Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2

message: I've copied the "further reading" section below:
*The New Bach Reader by Hans T. David (Editor), Arthur Mendel, Christoph Wolff Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company; New Ed edition (1999) 
*J. S. Bach (Vol 1) by Albert Schweitzer Publisher: Dover Publications (1966) 
*Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician by Christoph Wolff Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company (2001) 
* J. S. Bach As Organist: His Instruments, Music, and Performance Practices by George Stauffer, Ernest May Publisher By Indiana University Press (1999)
*The Bach Reader (W. W. Norton, 1966), edited by Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel, contains much interesting material, such as a large selection of contemporary documents, some by Bach himself.
*The early biography by Johann Nikolaus Forkel, Über Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke (1802), a translation of which is included in The Bach Reader (see above), is of considerable value, as Forkel was able to correspond directly with people who had known Bach.
*An early groundbreaking study of Bach's life and music is the multi-volume Johann Sebastian Bach (1889), by Philippe Spitta.
*Another famous study of his life and music is J. S. Bach (1908), by the versatile scholar and organist Albert Schweitzer.
*Christoph Wolff's more recent works (Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician and Johann Sebastian Bach: Essays) include a discussion of Bach's "original genius" in German aesthetics and music. Wolff gives an exciting account of the discovery of the famous Bach Family archive, evacuated from wartime Berlin's Singakademie to Silesia and from there vanished into Russia until just a few years ago, at <http://athome.harvard.edu/dh/wolff.html>.
*Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid uses the music of Bach, the art of M.C. Escher and a wide range of other ideas to explore topics such as cognition, formal methods, logic and mathematics, particularly Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
I think it could stand a bit of"clean up", specifically:
#Any of the above that were used as references, should be moved to the "References" section.
#Since most of the entries are annotated, it would be good if they all were.
#They should have a consistent format (perhaps: title, author, rest of bibliographic info, — annotation).
#They should be in alphabetical order.
Paul August ☎ 22:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Paul August has presented some valuable ideas. However, I wonder whether alpha order is best? If we can agree on order of importance and relevance, or a way of sectioning them into genres, that would be  more useful for the reader. Schweitzer's earlier attempt might come further down the list than Wolff's recent, excellent biography. A brief description could be added to all items. I wonder whether anyone would object if I removed most of the dots that pepper the list at the moment. The trend is towards minimal punctuation for ease of reading; it also reduces the required space. Tony 00:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could support either alphabetical or historical order.  One other thing -- it seems to me that books that are reflections or indirect treatments of Bach, such as Goedel, Escher, Bach, really ought to be in a different subcategory than books really and directly about Bach. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Further reading" section need cleanup 

message: I've just had a stab at rewording the opening, off the top of my head. I hope no one is offended by my removal of the footnote—we don't need to reach for a citation to justify our statements about his stature, at least at the opening, do we? I can't bear to link the word 'tonality', because that article is in such a mess.
This opening statement about his style could be extended and enhanced in some detail in the section on style further down. Perhaps four or five hundred words, with a few sound excerpts for exemplification? Tony 14:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New opening 

message: I've just inserted the first of what I hope will be several sound excerpts distributed (cautiously) through the text. Do people feel that it's nested smoothly under the top paragraph. I suppose that I'm keen to support the opening assertions about his style with a good example. (BTW, I have to change the copyright tag to 'Copyright', on the advice of a bureaucrat, TUF-KAT. Tony 02:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new sound excerpts 

