Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565/Archive 1

Thoughts
WIth regards to to the 'problem' with the violin transcription theory: The Prelude of the Fifth Suite for solo cello contains a Fugue with the additional voices implied, so there is an example of Bach getting round this problem.

The 'natural weight to the solo line' comment is a reference to the organ version - parallel octaves would give natural weight to what would otherwise have just been a single line in the original violin version. No one is suggesting that the opening was played in octaves on the violin.

Also there is much quadruple stopping in the Partitas and Sonatas for solo violin (I am aware that these are later, and pretty much unprecidented in their complexity) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.215.239 (talk • contribs)

Sources needed for some assertions
Hmm, we've got some assertions now that strike me as perhaps controversial.


 * Can Busoni's work be considered to have been an actual "Bach revival"? To show this, one would have to document an actual decline in public interest in Bach's music between Mendelssohn's and Busoni's day.  Is there some published material that documents such a decline?


 * Is it really true that Fantasia induced yet another third Bach revival, or was Bach's music simply continuously popular during the first half of the 20th century?

If people can come up with published references to back up these claims, then I think it would be ok to retain them, but otherwise I think they should be removed.

Thanks,

Opus33 16:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Opus33, thanks for asking. Both "claims" were put in the article by me. As a preliminary thought please consider that I listen to classical radio on a daily basis, and that my favourite radio station scarcely broadcasts any music without giving a piece of information about the music they broadcast. So, much of my knowledge on classical music could be referenced as "assertion by Radio Klara (or its predecessors) in the period (roughly) 1975-2005. Surely, this is an "untouchable" type of reference, I'm sure you'd like something more precise. Note that I don't speak about "revivals" so much in the sense of that Bach was completely "forgotten", but in the sense, that Bach's popularity went by waves, each wave attaining a new "target audience" (to put it in modern commercial jargon). Often people seem to think that the Mendelssohn revival with the St. Matthew passion in the early 19th century was the only of such waves. Nothing is less true. There had already been a previous wave, the Baron Von Swieten wave, that had effectively attained Beethoven (and the "encore" he always had to play at Von Swieten's: the chromatic P&F); Mozart (his "adagio and fuga" would not have been thinkable without) and Haydn (had a copy of the Wohltemperirte Klavier permanently near his piano). The Mendelssohn revival was only about reviving the Passionen and the Great organ works in public concert practice.
 * I thought I'd found something about Busoni pushing some kind of Bach revival in the wikipedia Busoni article. Anyway, the "type" of revival is about making the "grand" pieces of Bach (not the A.M.B. notebook, the inventions, the well-tempered clavier and the like), that up till then could generally only be heard in concert halls (or churches for the organ pieces), available as salon entertainment. 19th century was famous for producing all kinds of sheet music piano reductions, for example Liszt producing the full cycle of Beethoven symphonies in that format. What I understood is that Bach escaped that "piano reduction frenzy" until late romantic era, when it was pushed by, most notably, Busoni.
 * The "Fantasia"-linked revival: I think a minor indication about that is also in the wikipedia Fantasia (movie) article. What I know about this particular Bach revival wave is that (1) Elgar and Richard Strauss were discussing in the early 20th century whether or not it was a good idea to make orchestrations of Bach's music for a full-blown Romantic orchestra, which they discussed in terms of "novelty" (Bach did not compose much non-solistic/non-sung orchestral pieces of music, and these pieces - 3 out of the 4 suites for orchestra - were for the reduced kind of Baroque orchestra). Elgar orchestrated the Fantasia and Fugue in C minor (with some time elapsing between the two halves of the work. Although relatively "successful" in the UK, this was hardly a Bach revival. (2) Alban Berg's "Klangfarbenmelodie" experiment with one of Bach's Ricercar's from the Musical Offering is later, and was not so much the start of a "Bach revival", as a "promotion article" for the 2nd Viennese school. (3) But then, Leopold Stokowski heard the Elgar orchestration, and decided to make such an orchestration too (this time BWV 565). No Bach revival resulted, the three orchestration "experiments" were more or less isolated events - until Disney heard the Stokowsky orchestration, and still many years later incorporated that music in Fantasia. Then it was an instant world hit: only then the record sales of this Stokowsky orchestration went soaring. Any record sold at that time including orchestrations of Bach's organ music needed no promotion to fly of the shelves. I happen to own one of such records of this wave of Bach revival (that was about Bach played by a full blown romantic orchestra): the record I own is, not so surprisingly, directed by Eugene Ormandy, one of Stokowsky's immediate collegues, and my parents must have bought it somewhere in the 1950s (no BWV numbers on the record sleeve yet). This wave of Bach revival was completely battered down 2 decades later when the "authentic interpretation" wave, led by Nicolaus Harnoncourt came along.

Now, anyway, if needed, I'll turn the text I typed above out of my head into nice wikipedia-style thorough references, just let me know if you think this really necessary, and then allow me some time to produce them!

Thanks, --Francis Schonken 17:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, it's interesting to look at the preface written by Busoni himself to the score of his transcription, as published by G. Schirmer Library of Musical Classics Vol.1629. Here's what Busoni himself intended to achieve by his sixteen Bach transcriptions: "...the arrangement of these studies gradually eventuated in a systematic grouping thereof.... They constitute a Contribution to the High School of Pianoforte-Playing.  In their entirety they are similar to an educational building which -- preferably with Bach-Music as its basis -- seeems capable of eventually bearing further and younger superstructures...." Given these comments, it would seem that Busoni's intentions were educational and not tilted in the direction of any kind of Bach "revival". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.76.225 (talk • contribs)

Pop looks bach
I'd put this in myself but there's NOR in the way. I believe that the music "pop looks bach" (ski sunday from the BBC)is based on the start of the fugue. Worthy of a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylommykins (talk • contribs)

Excellent online recordings of Bach's works including BWV 565
I have no idea what is the copyright status, but you can get excellent recordings of many of Bach's work (transcribed for guitare) on http://www.philiphii.com/recordings/audio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.54.200 (talk • contribs)

An all stops out organ version
Here you can find the Toccatta played on the huge organ at the Atlantic City convention center.

http://www.acchos.org/html/gallery.html

"This "high-octane" version of the Toccata in d Minor used everything available except the big 50" and 100" reeds, but added the 32' Bombardon and the 64' Diaphone Profunda in the Pedal. File size 2.6 MB, download time roughly 6 1/2 minutes at 56 Kbps"

You NEED a super-duper set of speakers to play this to its fullest. Hear what an organ with seven blowers that total 600 horsepower can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.145.210 (talk • contribs)

Handwritten score?
I would LOVE it very much if someone could give me a link to a working site that show the ENTIRE handwritten score of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, and other of Bach's organ works! Aaron Pepin

More on Williams's Theory
Thanks, Camembert, for your sensible revert. In hopes of getting this on more solid ground I went to the original article and summarized it. Opus33 16:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Op33, looks good. --Camembert

Possible subjective POV
The last edit by 84.185.205.99 (08:29, 6 May 2005) sounds my POV alarm to some extent. It does state that musicology is not an exact science, and that Williams' theories are theories, but I don't consider that a very necessary statement to make, and the rest of it seems to be biased counter-arguments. Calling Williams' arguments "shaky" does not agree with my ideas of NPOV and objectivity. I'm not dead sure of my instincts (or indeed objectivity) here, so I decided not to be bold and edit, but I encourage others to give it a look. EldKatt 13:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

True, "shaky" is not exactly an objective word, but Williams arguments aren't exactly objective either. He has a vested interest in making dramatic claims about Bach's most famous organ work, since he's not exactly going to get published by arguing that a Bach organ work was written by Bach. (person without an account)

Piano reduction
A few comments on the piano reduction: Firstly, why is it a piano reduction, if the work is for organ? The piano doesn't quite have the same effect as an organ, especially on the sustained notes. Secondly, in the sound file of the introduction, the arpeggiation at the end consists of 8 notes (D2, C#3 E3 G3 Bb3 C#4 E4 G4), whereas in the image of the music, it consists of only 7 notes (D2, C#3 E3 G3 Bb3 C#4 E4). --BrainInAVat 02:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's called a piano reduction because the piano doesn't have a footboard like the organ, and therefore the song has to be reduced to two parts rather than three. I don't know what to say about your missing note, because I haven't listened to the music clip, but I doubt that the music shown in the article is incorrect. --Berserk798 03:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * About the "missing note"...it's actually added, by mistake. The original version, for organ, doesn't have it; nor does the orchestral version from Fantasia, nor do either of the piano transcriptions by Busoni or Tausig.
 * Problem is, I don't know how to change that file. AND I don't have time.  (I would if I knew and did...) ~GMH 04:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's ogg (as opposed to MIDI), so the only way of changing it would be recording a new one (or quoting an existing recording, which would probably pass as fair use). If we do, we should make it an organ recording, not a piano transcription. EldKatt (Talk) 10:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a nice (complete) recording at 1, although because of copyright concerns, perhaps it's better to use it as an external link. --BrainInAVat 03:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Influence of other composers

 * when Buxtehude called a work "Prelude and Fugue", it might start with an odd bit of fugue, followed by some cadenza-like improvisation (possibly on another theme), yet followed by some more fugue or canon-like passages, some more virtuoso firework, etc... And Buxtehude loved fermatas, some serious pumping on the pedals, and other expressive techniques. Compared to this, despite the enormous influence of Buxtehude that is apparent in Bach's organ compositions, Bach establishes order and coherence in the patchwork-like idea Buxtehude seemed to have of a "prelude and fugue" or "toccata" type composition. In fact Bach, in his early organ works, synthesises this looser structure of an organ composition with what he had learnt from (amongst others) Johann Pachelbel's more organised approach (Bach was an indirect pupil of Pachelbel, through his brother Johann Christoph).


 * In comparison to earlier work in the same genre, Bach's work appears more tighly constructed and less in the character of an improvisation.

I deleted this information because it's mostly incorrect and not compatible with the modern understanding of Buxtehude's music. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Score/External links
For the record, I removed the links to an online Sibelius score. Personally I think that such a heavily edited score ("Slightly adapted for Sibelius playback" with such nonsense as piano-style pedal markings for extended notes) is worse than no score at all. If anyone knows of a better online score to replace it, though, that would be nice. EldKatt (Talk) 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Toccata and Fugue in popular culture
The article currently states that the work is likely Bach's most famous work. Aside from "likely" being an obvious weasel word, this is an extremely dubious assertion. Not that the work isn't very famous, quite the contrary. It is certainly _one_ of Bach's most famous works. Nonetheless, Bach wrote a number of extraordinarily famous works. Any of BWV 147, 565, 988, 1043, 1046–1051, or the ubiquitous Air from 1068, for instance, might be considered among the most famous pieces of music by any composer of any era. Any one of these is referenced inestimably many times in popular culture, has been performed and recorded a similarly uncountable number of times, and has significant recognition value even among people who do not, as a rule, listen to music composed more than a generation ago. Indeed, just by making the above list I have opened up a real can of worms: it could doubtless be expanded significantly without adding anything of less than spectacular fame. To pick a particular one of these works and claim that it's likely _the_ most famous is an unencyclopedic overstatement. It's a bit like saying "blue is likely the most widely recognized color". No doubt blue is extremely well known, but so are a number of other colors. Likewise, J. S. Bach was not exactly a one-hit wonder. -Jonadab, 2007 July 15

Bach isn't the only composer to write fugues, nor was the second movement of Toccata and Fugue the only fugue ever written, so the comment about several motorola phones coming with ringtones called fugue has little relevance to the topic, unless all of those ringtones are Fugue in d minor. This was unclear in that section. -Chewbacca 03:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, I see very little relevance to the fact that Linda Brava released her version of the Toccata and Fugue in 1997, and that Vanessa-Mae recorded a version for her album The Violin Player (1994/1995). Firstly, they are, after all, classical players (as opposed to pop culture..?), and secondly, they seem like "shameless" links to these artists' websites. I would propose to make these entries, as well as the one on Motorola, at least a bit encyclopedia-worthy. -FelisSchrödingeris 14:41, 24 Febuary 2006.


