtehude, mind telling as well that it's not impossible that Bach was actually inspired by the former (he did, after all, spend a couple of months there (to the displeasure of his employers!) to listen to the master's work... The additions of the hymnal is great. However, all of what you added lacks citation and therefore is WP:OR. No seriously, I don't see what else's wrong (besides maybe what I mentioned about the similarities between BWV 432 and BuxWV 238). I was simply trying to give my suggestions to improve the thing... The intent behind WP:SEAOFBLUE, if I understand correctly, is to encourage a minimal use of links (it even gives nice statistics - most links are only rarely used...) Linking Martin Luther a hundred times, every single time you mention his name as the writer of a chorale, is not helpful to the reader to understand his relation with Bach's pieces... It merely distracts the reader from the article (the linked WP page states, with emphasis, that generally, links should appear only once, and I don't believe this article really warrants an exception, I don't see how WP:IGNORE could apply...) There's, as I said, way too many links and repeating the same link over and over again does not improve the page in any way. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, since it's a minor issue, it's something you don't necessarily have to do (I was doing it until you reverted) and which doesn't change much, but helps formatting. So stop wasting your time and let's each work on his part; I provided this section here only to allow discussion in case you had a fundamental disagreement with it, not just "it's a work in progress,, it's not a priority, I'll eventually solve it"...69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have just written that the content I added is WP:OR. The rubric at the top of the section in the article says "The brief descriptions of the chorale preludes are based on the detailed analysis in Williams (2003) and Stinson (1999)." In Williams BWV 632 is discussed on pages 296–298;  and in Stinson on pages 92–94. Do you have copies of the books of Williams and Stinson? Otherwise your remarks don't really make much sense. I summarised what is in Williams and Stinson. Both mention the harpsichord-like writing. Williams mentions that particular allemande of Buxtehude in parentheses, without further commentary. Buxtehude is mentioned in the preliminary sections here, although they are unfinished. I sometimes sight read the keyboard suites on the organ when my feet get tired. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I said it's OR because it lacked citations, or at least references to the books, as in other sections of the page, where you actually cited them, or at least gave the clear source, ex. (Stinson, p. 92-94)... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) That is not what WP:OR means. It means content invented by someone without a source. In this case the form of the article, i.e. the rubric I mentioned, makes it clear what the sources are. I haven't added references to every section; in that case the rubric applies. The two references have unambiguous sections on each chorale prelude. Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit - You asked specifically "What do you think", so I did answer with my opinion... Now I don't have access to the parts of BuxWV 238 nor of Walther's partita so I can't really accurately compare them with Bach. The comment I made about it not being a "dance form" is simple - Bach (as most other composers) nearly always follows the melody of the chorale when he writes a chorale prelude (with some variations, of course, no rule is unbreakable, this is music), so it isn't really a surprise that when the melody is the same, Bach uses the same (or slightly modified) accompaniment - a good example of this is Wachet Auf, where Bach puts the actual repeats in the piece, or even within the Orgelbuchlein, Christ lag in Todesbanden. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about you inventing your own musical commentary unfortunately: it is about summarising reliable sources. Why are you mentioning a Schübler chorale? It has no relevance to this article; yes, it is one of Bach's best known organ works, but so what? And yes, there is almost no content on wikipedia about it. In the case of this chorale prelude, the references of Williams and Stinson are clear enough. The only question here is whether I have faithfully paraphrased the sources. Do you have access to the books of Stinson and Williams? Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the other piece just because it happened to prove the point I was making in answer to your question, don't make a fuss over it. And let's come back to the main issue. It never was whether there are elements common to both organ and harpsichord compositions in the collections (sources demonstrate, there are). It was the formatting. Does removing links really create such a great (and unrelated) problem that it's worth writing paragraphs about the influence of harpsichord compositions by Buxtehude on Bach? I never criticized what you wrote for the musical analysis of the preludes, I only tried to improve the formatting. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a WP:FORUM. If you want to see what the finished articles will look like, look at Clavier-Übung III. The influence is described in the early sections. That will be true here. I play Buxtehude's Chorale Preludes on the organ; sometimes I play Frescobaldi; etc. The main influence of Buxtehude will be in the section on types of Orgelbüchlein preludes, in particular the ornamental chorale preludes. I think I added content somehwere else on wikipedia about one of these. Yes a huge amount at Vater unser im Himmelreich. I uploaded an audio file of the Buxtehude chorale prelude. One of several that I play. BuxWV 208 is another. But all of that has to wait. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Buxtehude Vater unser in Himmelreich BuxWV 219.png