message: Forgive me: I have a problem with footnotes that provide parenthetical quips, as opposed to footnotes that are reference citations. I'd like to remove the first two footnotes. 
The first, right at the opening, clutters the composer's dates. If someone thinks that the calendar change of 10 days during Bach's lifetime is important enough to raise in a summary article, it would be better to locate this information in a less prominent place. 
The second footnote doesn't appear to have much to do with the sentence to which it's attached; the link in the footnote, apparently about Bach's greatness, yields such gems as: 
:'Twentieth-century pop culture, like a continuously mutating virus, replicates itself with minor variations upon each new generation, achieving commercial acclaim by copying the latest Oscar, Emmy, or Grammy. Copying, without respect for the artwork or the artist, and copying in order to learn technique are different matters indeed; one is kitsch, the other, an education.'
I think Wikipedia should be authoritative enough to describe his greatness without external reference. Tony 09:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree about the second footnote. Treat the first one with caution, however; Bach's dates have been the subject of a number of reverts due to the calendar change during his lifetime. Maybe right at the bottom of the intro paragraph, or right at the top of the bio section. (P.S. Wasn't it you who put that info in the footnote in the first place?) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes 

message: The article never states it explicitly, but strongly suggests that he did not use Johann, and was known as "Sebastian Bach".  What is the authority for this? True, I have seen him referred to as that in old reference books, but nowadays he is universally known as either "Johann Sebastian Bach", or "J S Bach", never simply "Sebastian Bach".  If it is the case that he WAS known as "Sebastian Bach" in his day, that does not alter the fact that he is not known as that anymore, and something needs to be said to explain this change of nomenclature.  JackofOz 07:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, Tony.  It still doesn't alter the fact that he is not usually referred to as "Sebastian" any more.  Whether it is technically correct or not, the fact is that the world now calls him "Johann Sebastian", and nothing is going to alter that.  The fact that he was known as plain "Sebastian" during his lifetime definitely deserves a mention in the article, but to continually refer to him by the name he used to be known by but is no longer known by, is bordering on pedantry and/or anachronism and can only detract from the credibility of the article.  I'm trying to think of another example of where a person is now known by a different name than the one they generally used in their lifetime, but I can't quite bring one to mind.  Maybe JSB is unique in this respect too.  JackofOz 14:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you give us a citation which actually discusses the name, rather than just using it? I've seen "Sebastian Bach" in numerous books, too, but have always assumed it was a pedagogical shortcut since so many others in his family had the first name of Johann. Looking through the bibliography in Baker's, all of the books and articles cited refer to him as "J.S. Bach" or "Johann Sebastian Bach"; none just as "Sebastian Bach" (in their titles, at least). So does the Wolff book cited. I think JackOfOz is right that we should use his full name throughout the article. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For every reference you can provide that calls him "Sebastian", I can give you two others that call him "Johann Sebastian".  When was the last time you went to a symphony concert where they played, eg. a Brandenburg Concerto by "Sebastian Bach"?  When was the last time you bought a CD or sheet music containing works by "Sebastian Bach"?  When was the last time ABC Classic FM referred to him as "Sebastian Bach"?  The answer to all 3 questions is, never.  It is always either "J S Bach", or the full "Johann Sebastian Bach", never just "Sebastian Bach".  Neither Grove nor Slonimsky would agree with you (although they would probably acknowledge that he was called "Sebastian" in his own lifetime - I'd have to check).  Cheers JackofOz 00:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you 99%, Jack -- the only quibble is that Slonimsky, too, uses "Sebastian Bach" within the article (though not as the article title). But you're right about concert programs, sheet music, recordings, etc. —Wahoofive (talk)
This is not a concert program note, which would be much less likely to refer to Sebastian Bach (although it might be possible after introducing his full name—hard to tell without seeing an actual example). In the early part of this encyclopedic biography, we're discussing the composer as a child/youth in the context of his family. I've already pointed out that 'Sebastian' is useful to distinguish him from others in his milieu who were called Johann. It also conveys to the reader the intimacy of this part of his life. It was, after all, the name he answered to when not in formal circumstances.
My plan is that after discussing that early part of his life, we switch simply to 'Bach'. I don't like the idea of spelling out 'Johann Sebastian Bach' in full, because it ends up being long-winded, and in this summary article, there's so much that we want to include, but will be unable to because of the limit on size. I don't like 'JS Bach' when discussing his childhood and youth, because it's too formal. Tony 03:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with that idea.  This is much more in keeping with the preferred style.  Some biographical articles tend to use the given name to refer to the person, but I think that is far too familiar.  Admittedly, Bach is a special case because there were many Bachs and all of them were composers, so it is tempting to use the given name to distinguish between them.  But that said, in any given article we know exactly which Bach we are talking about, so unless we're referring to a relative with the same surname, "Bach" will do just fine.  Cheers JackofOz 04:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sebastian as the preferred given name