 * Neither of these two are really classical performers in the traditional sense. They deal with techno crossover stuff, as far as I know (listen to the linked mp3), so I guess they're sort of legitimate in the pop culture section. I don't think the link belongs, though. Shameless indeed. And as for the "critical acclaim"... I think it's a terrible rendition. But that doesn't matter. EldKatt (Talk) 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about simply deleting the Linda Brava link in the "popular culture" section and adding it to the "external links"? FelisSchrödingeris (Talk) 16:42, 28 Febuary 2006 (UTC)


 * That works, but how about deleting it altogether? I don't really think it's particularly relevant or useful as an external link either. What do you think? EldKatt (Talk) 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. FelisSchrödingeris 15:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Orchestral Version?
I recently heard a glorious orchestral version of this song on public radio. I thought I heard the announcers say that it was by Beethoven, but I can't find any reference to Beethoven having ever written an orchestral version of this piece online. Does anyone know about such a version? Who wrote it? --Mmpartee 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been arranged many ways by many composers. — ceejayoz talk 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling bar-graph score version
Would a link to this version be appropriate to add? Musanim 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Walcha's performance irrelevant to authorship question?
The Attribution section points out that Helmut Walcha regarded the piece as authentic Bach, but this fact is surely irrelevant, because, at the time Walcha made his recordings, no one had ever questioned Bach's authorship. The attribution was first questioned five years after Walcha made his second set of recordings. So the fact that Walcha thought it was Bach's work it has no more significance than the fact that everyone else did also. Surely the sentences about Walcha can be removed without any loss? BWV2000 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aviator
I am not sure, but I recall that the beginning of the Fugue was featured, in strings, in The Aviator during the sequence showing the filming of Hell’s Angels. I do not believe that I own the movie, so if anybody could reply to this, then that might be an important pop culture reference. JosCol (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 76.95.168.64, for confirming the above. JosCol (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This could not be written by anyone else.
I don’t want to argue with theorists who say otherwise. I’d just like tell my own opinion. And it is that this music couldn’t be written by anyone but Bach. It just goes so well with his flamboyant style that he had around his Brandenburg concertos days.

And I just can’t get out of my head an imagination of him. Old, all forgotten, deemed out of style, alone in his church then he goes and starts playing this piece on organ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.250.202 (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually he was quite young when he wrote it (probably before 1708), but that's a nice mental picture anyway. The theory that someone else wrote it is largely the contribution of a single scholar.  Musicologist Christoph Wolff, who wrote the Bach article for the New Grove, considers the attribution to Bach secure.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can rewrite the section on authorship to present a better picture of Williams' arguments, and maybe cite one or two more sources. But then someone already complained about the amount of material devoted to this subject, so I'm not sure if I should do any rewrites. Personally, I have to say that I believe the piece isn't by Bach; there are simply too many problems with it. --Jashiin (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much mention of Peter Williams?
Parts of the Attribution section seem to me to read more like a promotional piece for Peter Williams than an impartial article about BWV 565. The authorship challenge is interesting, but perhaps less prominent mention of Williams might be good. What are other people's thoughts?--69.202.71.49 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just going to say - seems like too much airtime. If many notable scholars are in agreement with Williams, they should be given space. If it's just him, this should be made clear, and this section should be condensed. Plus it could use some resorting, the section is all over the place. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also - basic info missing like, when did this first came into question, is it just the toccata or the whole work in question or what? --99.245.206.188 (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the section, explaining most of Williams' arguments. I also added a list (by no means comprehensive) of books and articles that support his views, or offer alternative authorship theories. I don't speak German and don't have the 2002 Williams article cited in the References section, so all I could do was to explain his arguments from the 2002 edition of "The Learned Musician". Sorry about the messy references - I think the article is in bad shape and needs some reformatting and rewriting, but I don't have the time for that right now. Maybe later. --Jashiin (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is an excellent rewrite. I object only to the emphasis put into the lede, which as I mentioned in my now-reverted edit, is contrary to WP:UNDUE.  "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views."   The Williams view is a minority view, and even in article specifically on a minority view, "though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view)." TJRC (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TJRC, this was a minority view in 1981, when Williams published his article. But already in 1982 another article appeared, by Humphreys, who argued altogether against Bach's authorship. And today, well, I just cited three major publications, two of which are written/edited by very respected scholars (Butt and Schulenberg, and Butt's book is a collection of essays by several scholars). There's also a book-length study by Klaus, which is endorsed by Yo Tomita, another very well-known Bach scholar. You'll find people referring to the authorship problem literally everywhere, i.e. here (search for 565, first mention), or here (message number three, and further on in a few other messages), etc. This is why I don't believe it is a minority view. As for the lead, well, isn't it - ideally - supposed to summarize the article? In which case at least a sentence should be given, mentioning the attribution section. --Jashiin (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not using "minority" as a synonym for "fringe." I think it's still a minority view, even though it's a scholarly minority view.  I agree on the mention in the lede, and I included that in my last edit, which you may not have yet seen: .  Does that look good to you? TJRC (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I missed it. It does look good; I have no objections now. --Jashiin (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some rewriting
I rearranged some of the sections and made some substantial rewrites, and here are some explanations people might want to hear. The section "Compositional process" was useless, as it contained no text of its own; instead, it had a subsection describing Bach's influences. It was rather badly written, I'm afraid, because stylus fantasticus has nothing to do with BWV 565 and a description of Buxtehude's five-section model was completely uncalled for (practically every north German composer wrote sectional pieces that alternate between free and imitative sections, and besides, Buxtehude's five-part model is not the one used in BWV 565). So I rewrote it in a more concise manner. No need to emphasize "Bach the Borrower", either - everyone was writing fugues on other composers' themes at the time. So I kept the information, just made the paragraph a little bit shorter.

I also kept the Pachelbel mention, together with the citation needed template. As a matter of fact, yes, one of Pachelbel's D minor fantasias has a strikingly similar passage - I don't have the score, but it sounds very much like a passage from BWV 565. I have never seen this mentioned anywhere, but the similarity is undeniable and so I kept the bit in the article.

Much of what I added on the title of the piece, the north German influence, etc. is really subject-specific common knowledge, familiar to anyone dealing with the music of the era, which is why there are few citations. If anyone objects to this, I'll try to find more citations, its just difficult to cite such things.

I'm also planning to expand the Toccata and Fugue sections sometime soon. --Jashiin (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also removed the See also section: just a single link to the list of Bach's compositions doesn't really deserve a whole section, and its function is already covered by categories. --Jashiin (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang, forgot one more thing: I removed the paragraph on the "organ test hypothesis". The only reference given was Eidam's book, which, as the article notes, may be factually inaccurate. Besides, the hypothesis is kind of odd, given that for a typical organ of, say, three manuals, pedal and about 40 stops you'd much rather write a piece with many small contrasting sections to try different registrations and playing manners, rather than a single long piece for a single registration. That is, if you'd want to write an organ test piece at all - every organist back then was required to be able to improvise, and this is probably what they did when testing new organs. But I do remember reading about the hypothesis elsewhere (although it may have been this very article..), so if someone has a good source, do add the information back. --Jashiin (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Some problems"
Our section on Peter Williams' paper says that he "outlined a number of stylistic problems present in BWV 565." Could we explore other possible ways of phrasing this? It isn't clear from that wording what problems means. As I understand it, Williams didn't identify "problems" with the piece itself, as that term would usually be understood, but rather, stylistic curlicues that call into question its attribution to Bach. While I don't doubt that the reader will get the idea from careful attention to the section as a whole, I feel that a clearer lead sentence could be written. Sifind (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Uses of the song
While the article mentions that this song is used in video games, etc., no examples are mentioned. I know, for example, that this song is Wellington's ringtone in the second Phoenix Wright game. If this type of information is too trivial let me know, but I think it is a worthwhile addition. Pizzadinosaur (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably worth mentioning Gyruss too. It was the first video game console with stereo sound, and featured Toccata as the background music. --115.186.240.227 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would be better if that section were trimmed. The transcriptions are worth mentioning.  And I think it's worth including the Sky and Vanessa-Mae pop versions, as they are both charted singles.  But video games that use it as music?  Bands that use parts of it as an intro in their live shows?  I don't think a typical reader of this article would be looking for such information.  (Although a reader of an article on the video game, band, etc. might, so it might be appropriate in those articles).  I would strike all of the following (all of which is unsourced, by the way):


 * TJRC (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, *if* there is a pop culture section to be in the article, then I think that Gyruss does rate a mention. Remember that it is from a time when there were far fewer video games existing than now. It was possibly the *only* classical music that a certain generation ever heard! --115.186.240.227 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

POV advertisement for Williams
Searching Google for "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" returns about 276,000 web pages.

Searching Google for "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" +"Peter Williams" returns about 270 pages, many of which simply mention this Wikipedia article. The rest, that seem to disregard his theory.

Even IF Wikipedia is allowed to be used as an advertisement for Mr. William's theory, no matter how far fetched it is, the TOTAL mention of his critique should be proportional to mainstream coverage of the (widely irrelevant) accusation.

That is, no more than 1/2 to 3/4s of a single line of this article, should discuss Mr. William's theory. If even that.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first Google search is misplaced, because there are two popular works by Bach named "Toccata and Fugue in D minor", not one (the other one, for the record, is Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 538). The conclusions you draw from your second Google search are puzzling, since obviously any website and/or book can describe Bach's authorship of BWV 565 as doubtful without referencing Williams (case in point: ). The rest of your post basically suggests that Williams's theory is somehow a fringe theory. However, quite a number of very well-known and respected Bach scholars have embraced his views; any recent scholarly work on Bach or Bach's keyboard music describes Bach's authorship of BWV 565 as spurious or doubtful (without citing Williams, by the way - because the theory is so commonplace these days). And such scholarly works are cited in the article - the volume edited by Butt, the large work by Schulenberg, etc. Really, I could spend all day just producing evidence of how widespread and relevant the theory is. For example, a simple Google search reveals Peter Hurford's disc with "attributed" appended to the title of BWV 565 and Gerhard Weinberger's complete recording of Bach's organ works for CPO placing BWV 565 first in the "Works of Doubtful Authenticity" volume . So unless you think "mainstream coverage" should be more important than mainstream scholarship, the article is fine. --Jashiin (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Key signature
From the "Toccata" section: "it was common practice in the Baroque period to write in leading tone accidentals rather than in the key signature." I am not going to argue about that, but if you take the D minor key signature it has one flat, namely B-flat, which is not the leading tone accidental of the key. --88.209.75.18 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was common practice then to write one flat fewer (minor keys) or one sharp fewer (major keys), that's all. I removed the sentence altogether since it didn't seem to be very relevant. --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Halloween connection
In United States popular culture, this is often often considered to be Halloween music. Also, along those lines, during much of 2008 and 2009, whenever David Letterman mentioned U.S. vice president Dick Cheney's name (often referring to his supposed dungeons and torture chambers) in the opening monologue of the show, Paul Shaffer would play the opening bars of the theme and Will Lee would give a suitable haunted-house style scream... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some old vampire movie featured Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) playing the BWV 565, which became a meme, engraved in public imagination, so the piece is now often associated with evil masterminds and horror. 87.97.52.95 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The 18th century equivalent of the Mersenne Prime torture test.
Isn't BWV565 a kind of "hardware acceptance test program", which J. S. B. composed to be able to spot mechanical and/or design problems in newly built pipe organs? It was not meant to be a piece of sacred art, rather than a torture test for the console and the pipes. At least that is what is being taught here in academia, but there is no such mention in this Wikipedia article? 87.97.52.95 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this idea was included in the old version of the article. But no sources were mentioned, and I couldn't find any either, so I've removed it. If you can provide the name of the book and/or an academic journal article that supports the theory, along with a page number, I'd be happy to include it back. Although I have to admit the idea sounds rather implausible: why would an organist write a special organ test piece if every single organist can improvise extremely well? (That was the case back then, and certainly Bach was one of the better improvisers...) Why write such a simple piece to test the organ if you can follow North German masters and include double pedal passages, huge chords, fast registration changes, numerous sections to test multiple stops, really fast passages in 32nd notes, and so on? Bach knew all about that since at least 1700-1705, if not from earlier. If anything, an organ test piece would've been many short sections of different material, not two continuous pieces. Just my two cents.
 * Also, I'd be interested to know where exactly this is taught? Unless you can't tell for personal security reasons ;) --Jashiin (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ulver reference
A section of BWV 565 is featured in Ulver's "It Is Not Sound". I think this is notable considering Ulver's popularity and acclaim in the Norwegian music scene. (They have won some Norwegian Grammys if I am not mistaken.) Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwSjaf3aa2M  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.135.182 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dracula
I've always thought this piece was played by Bela Lugosi in Dracula. This the true pop culture reference.