 * IMSLP214738-Vater unser im Himmelreich-BuxWV219.ogg
 * Ok. Neither of us seems to understand the other. Sorry if the following is slightly rude, but things need be said at some point so we can go back to an actual, meaningful discussion on how to improve the article: I do not care what you did on other pages or what you are planning to do with this one. There, that's clear? I am not interested either to see the finished article yet. In fact, I don't really care about that either: the analysis you provide seems relevant, meaningful, is generally good content for a page about the musical work of Bach, and I trust that you can do a good job on that part. I am proposing changes to formatting, as per MOS:LINK (and giving my general comments about some other, minor issues, about which, as I correctly guessed, you don't share my concerns). Tell me what's wrong about that, why do we need to start talking about Buxtehude when I intended this discussion not to be about that? What's wrong with WP:OLINK so much that you disagree with any changes that that page recommends? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be jumping from one thing to another. A little while ago you accused me of writing WP:OR. Have you decided to drop that now?  Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I "jumped off" from it because you proved you weren't doing OR. I'm not [insert insult here], you know... Now answer the question I asked: What's wrong with WP:OLINK so much that you disagree with any changes that that page recommends? (and that I've previously tried to implement...) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We will take this slowly, one step at a time. Having agreed that the claim of WP:OR was unfounded, the next step  is for you to apologise to me for making that claim. It was a form af personal attack and you should not be using this page for making unfounded personal attacks (as you have been doing repeatedly). So could you please apologise and promise to avoid making edits here that do not assume good faith. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as an insult, only as constructive criticism. Sorry if you interpreted differently, that certainly wasn't my goal. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Next step: do you have access to the CUP book of Williams and/or the OUP book of Stinson? Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I have access to Gardiner's recent book on Bach (which, however, focuses more on the vocal works) and to Albert Riemenschneider's 1933 score of the Orgelbuchlein (titled "The Liturgical year") which contains some commentary about performance (it is old and available on IMSLP, but the commentary still seems mostly valid). But, quoting from above: "Mathsci said above "No you cannot discuss the article without the book. You don't seem to be interested in creating content; otherwise you would have acquired the book", but the issue is not all about those books. There may be other valid sources and besides issues about the appropriateness of the images, inclusion of hymn texts, etc. will not be solved by reference to the sources. Editors who have access to good sources are essential, but others may edit and discuss articles when they do not have access to those sources and core content creators don't own the article." (emphasis mine) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gardiner is not a source, nor is a score (it is a musical score). If you don't have access to the two main sources, how can you comment and why are you trying to comment? The article is a paraphrase/summary of the sources, not something ivented by wikipedia editors. So why are you commenting if you have no access to the sources? Mathsci (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you even read what I wrote (including the quote)? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't have the sources, none of your personal comments are relevant. Everything in the article is written using those two sources, including references to hymns and to musical iconography (there are a few exceptional chorale preludes where there is a lot of additional literature). If you're unclear about how articles are written, why not ask User:Johnuniq? I am busy creating content on BWV 621 at the moment. I used one of my organ scores for tweaking the new audio file. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't going anywhere. WP:DRN 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reported you at WP:ANI, Obviously if you don't access to the two main sources that I use to create the content on this article, I cannot see how you can discuss the content of the article in any substantial way. I am continuing to create the content on WP:621. Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * IP. You keep shifting what you want to talk about. That is disruptive editing. As far as the hymns are concerned, I have chosen the quotes according to what is said in the commentary in Peter Williams, which is what is paraphrased in each separate chorale section. So without knowing what he includes or how he uses it, how can you have any idea what needs to be included? Or how he translates parts of the text? That is why we use secondary sources. In the case of BWV 632, I changed the translation as a function of the content in Williams. Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, the issues I wanted to talk about are at the top of the "Issues as of January 2017" section. I did not shift the subject, but I will try to remain calm in not attacking you. Let's resolve this peacefully on ANI and DRN. Let's also close this discussion here, it clearly isn't going anywhere and it only brings more dispute, not consensus. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your proposed discussion at WP:DRN will not happen, as explained at WP:ANI. Mathsci (talk)