message: Beats me why this article is vandalised so often. Does Bach represent some kind of older-generation, stuffy, conservative image in the minds of teenage males? Tony 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *well...he didn't in my mind when I was a teenage male.  But my girlfriend at the time rather preferred her Beethoven...—Gaff ταλκ 06:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: I hope no one objects to my pruning of the opening to simply (1685–1750), with the the actual dates relocated to the footnote. The reasons are because:
*it will be easier to comprehend than the current forest of numbers and symbols—straight and to the point; and
*it will be more attractive on the page.
I'd be happier removing the footnote as well, because it's debatable whether the actual dates of his birth and death are required in a summary article, but I've retained them in the footnote. Tony 02:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death. We should keep the month and day for each date. I'm not sure what you mean by "summary article". This is a biography article. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).  —Wahoofive (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether I feel strongly isn't the point, nor whether it's neater; it's just a matter of consistency with WP policy. The examples shown on the MOS page I cited all include the month and day unless they are not known. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of birth and death 

message: This sentence was removed for unclear reasons:  "Bach's genius in counterpoint earned him the modern title of "Master of the Fugue" and no other composer in history has arguably composed fugues with such rich harmony, contrapuntal creativity and powerful rhythm as he did."—Gaff ταλκ 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, "arguably" is a weasel word. I've never heard the term "Master of the Fugue", although certainly his mastery of the craft is generally recognized. We'd need a citation for that. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with your edits, now that I loook again.  I don't really like the phrase "Master of the Fugue," to begin with.  I think we're better without it.  By the way, I meant no offense changing organisation to organization.  Just personal preference and I am neutral about it.—Gaff ταλκ 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: I am surprised to see no mention of his imprisonment in Weimar. 82.69.91.179 08:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison? 

message: I'm wondering whether English translations of all German titles (such as for the cantatas) should be used, without the original German. This might make for less clutter, and make the text more accessible to English-speaking non-musicians and music lovers. Perhaps there might be one or two exceptions, such as Clavierübung (Keyboard practice), which sounds kind of odd in English alone. 
I'm unsure; what do people think? Also, are people happy with the way italics are used? I'm not sure that it's consistent at the moment.
Tony 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cantatas at least should be in the original language- that seems to be the norm for titles of recordings. Mark1 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the German titles are used so much in English-speaking countries-- e.g. when the cantatas being played on the radio, on CD's, in concert programs when they're being performed -- that the German titles should be preserved in the article for both their identifying function as well as for their educational function with regard to Bach.  Someone who doesn't know German and to whom, on first reading the Bach article, "Wachet auf" means nothing, may find that it takes on meaning for them if they discover and come to love and know Bach.  So I'm in favor of keeping the German titles.  Many of the radio stations I've ever heard them on in the U.S. use the German titles in announcing them (even though they sometimes mispronounce them).  A related question, which I find harder to answer, is whether the translations into English should be real or conventional.  What I mean is that there are some conventions in English about the English titles that are inaccurate but that are used because, for example, they're taken from poetically rendered texts used for singing the cantatas in English.  So, for example, "Wachet auf" really means "Wake up" or "Awaken", but the cantata is sometimes described as "Sleepers Wake", I think because it goes better with the first three notes of the chorale melody.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's important to make a distinction between a translation and an English version which must necessarily depart from the literal meaning in order to fit the poetic form. I'd vote to stay with the German in most cases; Mass in B minor is an exception, as is St. Matthew Passion. Remember, though, that Bach didn't really give his pieces titles the way an author titles his books; they were attached to the pieces at a later time. In the case of the cantatas, it's just the first line, the same way we title Renaissance motets. So there's no real argument for authenticity, but I agree with Jeremy that the German names of the cantatas are equally well-known, at least in America, and (unlike the English versions) the German titles are standardized. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of translated work titles 