 * I got that picture in my mind too. It's definitely got a horror/Halloween implication in popular culture. -Karonaway 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am researching the use of this piece in early horror films and I have just finished watching Dracula (1931) with Bela Lugosi. This movie does not contain Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor and, in fact, it uses almost no underscoring whatsoever.  There is music in the opening credits ("Swan Lake"), a small fragment of Die Meistersinger at the opera house, and a song that I couldn't identify played by a music box.  The only other film in which Lugosi portrays Dracula was in Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) but I haven't yet seen this.  I had thought there was a strong Dracula connection with this piece of music as well, but I haven't found any evidence of a specific connection with Dracula yet. Samstokes80 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is used in the second King's Quest computer game at the point where King Graham enters Dracula's castle. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Williams
Is this article any use if it's just a forum for Peter Williams' misgivings?

71.181.211.88 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Attribution of piece to Bach is doubtful???
I just came onto this article today to see what it would say about the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, and I was surprised to see that the first paragraph seemingly attempts to bias the reader by stating that this masterpiece was, in fact, not really made by Bach! This seems like a sensational style of writing and I do not think it has a place in an encyclopedia, and certainly not in the very first sentance. Sorry for being so anonymous, but I cannot recall either my username or password.71.189.19.37 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article explains this notion in detail. It's really a pretty well known thing, and in fact at least one recording of Bach's organ works puts the piece on a 'possibly spurious' disc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much attention to fringe theories.
Saying that the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor isn't by Bach is like saying the Symphony no. 9 wasn't by Beethoven. I happen to be intimately familiar with this piece, and the structure of the fugue in particular gives a good clue as to who its author really is. What organists took to be Bach's work for the last hundred years will not in my mind be overturned by a handful of so-called scholars in the late 1980's. Like Mark Twain said, "Shakespeare wasn't written by Shakespeare, it was written by another man by the same name!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.19.37 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have redone the page from "Attribution of Bach is doubtful" to "It is the general consensus that this piece was written entirely by Bach, though some scholars of the late 20th century have recently questioned its authenticity". I believe that the tone of the former is a little too opinionated for an opening sentence, and it takes for granted the idea that Bach actually didn't write it, which is forbidden in WP:OR. . Rolusty33 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * That is WP:OR. It fact the opinion of professionals is different.--Galassi (talk) 22:29, 14
 * It is not the question of tone, or an editor's opinion. Wikipedia reeports what is documented "out there".--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I am not the first to complain about the way this article has been written. The tone of the opening sentance is inapropriate, so stop bothering me with your edit war by reversing all of my corrections. Encyclopedic contents must always be written with a neutral and unassuming approach. Rolusty33 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33


 * In March 2009, we reached consenus on the following lede ; see above.


 * The Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, is a piece of organ music composed by Johann Sebastian Bach sometime between 1703 and 1707. It is one of the most famous works in the organ repertoire, and has been used in a variety of popular media ranging from film, to video games, to rock music, and ringtones. The attribution of the piece to Bach has been challenged in early 1980s by a number of scholars, and remains a controversial topic.


 * Is there any indication that this is no longer consensus? TJRC (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, most prominent performers of Bach's works do agree that it was indeed written by him. I have inluded two names so far for reference.Rolusty33 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * Tossing in a pair of names is hardly citing anything. You need ACTUAL references (check out WP:CITE to get started). And especially saying "x and x say it was written in ..." doesn't even take care of the rest of the problems with that paragraph. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you wish me to provide a link to a website, or write down a book title with the page number? It seems that I have enough information here. And yet you did not make such a fuss over the citation needed on the page about Historical Background which was put in place way back in 2008. Double Standard?Rolusty33 (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 Title of book included, as well as page number.

Edit request on 16 December 2011
Hello, I am requesting a minor re-edit to the opening phrase of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor article to change the sentence from "Attribution of the piece to Bach is doubtful, and has been disputed by a number of scholars" to "The attribution of the piece to Bach has been challenged in the late 1980's by a number of scholars, and remains a controversial topic". To say only that it is doubtful seems opinionated, and excludes the opinion of other scholars (Such as Helmut Walcha and Christoph Wolff) who actually do believe it to have been composed by Bach. It isn't very serious, but it has been giving the article many problems recently. Rolusty33 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33

Rolusty33 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please get consensus on the proposed wording, and then ask again. Saying that the attribution was questioned in the late 1980s seems to ignore any questions which occurred before or after that period, and if so would not be an accurate summary.   Will Beback    talk    23:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will try to gather more specific information. Of course you realize, that sentance mentioning the controversy in the 1980's is what is already in the page currently. Rolusty33 (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33

Detailed excerpts to be moved from lede to attribution page
Since it is rather lengthy for the opening, I shall move the quotations from "Bach: The Learned Musician" from the lede to the attribution page next to Peter William's arguments. That way readers will get a comprehensive view on both sides of the argument in the same section. As for the lede, I think what David put down is better than what is there currently, and if we can get consensus on it I will try to include it in my final version, which will look somewhat like this;                                                                                                                               "The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565, is a piece of organ music attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach. It is one of the most famous works in the organ repertoire, and has been used in a variety of of popular media ranging from films, video games, rock music and ringtones. Various doubts over Bach's authorship of this piece have been raised since the early 1980's by recent scholars, and remains a controversial subject." Then in the Attribution Page; "In a 1981 paper, musicologist Peter Williams outlined a number of stylistic problems present in BWV 565. These included, but were not limited to, the following, all either unique or extremely rare for organ music of the period the toccata is allegedly from:

Because some of these features (Simplistic harmonies, or the solo pedal statement of a theme, etc.) are typical for post-1750 music, Williams suggested that the work may be an exercise by a later composer, who tried to immitate Baroque idioms. Or, because other features (Parallel Octaves, for instance) are sometimes encountered in Bach's transcriptions - although in a more limited way - the piece may have been a badly transmitted transcription by Bach of a lost violin piece. This is corroborated by the fact that the subject of the fugue, and certain passages (Such as bars 12-15), are evidently inspired by string music. Williams places this original violin work a fifth higher, in the key of A minor, so that the work begins on a high E and descends almost to the lowest note on the instrument:
 * Parallel octaves throughout the opening of the toccata (Unique)
 * True Subdominant answers in the fugue (Extremely Rare)
 * A pedal statement of the subject unaccompanied by other voices (Unique)
 * Primitive harmonies throughout the piece, with countersubjects in the fugue frequently moving through thirds and sixths only (Extremely rare in Bach)
 * Conclusion of the piece on a major plagal cadence (Extremely rare).

William's views have been endorsed by a substantial number of scholars. The theory has been expanded into a book length study by the musicologist Rolf-Dietrich Claus. Among the examples of scholars referring to the work as one of doubtful attribution is the 1997 Cambridge Companion to Bach, edited by scholar and performer John Butt and aimed at the wider public, as well as recent monographs on Bach's music by harpsichordist and musicologist David Schulenberg and Richard Douglas Jones. Since Williams, other scholars have put forward different theories about the piece. For example, David Humphreys suggested that BWV 565 originated with Johann Peter Kellner, who had close ties with Bach. The designation of BWV 565 as a work of doubtful attribution is not, however, supported by Organist Helmut Walcha or by the renowned Bach scholar and and biographer Christoph Wolff. He deems that the piece is one of Bach's earlier works, composed somewhere between 1700 and 1703. In his book "Bach: The Learned Musician" he writes:                                                                                                                            "The Toccata in D Minor, BWV 565, seems a particularly characteristic example of the bold, virtuosic approach of the young Bach, still not quite sure how to manage certain aspects of form and fugal counterpoint. Although the piece is transimtted only in much later copies, it bears the hallmark of a youthful and unrestrained piece of what Bach later used to dub, according to Forkel, 'Clavier Hussars'. The opening passagework features persistant octave doubling, for which there is no parallel elsewhere in Bach's organ music. However, if we consider that Bach's Arnstadt Organ had no manualiter sixteen foot stops available, the octave doubling reflects an ingenious solution for making up that deficiency and for creating the effect of an organo pleno sound that typically requires a sixteen foot basis...The intention to achieve structural unity - despite a strong improvisatory impulse - also reaches into the fugue, whose theme is directly derived from the head motive in both regular and inverted versions; the fugue theme also refers to a central theme from the opening section, which, if notated differently, reveals the relationship even more clearly. Seen in this light, the D minor Toccata, ostensibly fashioned as a showpiece, appears, below its flamboyant surface, much more disciplined and controlled. In many ways, it heralds the brilliant future of Bach's organistic art." "Bach: The Learned Musician" (Pg. 72). Rolusty33 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * Again this is just too much. Wolff writes only a half a page on BWV 565 in a 624 page biography and the text above quotes half of that (much of which doesn't have to do with the issue of attribution).  The article already states that Wolff thinks the work is authentic and thinks that the octave doubling was intended to fix deficiencies in the organ.DavidRF (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you think there is already enough information on Christoph Wolff in the article as it is, I suppose the only thing which remains for us is to edit out the "Attribution of the piece to Bach is Doubtful" section with a different form of wording. I will leave it up to you as which phrase is best for a correction, as my fingers are getting sore. But of one thing only am I adamant; That phrase has to be changed. There have been many complaints on this page about it, and so far no action has been taken. There will likely be future complaints unless it is written in a way deemed appropriate. Rolusty33 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * Uninformed people are complaining because they're surprised. That doesn't mean its not an accurate statement.DavidRF (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but it assumes from the beggining that this is indeed the case, and thus sides with the "Anti-Bachs" from the very beggining. The whole article very nearly ignores the "Purist" point of view by inserting nearly 3 paragraphs of Peter Williams, and next to nothing about the other scholars who hold opinions otherwise. The part about Peter Williams is honestly too long. I got tired just typing it for my final rendition. Rolusty33 (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * Well, "doubtful" means doubtful, it doesn't mean "spurious". Perhaps there is worry that the non-expert reader is unaware of that distinction?  Still, there are simply a lot of scholars who are siding with Williams on this and its being picked up by more general-interest publications even record labels.  This isn't a recent thing, either.  Everyone has had 30+ years to think about it.  The explanation is a bit more detailed than it needs to be but I think that was inspired by readers/editors that are so surprised by it.  If there are other writers who defend the authenticity of BWV 565 they can be included after Wolff in the article (it could be made into its own paragraph or subsection if more is found).DavidRF (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Streamlining the article
The Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, is a piece of organ music attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach. It is one of the most famous works in the organ repertoire, and has been used in a variety of popular media from film, video games, rock music, and ringtones. (It is best to simply leave the next sentance out entirely, as it is not neccessary and is covered sufficiently in the attribution section, which I will attempt to shorten).

