Talk:Wilhelm Friedemann Bach

Needs work
This article needs some serious editing. It is full of false premisses and wrong facts.


 * Examples and sources always appreciated. (Edit: the bit about "idle and dissolute habits" etc. - well, it's an adaptation of material from a document from the early 20th century. You're right; it needs sectioning- Biography, Music, Style, a list of works... - less POV, improvement in a number of ways. The notes I have to a good recording of some piano works- copyrighted, but other material exists that isn't, e.g. articles in other Wikipedias, and the LoC entries say, for a partial worklist- well, the notes do seem to agree that he didn't hold down jobs well, mind, etc.- and I suspect not idle and dissolute habits but something else entirely but doubt it's encyclopaedic either.)  Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. The article is B-class; its quality is best raised by providing more images, and inline citations. (The latter may be difficult if most of the material here is still EB1911.) There are other, smaller, defects; read my detailed review on the comments page. Questions and comments about this review can be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird sentence...
In 1762, he negotiated for the post of Kapellmeister to the court of Darmstadt; although he protracted the negotiations for reasons that are opaque to historians and did not actively take the post, but nevertheless was appointed "Hofkapellmeister of Hessen-Darmstadt", a title he used in the dedication of his Harpsichord Concerto in E minor. Is it only me or is the sentence grammatically illogical?! Especially the "but" comes totally unexpected and lets the reader go "Eh?" -andy 92.229.170.31 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clavier-Büchlein vs. Klavierbüchlein
Although "Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach" would be the correct spelling in modern German it is more appropriate to use here the original title as written in 1720 by Johann Sebastian Bach himself: "Clavier-Büchlein vor Wilhelm Friedemann Bach". Uka (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the wiki entry for the buchlein uses the modern spelling. I added to the article the modern spelling so it can be linked.

Fdarcy (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...a good solution --Uka (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

rameau's nephew
curious to know the source of the imputation that friedemann was a model for rameau's nephew... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumicke (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

should the suggestion that friedemann bach may have been a model for rameau's nephew be removed? i can see no evidence for it in schulenberg, falck, wollny, or anywhere except this article. is anyone aware of anything that supports this? thanks. Doctor Tulp (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the claim as it sounds like nonsense. Surprised it took this long...

Picture titled wrong?
The portrait accompanying this entry is titled "Johann Christian Bach (the so-called Halle Clavier-Bach), fourth cousin and pupil of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, in a portrait by Friedrich Georg Weitsch." In fact, I believe it *is* W. F. Bach. J. C Bach's portrait in his entry is totally different. (Added) It is, in fact, "Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, oil on canvas by W. Weitsch (1760)." I'll try to update the main page. Opus131 (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The portrait has been known since 2005 to be that of the Halle J. C. Bach (not the famous J. C. Bach who was W. F.'s half brother). There was no such painter as "W. Weitsch" and the painting is probably from the 1790s or later; the actual artist, F. G. Weitsch, was only born in 1758. See my book, cited in the article, p. 11. Dschulen (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC) David Schulenberg


 * I've replaced the image at the top with something that is actually him. As I uploaded it, the picture was being discussed on BBC Radio 3, complete with a discussion with David Schulenberg. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Catalog
Correct catalog is not BR (Bach Repertorium), but BR-WFB instead. There are many "BR" catalogs to Bach, XXX composers. See: http://bach-digital.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.121.248 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

BR WFB vs. Falck
I think the "translation" from Falck to BR is not always correct.

The two flute sonatas in e minor (F 52) and F major (F 51) are BR WFB B 17 and B 18, according to publisher Carus (Stuttgart). So maybe B 10 and B 11 are lost, but that's not F 51 and F 52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.221.23 (talk • contribs)
 * Please see the relevant pages at the Bach Digital website (which afaik trump whatever may have appeared on recording sleeves or liner notes, or whatever music publishers may contend):
 * Sonata in F major (Three Sonatas for flute and bc, No. 1) BR‑WFB B 10; [= Fk 51] → lost
 * Sonata in A minor (Three Sonatas for flute and bc, No. 2) BR‑WFB B 11; [= Fk 52] → lost
 * Sonata in D major (Three Sonatas for flute and bc, No. 3) BR‑WFB B 12; [= Fk 53] → lost
 * Sonata in E minor BR‑WFB B 17; Fk deest, survives in D-B Mus. ms. anon. 1554 and is published in the mentioned Carus edition
 * Sonata in F major BR‑WFB B 18; Fk deest, survives in D-B Mus. ms. anon. 1554 and is published in the mentioned Carus edition
 * ("Fk deest" means that the composition is not numbered in the Falck catalogue). For clarity, I don't see where Carus, a fairly conscientious music publisher, would contend that the "two flute sonatas in e minor (F 52) and F major (F 51) are BR WFB B 17 and B 18"; on the contrary: Peter Wollny, currently president of the Bach Archive, and thus ultimately also responsible for the content of the Bach Digital website, writes in the introduction to the Carus score "Three Sonatas for flute and basso continuo (Fk 51–53; BR WFB B 10–12) must be considered lost". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)