Attribution

Musicologist Peter Williams outlined a number of unusual stylistic anomolies present in BWV 565. These included a series of unique and rare techniques which were not commonly used in Bach's time period, including the following: Since Peter Williams thought these qualities to be more typical of the musical styles made after 1750, he suggested that it may have been written by another composer. (The section about the piece being originally written for a violin and then being transcripted by Bach is also uneccessary, as it contradicts William's former hypothesis that the music is post-1750. Any information about actually playing the piece on violin should be inserted into the "Arrangements and Transcriptions" section). Christoph Wolff, on the other hand, insists that the piece really was written by Bach, stating that the stylistic differences can be explained by the fact that it was one of Bach's earlier works. (The music page that has Peter William's violin transcription should then be moved from the Attribution Section to that of the Arrangements and Transcriptions. I know I took out an awful lot, so let me know if you think I removed any thing you thought was important.) Rolusty33 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * Parralel octaves throughout the opening
 * True subdominant answers in the fugue
 * An unaccompanied pedal statement of the main theme
 * Countersubjects in the fugue frequently moving through thirds and sixths
 * Conclusion of piece on a minor plagal cadence.
 * I frankly see no need for this, I am perfectly happy with the current wording. Also why on earth would you want to mention ringtones and videogames? That would fall under WP:UNDUE and trivia rules.--Galassi (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How are ringtones and video games any less worthy of mention than film and rock music? And it's all an important part of the impact of the piece; hardly trivia to give a general statement like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That line about "Video Games and Ringtones" is what was in the article before I even started to edit it. But then you say you're "Perfectly happy with the current wording", but that IS the current wording. Seriously, when was the last time you read this article?Rolusty33 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33

Rolusty33, please stop making major changes to the article without first discussing those changes here. First of all, there was, and there still is consensus on how the lead should be; you're in the minority here, and you need more convincing arguments than just citing Wolff's opinion (which is covered in the article). Secondly, Williams isn't the only major scholar to doubt Bach's authorship, as the attribution section plainly explains - Butt, Schulenberg, Jones, and many others agree; and really - admittedly, I can't cite this - most professionals studying Baroque music would agree. Are you familiar with the original article by Williams, or the studies by Klaus or Humphreys? Wolff is, of course, an important Bach scholar, but not the only important Bach scholar.

You're also not attentive enough: the violin hypothesis doesn't contradict anything. Williams never made a definitive statement on the authorship issue (not surprisingly, since it's not possible at the moment); he has simply shown that there is a problem, and suggested several solutions - one was that the piece was a post-1750 attempt by someone, perhaps involving messing with lost sketches by Bach, another was that it may have been a transcription of a violin piece, etc. The attribution section isn't supposed to be about Williams alone, either - it details theories put forward by Williams, Manze, and Humphreys. This is why the violin part should be left alone.

Finally, and I can't stress this enough, authorship problems are extremely common for any music written before the 19th century. Musicology back then just didn't bother too much with accurate composer biographies and catalogues. This is common knowledge for anyone studying Baroque music, Renaissance music, Medieval music, and similar fields. The BWV 565 issue is one of many, many such issues - but have you seen anyone complain about, say, BWV 561? Or the Minuet in G major (BWV Anh. 114)? I wonder why. --Jashiin (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I find it strange you accuse me of "Making major changes to the article without discussing them here". I have thoroughly discussed every reason as to why I have been making the proposed changes in this talk article. Rolusty33 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 As for the Attribution, it seems like that's all this article ever talks about. There is too much mention of Williams and the other scholars. This page is supposed to be about the "Toccata and Fugue in D minor", not the doubts and misgivings of disgruntled authors.Rolusty33 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 Also, I stand firm on the conviction that stating the piece was made after 1750, then ascribing the music to be a transcripted violin piece from the early 1700's, is a contradiction. First he says the style is incompatible for that time period, then he brings it back to the same time period as a violin transcripted showpiece. I do not see how Williams can time-warp about history in that manner. He seems to be determined that Bach didn't write the piece, even if it contradicts his former statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolusty33 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are clear rules against this kind of editorializing. We don't secondguess what sources mean, we merely report what is academically authoritative.--Galassi (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning the first point, you've said it yourself - you've made changes, and then explained them here. I suggested you first discussed things here, because you're making major changes many editors do not agree with. Concerning the rest of your message: in it you're ignoring most of what I said, and you're throwing insult after insult at Williams. I've asked you if you were familiar with his original 1981 article, and while you've decided to ignore that question, it is now obvious that you have never read it. Perhaps the text as it is now may be misleading. I've tried to make a clearer, less misleading version of the text, and added a few more citations. --Jashiin (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening Lede dispute
I suggest a change from the current statement "The attribution of the piece to Bach is doubtful and it has been challenged since the 1980s by a number of scholars" to "It is one of the most famous works in the organ repertoire, and is considered by many to be among the most spectacular of the classical masterpieces". Written in the former way, it sounds like this page was written by Peter Williams himself. Rolusty33 (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33


 * Even if you had grounds for diminishing the point about the doubtful provenance - which you don't based on existing scholarly consensus - your suggested replacement removes factual and relevant information with uninformative, non-encyclopedic peacockery. Eusebeus (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Well Known" is certainly better than "Doubtful". I think I'll put it in. Rolusty33 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * I second that view. The current lede is genuinely informative and encyclopaedic. IMO, it might be appropriate to add in the words "well known" (or something similar), since the instant recognition accorded by a wide public appears quite remarkable for an original organ work. MistyMorn (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you won't. It is unencyclopedic and meaningless.--Galassi (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way? Provide neccessary citations for your opinion. Rolusty33 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 Thanks, Melodia. Your version is good enough, in my opinion. Rolusty33 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33 -On a personal note: What's going on here? Clearly I did not suggest "well known" as an alternative for "doubtful": please do not manipulate my remarks. Also, why insult my observation as being "meaningless" if the page concludes with a whole darn list titled 'In popular culture'? (Would anyone care to deny that this is one of the most widely recognised pieces in the organ repertoire?) If you guys prefer, I'll opt out. MistyMorn (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just to chime in and say that I think the new lede by Melodia is a good compromise, clearly letting the reader know the attribution has been challenged without judging (the earlier use of the word "doubtful" was not neutral enough in my opinion).Danmuz (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The meaningless was for the phrasing that Rolusty chose to use, which makes absolutely no sense. The fact it's famous is already in the previous sentence anyway, and thus the 'well known' is just redundant. Still, however, IMO there should be something about its use in popular culture in the lead, but others disagree apparently. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There used to be a sentence in the middle before this started. The lead usually does has a little bit more, but the lack of information about things such as composition date, dedicatee, as well as the lack of a nickname prevents us from filling out the usual introductory tidbits that usually go up there.  This not central to the main disagreement here so we can put it off until later.DavidRF (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies... At a late hour last night, I somehow overlook contrived to overlook the key sentence, "It is one of the most famous works in the organ repertoire." Perhaps I was temporarily blinded by the terms of this dispute. My original comment supporting the current formulation stands.
 * An analogy: In the 1980s, researchers identified Helicobacter pylori and its role in "conditions that were not previously believed to have a microbial cause". Around that time, new research was also paving the way for curative treatment for several haematolological malignancies. A query: Who would now refuse such knowledge on the basis that it was the work of a bunch of academics?  MistyMorn (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"prelude" vs "toccata"
These paragraphs from an ISP address perhaps belong here on the talk page, but I have requested a citation for the article's uncredited assertion that "toccata" was an unusual designation. Sparafucil (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The assertion over the title Toccata as a later addition, "in the Baroque era such organ pieces would most commonly be called simply Prelude (Praeludium, etc.) or Prelude and Fugue," ignores a number of works so titled earlier in the Baroque Period and all most likely known to J. S. Bach. J. K. Froberger wrote six toccatas for organ in his Libro secundo, 1649 plus an additional six in the Libro quarto, 1656. Froberger's teacher, Girolamo Frescobaldi, likewise wrote works titled Toccata. Bach is known to have owned a number of Frescobaldi's works, including a manuscript copy of Frescobaldi's Fiori musicali (Venice, 1635), which he signed and dated 1714 and performed in Weimar the same year. The full title of Frescobaldi's work is Fiori musicali di diverse compositioni, toccate, kyrie, canzoni, capricci, e recercari, in partitura. 20 toccatas by J. Pachelbel survive. Pachelbel taught Johann Christoph Bach (1671–1721), J. S. Bach's older brother. Dieterich Buxtehude wrote toccatas in addition to preludes. In 1705, J.S. Bach, then a young man of twenty, walked from Arnstadt to Lübeck, a distance of more than 400 kilometres (250 mi)to listen to the works of Buxtehude and to meet the famous Organist.

J. S. Bach wrote a collection of seven keyboard toccatas, BWV 910–916. Among his earlier keyboard composition, the earliest pieces date from 1706. J. S. Bach's 6th Partita in E minor from the Clavier, BWV 830 first movement is titled "Toccata." The partita to a collection, Clavier-Übung part I published 1731, one of the few works published in J. S Bach's lifetime. Evidently, J. S. Bach knew and used the title toccata first hand. J. S. Bach's Clavier-Übung part II published 1735, contains The Italian Concerto. In the published Italian Concerto manuscript, one finds "dot staccato" marks. An original copy exists (with corrections of note pitches) in J. S. Bach's hand of the work, no further corrections as to the "dots" can be found. This work also contains "Italian Tempo Markings" for the second and third movements, andante and presto, respectively. The Well Tempered Clavier, Book 1 assembled 1722 (with some compositions that date earlier) contains the use of "Italian Tempo markings." One example, the C minor Prelude, contains tempo indications of "Presto," "Allegro," and "Adagio." (As to the latter word, the exists 18th century student copies in which the adagio was used twice.) At measure 34, the word "Adagio" appears for the measure, which in the next measure immediately follows Allegro.

Source for quotes
It's good that we have authors given for these quotes, but it would be even better if we could have specific sources for them. Any chance of that? --Camembert

Umm, they are from liner notes from various recordings I have. Would you like me to list the disc numbers, or what - is there a standard WikiWay of identifying recordings? Noel 23:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah right. Hm, not sure how to handle liner notes, I must admit. Maybe saying "in liner notes from so-and-so's recording" would be OK (it's true that liner notes change with re-releases and in different parts of the world, but then so do record catalogue numbers, and including catalogue numbers would look a bit odd anyway, I think). Best course of action is probably to pretend I didn't say anything.. --Camembert


 * Well, that's certainly easy enough to do! :-) And of course the fact that they are from liner notes is now recorded here! In case anyone *really* cares, though, the Schulze is from E. Power Biggs: Bach - Great Organ Favourites (CBS MK 42644) and the other is from Bach: E. Power Biggs (Sony SBK 46551). Speaking of E. Power Biggs, do we have an entry for him? Hmmm... Noel 00:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I first learned of this controversy in a 1981 BBC Radio 3 intermission broadcast, which, reading this Wiki entry, I would presume to have been by Peter Williams himself. Someone should dig into the Beeb's archives and find that, as a statement of what Williams believed at that time.  It ended with a live studio performance by Gideon Kramer, if my memory is correct.  (Somewhere I have a cassette recording of the performance, but not, alas, of the lecture itself.)


 * I found the theory and performance conclusive: If the piece sounds like a violin, if it plays like a violin, if transcriptions are invariably for strings, if it is clearly not in J.C. Bach's style, then it is what Williams claims:  A Praeludium and Fugue in a for Violin, that at one point or another was deliberately transcribed and attributed to a famous man to ensure its popularity.  I note that while many Bach organ works have been transcribed for other instruments, with the exception of this one, they are infrequently transcribed for strings.  This one wants a solo violin much more than it wants ten fingers and two feet.  I was astonished it could be reduced to violin in such a convincing fashion.  No organ composer would have limited himself to what could be ex post facto transcribed for a violin.  Such an idea is absurd.  The Tocatta and Fugue is a violin work that was stretched to fit an organ.


 * It isn't so much that hard facts can "prove" this one way or the other, but that the preponderance of evidence can lead us in directions which can themselves become a base for further useful speculation. Very little of the past can be reliably documented, and much that we take as settled is in fact corrupted.  Encyclopaedists are timid.  Bold statements can elicit investigation that produces bold rebuttals, or, if not, bold new realities.  Such is what Peter Williams did for me.    Dave of Maryland (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Parallel octaves throughout the opening of the toccata (unique)"
The E minor Fugue from book one of the Well-Tempered Clavier has a brief passage in parallel octaves just before the final entrance of the subject. (Admittedly, the authenticity of that piece was questioned by Ernest Hutcheson in his book The Literature of the Piano. Kostaki mou (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea is that there are no other Baroque organ pieces to employ parallel octaves this much, and in such position. Octave doubling near, or in the final cadence (the case you're describing) is a different case, and was relatively common. --Jashiin (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm very surprised to hear that Bach's authorship is disputed for a fugue from the WTC. What are Hutcheson's arguments? --Jashiin (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hutcheson thought the piece undistinguished. He also didn't think Bach would have used parallel octaves.  He brings up the fact that composers of Bach's day borrowed from each other shamelessly and without acknowledgment, which was not considered necessary.  I don't know that I agree with him.  I am rather fond of the piece myself.  The octaves are strategically placed.  The ending, at least, is downright ingenious.  This is a two-voiced fugue and therefore can be expected to be lighter than more densely textured examples.  Without questioning its authenticity, Hutcheson also deprecates the Eb major fugue in book one, which is of course much less substantial than the prelude.  (I think this was intentional and appropriate.)  Kostaki mou (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The E minor fugue is unique in that it's the only the two-voice fugue in the collection, which (to my mind) accounts for the parallel-octaves section. It functions as a sort of counterpoint to the counterpoint (a temporary respite from counterpoint to refresh the ear). TheScotch (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-edit to opening phrase "Attribution to Bach is doubtful"
I have decided to change Attribution to Bach is doubtful, and has been challenged in the early 1980's by a number of scholars" to "The Attribution to Bach has been challenged in the early 1980's by a number of scholars, and remains a controversial topic." This takes a more neutral approach, and takes into account the opinions of other famous scholars such as Helmut Walcha and Christoph Wolff, who both believe that Bach wrote the music. Rolusty33 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * That us not acceptable. The current wording reflects the current state of musicological opinion and is sufficiently neutral. It should stay. You may mention _in the body of the article_ that Walcha and Wolff _were in favor of ascription_ to Bach. You cannot make blanket statements.--Galassi (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, they have to have said these things after the challenge in the first place, otherwise it's pointless. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how "The attribution to Bach has been challenged in the early 1980's by a number of scholars, and remains a controversial topic" is considered to be a "Blanket statement"; in fact it's hardly different from the current version. Rolusty33 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * For starters - read the relevant section of the article and try to understand maybe not as much what it says, but how extensively it is documented.--Galassi (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you wish, I can also include excerpts from Christoph Wolff's book along with the page numbers on which these can be found. Is this a relevent form of documentation? Rolusty33 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33

Comment, with respect to Wolff needing to hold his position after the challenge, A review in Notes, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4487371, refers to his 2002 essay Bach's organ Toccata in D-minor and the issue of its authenticity, which is apparently published in the book Perspectives on organ playing and musical interpretation : pedagogical, historical, and instrumental studies : a Festschrift for Heinrich Fleischer at 90, see ; but I do not have access to a copy. Perhaps someone here does. TJRC (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC) That sounds very interesting, TJRC. Unfortunately I do not own that document, so I will insert some relevent contents from "Bach: The Learned Musician" instead, since I have easy access to that book, and it can be cross-referenced on Amazon.com by the readers. Rolusty33 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33

27.253.65.126 (talk) This whole question of attribution has reached absolute absurdity. Some scholar writes a paper from the point of view of "What if everything that is accepted isn't true", fair enough. There's one guy posting conspiracy theories that are as refutable as whether our existence is really just a matrix, and it becomes the main point of this article? It seriously needs to be downgraded to an ALTERNATE theory, as in this one guy thinks maybe what the majority of the critical world has accepted. Williams work has far more criticisms of its veracity than augmentations. —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

An unspecific attribution debate only leaves the article with a void, ought to be erased until a specific alternative author is proposed.
It is meaningless to merely challenge attribution, because that just leaves a negative or void. Come forward and say verbosely which particular genius wrote BWV565 instead of JSB, because it was wrtten by a genius of music composition, no matter who he or she was!

In comparison, the attribution debate about Shakespearean authorship is alive, because anti-Stratfordians are able to come forward with the singularly credible candidate Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and show how Hamlet is his autobiography and how he had all the on-site experience to write dramas about Italy and Venice in particular, while the amateur actor and wool merchant Shaxper of Stratford-upon-Avon provably never, ever left Blighty.

As long as no music history expert can come forward with a positive assertion to point the gun at, say the illegitimate daughter of Buxtehude and Tsarina Katharine as the real author of BWV565, there is no sense in mentioning the attribution debate in this article, because a nebulous "somebody else did it" cannot credibly take the place of John Sebastian. 91.82.36.231 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's quite a specious argument. There's 100s of compositions originally attributed to 'masters' that people don't quite have any idea who may have been the composer. Just in Bach's work alone there's probably at least 20. There's no reason one needs to give an alternative because the issue isn't who wrote it, it's if Bach wrote it or not. For every composer we know of there are probably 100 that you can't find any record of. Furthermore, it doesn't matter than most people think Bach wrote it, some notable people DO think someone else did and THAT is what matters in the context of this particular article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No Melodia, he has a valid point there. Just saying someone else made it still begs the question of "who" that someone is. Also, in viewing the article on Hamlet, you do not see an attribution dispute in the very first opening sentence. Doing so would be inappropriate, and it is equally so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolusty33 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the valid point? It might 'beg the question' but that doesn't mean that the entire mention has to be stripped out because said question has no answer at the present time. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Said question has no answer at present time". Exactly. All the more reason to remove it from the lede; it's impossible to prove a moot point. Following your logic, I could also say "The interior of watermelons are blue until they're cut open with a knife." You can't prove me wrong, can you? It's impossible to prove - or disprove - a negative. Putting this statement at the very beggining of a music article is proposterous and unencyclopaedic. The statement in question belongs in the extras for those interested - not in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolusty33 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that no one actually thinks watermelons are blue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Attribution
I found this section nearly impossible to understand; the sentences seem like they were randomly chosen from disparate paragraphs or something akin to that. I feel underqualified to rewrite it as I know nothing of the subject; it's not grammatical or stylistically poor, but in terms of sentence organization, the paragraph has no flow. Maybe someone with more skill in this department can improve it? This article has Featured Article in its future! GngstrMNKY 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-written one sentence regarding the dispute of whether Bach wrote this piece or not. Yes, there is some argument on this matter. No, it is not a very serious or, even in musical circles, publicized debate. I am surprised to even see any mention of it. Gingermint (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the rest of the talk page? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit. The issue has been discussed before on this talk page, and particularly the wording you changed was decided upon after some debate. The attribution problem of BWV 565 is widely acknowledged in Bach scholarship, as is easily seen in the "Attribution" section, which cites a number of books, articles, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The passage in last part of the last paragraph in the "Attribution" section pertaining to Christoph Wolff reads entirely too much like a refutation of Wolff's writings in the cited source, "Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician." It is a passage which would work well for an original essay, but seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 174.49.145.17 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Arrangements and transcriptions + In popular culture
I wonder if these two sections are needed at all. Now that we have a relatively solid "History" section, why not simply mention that the piece has been transcribed many times for all kinds of ensembles, and used in a wide variety of popular media from films to video games? It would be easy to find references for a general statement like that (e.g. for video games). And we could throw in a line on how some adaptations would end up on the charts, referencing Sky or a similar case. I realize I'm suggesting a rather radical move, but both sections are magnets for all kinds of unsourced information, and both are difficult to maintain. At present they're both a mess, and expanding/sourcing them seems like daunting, thankless task. Thoughts? --Jashiin (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I you do not FEEL Bach, you can not see Bach on this piece.
Considering this work spurious is just being superficial. There's absolutely no way that another person could have done this organ work, the Fugue in particular is very typical of Bach's complexity, but rather simple in terms of harmony and progression, but whats the problem in not following a pattern. People who consider this organ work as spurious certainly have other interests behind the scene. Selling books, sensationalism, racial ideologies, et cetera. I just wonder. But as I listen to Bach since my childhood and many other baroque composers that came before and after Bach, if you just came to me with this piece, supposing Ive never heard it before, for sure I would tell you its from Johann Sebastian Bach. Why, you ask? Because I feel. Sorry about the anedotical evidence, but it's enough for me and millions of people out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.26.129 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What?
As someone with very little knowledge of classical music who found this page looking for information on the Toccata and Fugue, I feel I should point out that, from my point of view (and so presumably others in my situation) it is rather confusing that this entry contains (1) Paul Williams' argument that Bach did not write this piece, then immediately afterwards (2) Paul Williams' argument that this piece was originall written for the violin, which is apparently proved... by referring to how this would fit in with Bach's oeuvre as a whole (e.g. "The fairly plain musical texture would reflect the general texture of Bach's well known solo sonatas and partitas for violin", "...which would fit with other passages in Bach's solo violin works"). I have not read Williams' original essay, of course, but I think it would be helpful for someone who has to clarify these points - otherwise these two arguments of Williams' apparently seem to contradict each other (or at least undermine the other's sources of evidence).

(I have a Wikipedia account name somewhere, but can't remember it for the life of me, so please excuse the accidental anonimity)


 * I agree that it is confusing. I assume, though, that Williams' paper proposes two alternative theories. None of them are proven, by the way, and the theories probably has its fair share of opponents. I don't think Williams is contradicting himself, since he's not showing two united arguments, but two alternative theories, both of which are possible. As it is now these two theories are mentioned in different sections of the article, which I suspect contributes with some confusion. I haven't read the paper itself yet--ironically, since I was the first to mention it in this article, a long long time ago--but I'll read it some day. Until then I'm reluctant to touch anything. EldKatt (Talk) 17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is confusing. However, as any musicologist will readily tell you, Peter Williams is eternally confusing. He has a nasty habit of writing pages and pages of interesting material and going into great depth in order to answer a question, then coming within a millimiter of answering the question conclusively, but suddenly proposing another possibility instead of providing a definitive answer. Cor anglais 16 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is all so, then perhaps these "theories" should be totally removed form the article altogether and instead just reffered to. It'd be a lot better just to mention and cite these things rather than expand upon them in a factual artical if they're really only conjecture. -I don't mean to impune their veracity in any way, it's just that they're a bit esoteric.OzoneO 11:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason whatsoever to avoid esoteric topics in an encyclopedia. If I did, I wouldn't be here at all. Those who are not interested will skip the concerned sections, and those who actually want to read about this theory (which is fairly well-known in the mainstream as far as current musicological research goes) can. All win, and there is much rejoicing. EldKatt (Talk) 14:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just read Williams's article (NOT on-line, by the way, but in the bona fide hard copy of the journal in a bona fide music library). He begins by casting doubt on Bach's authorship and then elaborates his theory that the piece was transcribed from a violin piece and spends considerably more time on the latter argument. It is clear, however, that he doesn't consider the violin piece to have been Bach's either. Williams makes no mention whatsoever of "consecutive fifths", and this wikipedia article needs to be clearer about whence this argument comes. I've examined the piece as well. I did not find "ten bars" of "consecutive fifths". I found, rather, two instances of a perfect fifth going to a diminished fifth (then resolving in contrary motion to a third) and one instance of a diminished fifth going to a perfect fifth (part of a diminished seventh chord: C#-G resolves properly to D-F, but E-Bb simultaneously moves questionably to D-A). (Scotch)

I was pretty sure there were parallel fifths in there somewhere (certainly not ten bars in, though). In any case, the parallel octaves are pretty uncharacteristic, though they can be explained by the organ test hypothesis. I thought William's views (as expounded here) were rather sensational and poorly supported in general. True or not, they should be described as hypothesis, not theory: even though hypothesis and theory are generally used interchangeably in popular culture, a theory must be supported by all available data and have been successfully used in a predictive manner, while a hypothesis is an informed opinion. For instance, gravity and relativity are theories, while (due to a lack of provability) many scientists would say that string theory is actually a hypothesis. (person without an account)


 * It was 2 bars, #54-55. A master stroke if you ask me, and so was the pedal solo later; pedal solos were done by Buxtehude and Bach himself often; what's the point?? Eameece (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)eameece


 * A musicological theory is not equivalent to a scientific theory--apples and oranges. TheScotch (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the fact that there is a controversy about Bach writing this piece, is appropo to include in an article about the piece. But the controversy is ridiculous on its face. Besides the obvious fact that no-one but Bach could have written such an inspired piece as this, the musicologists base their entire theory on the idea that this piece is different from others he wrote. What? So a oomposer can't write something different than what he wrote earlier or later? EVERY Bach piece is unique. The only way to really prove a work is not by the composer is with documentary evidence that someone else wrote it. That was done in the case of BWV 751. Anything else is speculation. I agree to call them theories is not valid. Another interesting fact which I can't include in the article, but is obvious for those who listen or read the piece, is that Bach himself used a phrase (bar 114) from this piece BWV 565 as the basis for another great fugue he wrote, the great G Minor BWV 542. So Bach "didn't write this piece," BUT he borrowed its theme in exactly the same way that he borrowed a theme for the Passacaglia, and then borrowed a phrase from BWV 565 itself to compose ANOTHER great work? Eameece (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC) eameece

Provide help for pop culture fans
Isn't this the music in "Phantom of the Opera"? (You know what I mean...) I think it may be helpful if we provide a clue as to what musical piece we're talking about, since the opening is widely known but the name of the piece is not. -- furrykef


 * Your suggestion is helpful, furrykef. It's indeed true that many Wikipedia readers are likely to know about works of classical music only through their appearances in popular culture.  However, the change that I made is incomplete, because we need to clarify what particular version of Phantom of the Opera is meant (there are many).  I can't help here, but perhaps you could clarify the links a bit?  --Opus33 21:24, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm...perhaps in addition to mentioning places that the piece appears, we should find a MIDI and post that. Then everybody will know the piece we're talking about. :) -- furrykef


 * This piece is NOT in Phantom of the Opera. The Phantom's music is composed solely by Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it is NOT Toccata and Fugue in d minor. The Toccata starts with a quick three notes, and a pause, then the also-quick scale descent, followed by another pause. Generally, the notes are A G A (pause) G F E D C# D, and the piece goes on. Phantom of the Opera opens with an "ostinato," a descent and ascent of four notes- generally, D... D C# C B Bb, slight pause, then Bb B C C# D, and so on, repeating. They are not the same, and because Toccata is one of my favorite pieces to play, I get slightly irritated when people say, "Oh! I know this! It's from Phantom of the Opera!" I just wanna say, "No, obviously you don't..."
 * While Toccata and Fugue (in d minor) might have been used with a silent version of the film, it was never in a version with singing and dancing, as all of those contained the score written by Andrew Lloyd Webber. -Chewbacca 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "The Phantom's music is composed solely by Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it is NOT Toccata and Fugue in d minor....Phantom of the Opera opens with an 'ostinato,' a descent and ascent of four notes- generally, D... D C# C B Bb, slight pause, then Bb B C C# D, and so on, repeating." Just because Phantom doesn't use Bach doesn't make it "composed solely by Andrew Lloyd Webber". The ostinato you cite is a transposition of the one used in Pink Floyd's "Echoes". It is possible (not necessarily plausible) that Lloyd Webber came up with his version independently (although "Echoes" WAS Pink Floyd's best-known piece before "Dark Side of the Moon" and Lloyd Webber IS a rock guy), but a more conscientious composer would nevertheless have discarded it when someone pointed out to him the resemblance, and I can't imagine that no one involved in the original production of the musical noticed. (Scotch)
 * Andrew Lloyd Weber only composed the music for the 2004 movie; there have been many others.
 * fruuykef is correct: the Toccata and Fugue in D minor is in The Phantom of the Opera.  There have been at least 11 movies made of the Gaston Leroux novel in the past 90 years, the one featuring Anderw Lloyd Weber's music only being one of the more recent of these.  The 1962 movie "Phantom of the Opera" by Hammer Productions is the one which many people born before 1990 are most familiar with.  This movie does feature Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor, and is, in fact, the movie primarily responsible for so many people's association of this piece of music with horror films.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly worth adding this fact to the article, since in fact there's also a page on wikipedia covering the movie, which states this fact. So I did. Eameece (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)eameece

Toccata and Fugue, or just a toccata?
It just occured to me that this article (more exactly this section) consistently treats this piece as a "toccata and fugue" where the toccata functions as a prelude to the fugue, never mentioning the problem with such a description, that Williams describes in his paper. A north German Baroque toccata (such as Buxtehude's) would by definition include, for instance, fugal sections, and a piece like this would probably have been viewed (by Bach as well) as just a toccata, the fugue being part of the toccata. The reason for the description of it as a "toccata and fugue" would thus be the same as the many tempo markings etc: that the sources we have are from a later time, when musical ideals had changed. In fact, though, as Williams states, calling it "Toccata and fugue" is comparable to referring to a Mozart sonata as "Sonata, andante and rondo". The reason I bring this up here is that the article (in the above-linked section) makes a lot of connections with other prelude-fugue type works--a type to which BWV565 doesn't necessarily belong. Thoughts? EldKatt (Talk) 11:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As I remember from reading about the piece (can't remember where though), the proper name for the piece is Toccata in D minor, which is why I personally prefer to refer to it as such. For reference, the other Toccatas that Bach wrote for keyboard consist of several movements each, including both fugal and improvisatory passages. ~GMH 01:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * After several months of having forgotten about this article, I've finally decided to boldly remove all of this. I doubt a lot of people nowadays could dispute that a "toccata and fugue" is simply a toccata and not a preluding toccata followed by a fugue. As an interesting side-note that doesn't really matter, neither of the two examples presented were particularly descriptive since they also fall outside this category. The C-minor passacaglia is of such scale that I for one would not think of it as a traditional prelude to the following fugue, and the Goldberg variations, obviously, don't even come close to having anything to do with anything here. EldKatt (Talk) 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * the proper name for both movements is Toccata and Fugue in d minor, because it is a two-movement piece. The toccata is more well-known, but both movements are almost always played together, the first movement (Toccata) followed by the second (Fugue). -Chewbacca 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually a 3-movement piece; a toccata, then a fugue, then a third section (technically another Toccata) marked "Recitativo". Chavster01 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of Bach's normal structural usage, this piece is a decided exception. In all other cases in the organ literature the prelude, fantasia, toccata, even the C-Minor passacaglia, comes to a full stop and is then succeeded by the fugue, often of a decidedly different musical character. Here, and here alone, the toccata passages return after the fugue in the manner of Buxtehude, and without the fugue itself coming to a full close.

Isn't this following true? The first theme of the fugue ('altviolin') is in d minor and the second (transposed) theme ('2nd violin') is in g minor. According to the common 'fugue-rules' in those days, the second theme should be in a minor (a quint higher than d). I add this, because I think it is another argument that this 'fugue'is not much of fugue, actually. Am I right? 194.53.91.2 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Steven, the Netherlands

Atypical or not, the title of the work in the earliest recorded manuscript is "Toccata con Fuga," which would seem to make all discussion rather superfluous. (person without an account)

Yes, although we don't know for sure how Bach entitled the piece except from this manuscript. We know Schmeider grouped it with two other "toccatas" in the section of single pieces. These two other toccatas had four movements, just like Buxtehude's (BWV 566 in E), and three (BWV 564 in C), and the movements were separate. In 565, the first movement leads directly into the second in a uniquely powerful way, and its subject is based directly on the first movement's famous first lines (vice-versa actually, since half of the fugue subject came from Pachelbel). The "toccata passages" don't actually "return;" the "fugue" leads into a coda that is improvisational like the first movement, but the notes are all different. Such expressive and improvisational codas are quite common in the organ works of Bach, Buxtehude, Pachelbel and others. This example of such an ending is just the perfected prototype. In its basic structure, this "Toccata and Fugue" is really more like the Passacaglia and Fugue Theme (BWV 582) than any other piece, since 582 has two movements, in which the end of the first movement is marked "segue" leading into the second, which is based on the same subject. Eameece (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)eameece

Phantom of the Opera
As someone has said, the toccata and fugue are definitely NOT used in the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. While the claim "Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote all the music", is, you know, we're talking about Andrew Lloyd Webber. The Echoes argument has been used frequently, but really, it's unimportant here, and, in the grand scheme of things, does it really friggin matter? It's a minor chord followed by half a chromatic scale. Who wrote that? Probably whomever came before Palestrina.... Anyway, I wanted to explain why the t&f sounds reasonably close to POTO. For one, they're in the same key. Two, they're both generally organ works. Three, there's a descending figure followed by lots of 16th notes. Fourth, people are morons. Anyway, I've edited the article to reflect that it was the movie from the 60s that (at least according to its article) contains the t&f. 69.253.193.234 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The association of Toccata and Fugue with POTO is long standing and probably goes back to the Lon Chaney silent film where he played an organ and 'suitable' organ music was supplied either by Theatre Organist or recording. It is an unfortunate association because it is not 'Gothic' organ music but it has come to stand for Gothic organ music. The way it was performed in the early twentieth century probably has a lot to do with this; large organs with high wind pressure, strident reed stops and a very Romantic performance style - lots of swaying about at the keyboard. Its association with horror films, Dracula, the devil and so on is particularly unfortunate as Bach did not make much distinction between his church and secular music. The diabolical associations that have grown up around this piece would have astounded him. Although I do not agree on all points with his interpretation, Ton Koopman is to be congratulated for rescuing this piece from the jaws of hell, so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoeEGrace (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign. I'll try again.

It is also said that Bach intended the toccata to represent a storm, as was said in gothic novels, "it was a dark and stormy night." I can't prove this offhand but here's one reference: http://music.nebrwesleyan.edu/~ebruflat/Bach.html It's not a long stretch from that evoked atmosphere to that of a horror film. So I doubt Bach would have been "astounded." He was very versatile and poetic, not a religious zealot or prude. Eameece (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC) eameece

Silent features were usually scored, not improvised. I don't remember the 1925 Phantom score, by Gustav Hinrichs, quoting Bach. As far as I know, its first use in film was in The Black Cat in 1934, which is where its association with horror began. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned under pop-culture references---I thought it was the most famous one. Odradek5 (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't featured in the silent (I believe) 1925 version, but I'm fairly sure it was in the sound 1928 version. I'm not quite sure the years, but it's somewhere around there.  moo cows rule talk to moo 02:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I discuss this at my fan site about the Phantom as an intro to my research about the uses of Gounod's FAUST in many Phantom adaptations. For whatever bizarre reasons that remain a mystery to me, Bach's Toccata and Fugue has often been associated with the Phantom even before the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber. (I have been a Phantom fan since the mid-1970's.) Even in an episode from Season Four of Supernatural titled "Monster Movie," this piece is used in reference to the Phantom. However, it came across to me within context of this episode that there was a bit of dry humor involved.

Yet in all of my research of books, movies, musicals, children's adaptations, and so forth, I have only been able to find one time when it is actually used in a Phantom adaptation. I never did find it in the old 1925 silent film starring Lon Chaney. (The music he plays during the unmasking scene is from his Don Juan Triumphant, at least in the videos and DVD copies I have.) The only time I have been able to find it is in the 1962 Hammer horror adaptation starring Herbert Lom as the Phantom.

~Chiliheadwizard, 06/25/2009

It actually DOES appear at the very end of the "Phantom of the Opera" title track in the Andrew Lloyd Webber version. During Christine's 'cadenza' at the end of the track while the Phantom is yelling "Sing for me!" the underscoring includes direct quotations from the Toccata and Fugue in D minor in the organ. The section that begins about 9 bars into the second Prestissimo section.

~Yonyue, August 17, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.47.248.4 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It also occurs in the 1962 Hammer Films Production of Phantom of the Opera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How did it come to be attributed to Bach?
Do any of the musicologists who take the position that Bach is not the author of this piece include an explanation of how it came to be attributed to Bach? Is there some indication that Bach claimed credit for a piece he did not write, or that he adapted; or that some earlier musicologists attributed it to Bach in error; or something else?

(Disclosure: I personally do not have the expertise to form any opinion on the matter, and take no position either way.)

The article is silent on this, and I think it would be a worthy addition. TJRC (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to 'delurk' here for moment and give you what amounts to a non-answer. Many, MANY works are attributed wrongly. Pretty much all major composers before the mid 19th century have at least a couple, for various reasons. A somewhat well known example is the Jena Symphony. Hell, there's even an example of a HOAX piece getting a later misattibution of sorts -- see Ave Maria (Vavilov). Bach had many himself -- something like 15 of the numbered sacred cantatas aren't by him. There are some easy potential reasons the T&F could have gotten a misattribution though. For instance, perhaps Bach is the one who transcribed it from violin to organ, similar to what he did with some Vivaldi pieces. Perhaps he was studying it and it got mixed up in his manuscripts. Perhaps it was written by someone else named Bach. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What is attribution?
A theme that runs through the article and the talk page rightly centers around what exactly is a musicological attribution. Obviously, if there were a standard musicological definition for attribution, we could look at the evidence and see if it "measures up." Unfortunately, there is no standard definition for this, but a few things stand out. 1) A name. Someone took the trouble to ascribe and inscribe the name of the composer--in this case, Bach. My teachers were of the opinion that in the absence of other compelling evidence, the name attachment could be weighted at 80 percent. Others may disagree; it's a big field. 2) The style. Stylistic analysis, not only for authorship but also dating, is notoriously unreliable. Yet we can't help ourselves, we often look to style in the absence of other evidence. In addition, there is no absolute reason to believe that the work is early, middle or late--we don't know. There is just the one copy, which is late. 3) Unique features. Also unreliable--one could, for example, throw out plays of Aeschylus and Shakespeare for doing just this (and people have tried). 4) Details of the copyist, paper, provenance. These can be useful. For example, we know that the copyist here routinely added fermatas (technically, coronae)--he may have added the parallel octaves as well, adding octaves and making other changes to a copy was not only routine but part of the process of arranging the music for an instrument or occasion, which is part of the transmission process. 5) The big fish. This is my expression for the fact that canonical works are subject to questions that other works simply would not be subjected to. The classic example here is the works of Shakespeare, and the myriad arguments about authorship. This is often characterized by a footnote avalanche. The question is, and no one has an answer to this, do we "reverse weight"--question the source and number of questions, essentially--a work simply because someone is chipping away at the evidence, just as a good defense attorney will try to impeach the chain of custody in a trial, or the methods? Probably we should make an adjustment, but we don't, and it is unlikely that this situation will change. 6) Scholarly consensus. Also has been wrong many times in the past, and in this case the consensus is somewhat divided, if you weigh Wolff's opinion high (which I do) you can lean one way, you can also lean the other way. 7) "Could not have been written by someone else" this is untenable, works are frequently written by someone else, and the alternative is to deny the existence of successful imitators or forgers.

So having more or less ruled out Nos. 2, 3, and 7, and Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are basically a push or lean slightly towards Bach (unless you think the Shakespeare questioners will fold their tents--it won't happen), we are back at No. 1: someone more or less from the time, or slightly later, wrote Bach's name on it. And that, as it turns out, is usually enough, in the absence of physical evidence to the contrary. Another way to look at is is thus: the fact that some scholars have questioned the authenticity of the work based only on non-physical evidence can also mean that it is a famous work, just like the Shakespeare plays. Quaternaria (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Quaternaria

How's this for an opening?
"The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565, is a piece of organ music attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach. It is one of the most famous works in the organ repertoire, and has been used in a variety of popular media ranging from films, video games, rock music, and ringtones. The attribution of the piece to Bach is questionable, and has been a controversial subject since the early 1980s among a number of scholars. Musicologist and Bach biographer Christoph Wolff deems that it is one of Bach's earlier compositions, written somwhere between 1700 and 1703. In his book "Bach: The Learned Musician", he writes: "The Toccata in D Minor, BWV 565, seems a particularly characteristic example of the bold, virtuosic approach of the young Bach, still not quite sure how to manage certain aspects of form and fugal counterpoint. Although the piece is transmitted only in much later copies, it bears the hallmark of a youthful and unrestrained piece that fits the manner of what Bach later used to dub, according to Forkel, 'Clavier Hussars'. The opening passagework features persistant octave doubling, for which there is no parallel elsewhere in Bach's organ music. However, if we consider that Bach's Arnstadt organ had no manualiter sixteen foot stops available, the octave doubling reflects an ingenious solution for making up that deficiency and for creating the effect of an organo pleno sound that typically requires a sixteen-foot basis... The intention to achieve structural unity - despite a strong improvisatory impulse - also reaches into the fugue, whose theme is directly derived from the head motive in both regular and inverted versions; the fugue theme also refers to a central passage from the opening section, which, if notated differently, reveals the relatonship even more clearly. Seen in this light, the D-Minor Toccata, ostensibly fashioned as a showpiece, appears, below its flamboyant surface, much more disciplined and controlled. In many ways, it heralds the brilliant future of Bach's organistic art. -"Bach: The Learned Musician" (pages 72-73). Rolusty33 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Rolusty33
 * This is too flowery and too much detail in the lead paragraph. "Protesting too much" only begs for more details from the other side which makes the article more about the attribution than about the actual piece.  It sounds like you just have a problem with the blunt phrase "The attribution of the piece to Bach is doubtful".  That sentence is not incorrect -- if there was a table of pieces with a column for attribution, the entry for this piece would probably be "doubtful" -- but its a bit unusual to see that written out in prose like that.  Perhaps something like "significant doubts over Bach's authorship of this piece have been raised since the early 1980s by various scholars" and then leave the details for the section below.DavidRF (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with David. Too much for the lede. Eusebeus (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"one of the most famous works in the organ repertoire" ONE of the most famous? That's quite an understatement!Eameece (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

recent edits based on Eidam & Spitta
I've reverted the lot for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the fact that both sources are hopelessly outdated - the only time the article mentions Spitta is the point where a certain observation is shown to have been made a long time ago. Edits based on Spitta and Eidam had the article state: etc.
 * that Bach at 20 "hadn't composed much yet" (because Spitta couldn't know of e.g. the Neumeister Collection),
 * that recitative stretches are a feature of south German organ school (which they are not; just of Buttstett's organ preludes),
 * that "the piece is excellent to test the technical qualities of an organ" (why would organists, who were all excellent improvisers at the time, even need to compose a piece specifically to test organs? How could a piece like that even exist, given how different organs could have vastly different properties? And how would BWV 565, which doesn't feature much in terms of contrasting sections on various registration choices, doesn't have two-voice writing in the pedal, and doesn't have too much going on harmonically, be excellent for that purpose?),
 * that "Biographers and scholars writing about Bach usually give zero consideration to the fact the composition may have an attribution issue", referenced to bach-digital.de (which states nothing of the sort), and put right after some of the leading scholars in the field are mentioned, with references, as giving quite a bit of consideration to the issue,

Finally, I'd recommend looking here and here before thinking of mentioning any of Eidam's thoughts. To recapitulate briefly, the book, written by a playwright, not a musicologist, is quite full of insults directed towards respected scholars, lacks almost everything in terms of references, and features theories the author put forward decades ago in the GDR, having little access to contemporary research. --Jashiin (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments. Some points though:
 * Linking to some blog-like comments to attack Eidam has little relevance. As far as Wikipedia is concerned Eidam is a reliable source, among other reliable sources (Wolff, Spitta, Williams,...) This article should take no position on who is "more" reliable, but present opinions as they occur in relevant literature. FYI, when I first read Eidam, that is when I bought the book shortly after the Dutch translation became available, I didn't think too highly about it. Now, some fifteen years later, I've revised that opinion. He did rattle the tree a bit, and is part of the biographies like any other. See Biographies of Johann Sebastian Bach. As for Eidam's "test piece" opinion (which BTW is not something he invented so there must be other sources claiming this) I'm going to bring that back
 * I think I'm going to take the fringe theory approach on this. "Bach didn't write BWV 565" being the fringe theory. As for any fringe theory it is difficult to illustrate how "fringe" it is while most major accepted reliable sources don't even mention the theory, and give zero bandwith to it (not even worth disproving). I'll probably take this to WP:FTN in this sense. For the time being I'll post a Undue-section template to the section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Eidam's work has ever been reviewed by a qualified Bach specialist, I couldn't find such reviews at short notice, at any rate. Hence the links to bach-cantatas and the like. I've taken the liberty of specifying just what background Eidam comes from, just so that things are clear to the reader - here are the opinions of musicologists, and here is the opinion of a playwright. I hope you don't mind. If you can cite a text by a professional performer and/or a musicologist that features this same organ test hypothesis, I'd be very happy to see it (the very idea is so bizzare that I'd love to see some real argument for it!) and I should think it would have to replace any reference to Eidam simply because he would be a less reliable source by definition.
 * As for WP:FTN – sure, if you feel that way, but I confess I have no idea what you mean when you say "most major accepted reliable sources don't mention the theory". Is Williams not one of the leading specialists in the field, with numerous scientific achievements unrelated to BWV 565? Does Schulenberg's widely read and exceptionally useful work seem unimportant to you? Butt not a name of any importance? Boyd? Sure, Wolff has a different opinion, and the New Grove article is written by him, so there's that (and this is mentioned in the article). But "most major sources"? What exactly is a major source, then? (On a personal note, I have to mention that pretty much every organist I have ever spoken to on the matter was quite convinced the piece is not by Bach, or at least worthy of having its authorship questioned.) --Jashiin (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that "most major sources" were written before the 1970s, and that many written after the first publications on the attribution issue continued on not talking about it. Again I refer to Biographies of Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but are you advocating using sources over 40 years old over contemporary scholarship? Or claiming that such sources must be treated in the same way as contemporary scholarship? That in a field with frequent discoveries of new works and new context for existing ones? Any particular reason for this? --Jashiin (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When the new biographies generally refer to the old biographies as "reliable" in their introduction (most cited in this sense: "Nekrolog", Forkel, Spitta, Schweitzer, Terry, Wolff; sometimes cited: Hilgenfeldt, Bitter, Poole, Pirro, Parry, Gurlitt, Neumann, Geiringer, Boyd, Basso, Butt, Geck, Williams, Dürr and/or more general Neue Bachgesellschaft) these count, generally, as reliable sources in Wikipedia. Leaves the more recent ones (not yet mentioned often in introductions of new biographies): I think at least Eidam, Gardiner, and bach-digital.de qualify.
 * Note that all of these sources, except what can be found here (which BTW is a reference you thought wise to remove) are just a bunch of interpretations and speculations when they talk about BWV 565. In this sense Spitta's speculations are not worse than Emery's as far as providing content for this article is concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you suppose we could go to The Well-Tempered Clavier and claim that many of the preludes achieved their final form in the shorter versions found in Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach? Because that's what Forkel thought, and surely his opinion matters. After all, he corresponded with CPE Bach! I can't imagine you'd be OK with this (or are you?), yet you claim Forkel can be considered a reliable source. I don't think many new biographies ignore Forkel's (or Schweitzer's, or Spitta's...) inconsistencies, factual mistakes, etc.; if a scholar today claims Forkel is reliable, I assume they refer to the parts that are now known to be correct, not the entire thing. Given how well you have apparently researched the biographies, how you make the leap to "Forkel et al. qualify as reliable sources in Wikipedia" is quite beyond me. Indeed, this is so surreal that I think I'm going to back out of this discussion.
 * (As for bach-digital.de, perhaps I'm technologically challenged: am I missing some hyperlinks somewhere? The link you give is... a catalogue entry for Ringk's manuscript? With links to images. How can that page be used to support the statement you devised, namely that "Biographers and scholars [...] usually give zero consideration to the fact [.., etc.]"? How can that page be a reference for anything other than the existence of the manuscript in question and the fact that BWV 565 is indeed contained in it? This is almost as puzzling as how Forkel can be considered reliable sources on Bach's life and work in 2015.) --Jashiin (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now don't mix up things:
 * Toccata in d BWV 565 at www.bach-digital.de (another one you removed) is a ref showing up-to-date scholars giving zero bandwith to the attribution issue (background info: bach-digital.de mentions attribution issues when they are worth mentioning, e.g. Meine Seele rühmt und preist BWV 189 / Anh. II 23)
 * D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 595, Faszikel 8 at www.bach-digital.de is a link to the description of the Ringk manuscript at bach-digital.de: what I said is that that description of the manuscript is all we know about the work that is not "interpretation and speculation"
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050216023058/http://www.canbrass.com:80/reviews/reviews-10.html to http://www.canbrass.com/reviews/reviews-10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * checked, and another ref added. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Animated graphical score
I recently made an animated graphical score of BWV 565 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOWi8tOf5FA). Would it be appropriate to include this in the External lInks section? Musanim (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Balance on the attribution (and prior version) issue
I propose to centralise thoughts regarding the neutrality issue mentioned by the GA reviewer in this talk page section (instead of on the transcluded page Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565/GA1 which may be confusing for less experienced editors).

A major objective for the rewrite of the article I performed some months ago was indeed to get that issue sorted (i.e. how much attention to give to Williams' et al.'s ideas on the piece). I welcome thoughts on whether I succeeded or not in reaching GA level WP:BALASPS in that respect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * [brought here by an alert on my talk page:] I stopped editing this article years ago, thinking it better to leave this to editors who have read up on the topic more than me.  This said, I think Williams's "originally for violin" hypothesis is intriguing and not altogether implausible (given the texture of the music), and it would be a shame to leave it out entirely.  It gets suitably modest coverage in the present version.  Opus33 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I comment with much hesitation, lacking scholarly qualifications on this topic. However, if the reactions of one WP user and occasional editor to the "attribution" controversy would be of any use, I would note that:
 * I do not see a satisfying reason to consider Williams' work as less than a reliable source
 * There appears to be a sufficient body of scholarly research questioning whether the piece was written (for organ) by J.S. Bach that such hypotheses cannot be dismissed as fringe theories
 * The absence of a "doubtful attribution" notation in archival listings seems weak as evidence in favor of its authenticity
 * The questions raised about the scholarly quality of Eidam's biography do not seem to me to have been satisfactorily answered
 * Brazzit (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tx for your comments, but seems like a comment on talk page comments (where  was entirely before the article rewrite) – did you actually check the end result of the rewrite? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have indeed read the current version, and I would like to clarify the aim of my comment. I do not have a problem with the article as it currently stands; indeed, I applaud the excellent work you have put into rewriting this article. I am familiar with the pre-October 2015 version, and it is now a vastly improved article. In its present form, I consider that it gives appropriate weight to both sides of the attribution question.
 * My points were addressed, rather, to the GA review process itself. The GA reviewer states that "apparently Williams is not exactly a reliable source or a fringe theory." I do not see a reason that he should not be considered a reliable source. (Not necessarily correct in his conclusions, but a legitimate, scholarly source.)  That is the purpose of my first two points. My third point queries whether the final sentence of the lede contributes to the article's potential GA status. My fourth point does the same regarding the paragraph summarizing Eidam's biography: does that add to the artlcle's worthiness for GA status?  I do not take a position on these questions (truly not qualified to do so), but I think the GA review might want to consider these points.
 * Again, appreciation for your hard work, which has certainly made this article much better. Brazzit (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Aright so I just want to mention that I have no personal opinion on the reliability of Williams etc., but I saw a lot of talk about it and figured I would get an expert view on this, since I am most definitly NOT an expert. So I am happy with the neutrality etc. of this article and I will complete my review. Once the review is done for grammar, content etc. I will allow at least 7 days to address those as well since we had to overcome a hurdle for the article first. Thank you everyone who has pitched in with input, updates and oppinions, it has been very helpful. MPJ  -US 00:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The lede
There is no reason to mention the violin origin more than once.--Galassi (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the lede in the version to which you have reverted is a bit confusing for the non-specialist who may not know about differences btween the North German Organ School and the South German Organ School, and frankly may not care. A theme which runs through the article is that there are some doubts about the attribution to Bach, and bringing some info about this into the lede may give the casual reader something to hang onto as they peruse the scholarship on display below.
 * You have also reverted without explanation my replacement of the word "author" which I feel may suggest authorship of the music. Comment please. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Re. author/musicologist: not all of these authors are or were necessarily musicologists, so incorrect to change author to musicologist in this context.
 * 2) Re. "Whether the piece is typical of Bach has been debated" – not even close to the crux of the debate. None of the authors ever contended it was "typical" (how many "typical" pieces can an exceptional composer write?); Moreover that was one of the few things the computer analysis in the early 21st century could prove: it was not typical for Bach. No author had contended otherwise, and when the computer analysis could not prove the composition to be typical of any of the composers with a more "typical" style, it could ultimately prove nothing in the authentication debate. But again during the whole debate, nor before, nor afterwards, any of the authors ever said it was "typical" of Bach, that was never a part of the debate. A lot of contradictory things have been said about the piece, a typical vs. non-typical qualification was however not among these contradictions.
 * 3) Re. "It has been suggested that an origin as a violin work would explain counterpoint that is less advanced than in comparable Bach keyboard works" – weasel wording ("It has been suggested that...)"; the authors who contended that were relatively few; too much detail for a lead section (definitely of less importance than the authenticity debate which is already mentioned in the lede). Also the second half of the sentence ("...counterpoint that is less advanced than in comparable Bach keyboard works") is definitely wrong: from Spitta in the 19th century to Marshall in the 21st the piece has been compared with keyboard pieces by Bach that have an equally slim counterpoint. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging in this debate, and yes, I can see faults in my proposed wording for the lede. On one specific point, I don´t think you have thought about my point that "author" wasn´t the ideal wording in the context, as it might be taken to mean composer. I accept that "musicologist" isn´t right for the sentence either, but the whole sentence needed changing.  Bach died in 1750, so why do you prefer the wording 1750s for the dating of the piece - are you suggesting it was written from another world?
 * I´m glad that other editors propose pruning the stuff about different German organ schools from the lede (see restructure section below). It´s boring for the non-specialist in my view.-Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. 1750s: some authors indeed suggested it could only have been written in the 1750s, on stylistic grounds. Maybe read the article, and have a look at the relevant sources for that content. The intro summarizes the content of the article, getting a good grip of that content is of course instrumental for the deployment of a good intro. Lead sections are not governed by what individual editors think "interesting", but WP:BALASPS applies to it like to the article as a whole. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the stylistic attributes of the 1750s may be, I´m still not sure whether the wording in question was supposed to convey the idea that Bach could have written the piece in 1750 (the last year of his life). If so, why not specify 1750, rather than use a vague wording that might suggest someone else could have written it later.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look at the sources. Some of these use the expression "1750s". Implication: possibly not by Bach. If I remember well Williams was the first to suggest it (indeed, the same Williams of the authentication debate). So, the first inkling of that debate is given in the 1st paragraph of the intro. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Restructure and intro
The text has been made less rambling and more logical. Any objections?--Lute88 (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see the "less rambling and more logical". Compare also WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines: I see no reason to have a structure completely different from these recommendations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare also above: expanding the intro to at least three paragraphs was a recommendation of the recent GAN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare also above: the balance was thought OK by the GA reviewer, so wouldn't change that balance without (at least) prior talk page agreement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would help not to conflate several large edits. I very much agree that the original lede was rambling, but I think the basic sequence "History - Structure - Reception / trivia / etc" is better, as per the guideline. So please let's keep that sequence.
 * Then the lede: should definitely say more than the two sentences of Lute's version, but less than the three long paragraphs of the other version. It should mention that there is controversy over Bach's authorship, for example, but need not go into the North and South German organ schools, for example. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The North/South German organ schools' influences were a recurring theme in analyses of the piece since the 1870s. The authenticity debate only started over a century later, and that debate continued to make reference to the North vs. South German organ schools' influences. So definitely something for the lede.
 * Maybe best to suggest lead section rewordings on this talk page. Note that the lead section is part of the "balance" alluded to in my previous post to this page: shifting that balance would best not be peformed without prior discussion and some sort of consensus here.
 * Pending these discussions and proposals on this talk page I'll revert Lute88's intrusive change. This is the diff lest someone wants to salvage something of the edit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather like the latest version. Violin origin etc would get undue weight in the lead.--Galassi (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

One paragraph intro
For clarity, this was the one-paragraph intro before the GA reviewer suggested I expand it to at least three:

The Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, is a piece of organ music written, according to its oldest extant sources, by Johann Sebastian Bach. First published in 1833 through the efforts of Felix Mendelssohn, it became the most famous work in the organ repertoire, owing its popularity in part to arrangements such as the one appearing in Walt Disney's Fantasia. Its attribution to Bach has been doubted in the late 20th century and early 21st century, but no edition of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis listed it among the doubtful works, nor does its entry on the website of the Bach Archiv Leipzig even mention such doubts.

Comments? --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven´t got any problems with the para, but it is a bit short for a lede. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only ONE source ascribes it to JSB. The tenuous ascription mus be mentioned.--Galassi (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "oldest extant sources" vs. "Only ONE source": D-LEm III.8.20 and GB-Ob MS. M. Deneke Mendelssohn c. 103, Faszikel 1 are "old extant sources" (they preceded the first publication). Zehnder, p. 5, writes about this last source in connection to the earlier Schubring source (of which only photographic copies are available): "..strengthens the hypothesis of an independent Berlin branch of transmission...", and in the footnote #17 to that sentence: "The (...) hypothesis that the entire transmission of BWV 565 goes back to P 595 [=Ringk], represented by Dietrich Kilian (NBA IV/5–6 KB, Teilband 3, p. 731) and echoed by Rolf-Dietrich Claus (Zur Echtheit von Toccata und Fuge d-moll BWV 565, Köln-Rheinkassel, 21998, p. 47), is doubtful in any case." This is explained and referenced in the 4th paragraph of the History section of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the 3-paragraph lede in the current published version quite good except in the final paragraph. The matter of whether the piece is program music or not seems a bit incidental to be included there, and as I noted during the GA review, the final sentence seems rather dismissive of the questions regarding attribution. One possibility might be to leave the first 2 paragraphs as they are, and replace the 3rd paragraph with something like the following:
 * Beginning in the second half of the 20th century, questions about Bach's authorship of BWV 565 have been raised by scholars, including Peter Williams and Rolf-Dietrich Claus, based largely on stylistic anomalies found in the composition. These authors suggest that the piece was either the work of a post-1750 composer or that it is a reworking for organ of a Bach composition originally intended for another instrument, perhaps the violin.  Other experts, such as Christoph Wolff and Hans Fagius, defend the composition's attribution to Bach, and still other scholars take no position or do not consider the question.  The issue remains a topic of active debate, and current editions of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis do not question the authorship of the Toccata and Fugue in D minor.
 * Simply tossing this out in case someone finds it helpful. Feel free to use, revise, or ignore. Best regards. Brazzit (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time...
There is a missing reference under Other Media (I suppose) for the French animated franchise entitled Il était une fois... (English: Once Upon a Time...) which used this piece as its theme song. Details are on the pedia at Once Upon A Time..., but I don't know how to add this to the article without messing something up. GlassDeviant (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia Once Upon a Time... article does not mention BWV 565 (nor "Toccata", nor even "Bach") afaics, can you explain where your suggestion originated? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The production company does indeed list BWV 565 as it's intro theme for Once Upon a Time here: (Hello Maestro). TimothyPilgrim (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank-you so much for posting the title of this animation! I had seen it as a child and it's what cemented the music in my head since then, but I didn't know the name of the show this whole time. To top it off, I just came back from Leipzig where I paid homage to Bach himself at his tomb. To Francis, I second that this was indeed the piece that played over the opening sequence of the show. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Film
Here's an idea: wouldn't it be worthwhile to have a separate article on Toccata BWV 565 in film? And/or Discography of Toccata and Fugue BWV 565? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

soundcloud
There is an interesting synthesizer performance by Rachel Flowers on soundcloud here. It tries to recreate the orchestral arrangement from Fantasia. I haven't seen the movie but I guess the overwrought style is faithful to Stokowski's version. Anyway it's much different than what I'm used to. 173.228.123.190 (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)