message: I'm not happy with the quality of many of the files that appear in the 'Media' section, an issue that I raised earlier on this page, now archived. In addition, I don't think any of the info pages provides the basic details that are required. 
At a later stage, when more sound files are inserted into the body of the text (I plan to include some 30-second files under fair use), I'll ask for us to reach some kind of consensus. 
In my view, there's no doubt that the first one should go: it's way below the standard of performance and recording that will do Bach justice, and besides, it's juvenilia (with apologies to the performer, who was trail-blazing the notion of creating/using sound examples in music articles—good on him). Does anyone object to my deleting it? Tony 02:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound files 

message: The out of tune, the poorly recorded and the quirky have gone. Can anyone shed light on why the Prelude and Fugue in a minor from WTC1 has a bumping white noise in the background? Pity, because it's a good performance, although on piano. Tony 08:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pruning of sound excerpts under 'Media' 

message: I just moved the following addition to here: " and the synthesized Switched-On Bach by electronic music pioneer Wendy Carlos."  It may be that Wendy Carlos should be in the article as opposed to more discussion of influences or performance trends, but not as an example of "recognizing the musical and pedagogical value of Bach". Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wendy Carlos etc.

message: A contributor has restored all of the (IMV unsatisfactory) sound files that I removed a few weeks ago. There have been two discussions on this page over some months, and ample notice of the removal. Please participate in the discussion on whether the sound files should be retained—since no one objected during those discussions, I intend to remove them again, unless there's a good reason not to. Tony 02:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of sound files 

message: This article needs a less flowery, more technical (but still readable) description of style: "Bach's music is an explosion of melodic invention; his motives are as deeply inspired and original as any melodies ever written. This, coupled with his unparalleled genius for structural perfection and his endless exploration into new musical realms throughout his entire prolific career make him the most consummate musician who ever lived" really does little to describe Bach's style.  I suggest something like, "An overwhelmingly tendency toward a thick[contrapuntal] texture, combined with linear tonic/dominant harmonic progressions and consistent motor rhythms, create sense of forward motion and drive in the majority of JS Bach's music.   As with most other Baroque composers, Bach's music generally contains motific unity; melodic and rhythmic patterns introduced at the beginning of a work or movement will be found throughout the same piece of music, constantly unfolding and evolving through various harmonic, melodic and rhythmic changes."  And so forth... Kemet 2 January 2006
:The problem with that approach is that it doesn't really tell us anything about Bach as opposed to every other Baroque composer.   Bach, AFAIK, didn't do anything different from the others, he just did it better.   And to bring out that difference you need value judgments rather than dry, technical descriptions.   Since value judgments aren't Wikipedia's thing, the standard way out is to quote other people's judgments (of which we have plenty to choose from). Mark1 03:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark, your point is well taken.  At the same time, the purpose of the article is not to promote Bach as a "better" Baroque composer; this is implicitly a value judgement. Therefore, a "dry, technical" description is exactly what Wikipedia needs.  Not everyone loves Bach, and the article should not be yet another exercise in Bach worship.  I am among those who love Bach, but neither my nor other Bach lovers' editorials have a place in a neutral article that seeks to inform, rather than preach to other members of the choir.  As for sources, if the information (such as the general descriptions I offered) is common knowledge (at least among specialists), then there is no need to cite them--this is standard procedure in scholarship.   Kemet 3 Janaury 2006.
 
*I'm working on a replacement for the text in the style section, which was posted there just to fill the gap. I'm sorry to take so long—it's not an easy task, but it's nearly ready. When I paste it in, I'll ask for critical comments from everyone. Tony 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The edit that contains reference to melodic inversion, augmentation, diminution, and stretto is not mine, and I have requested mediation for the style section, which contrasts sharply with an otherwise informative article.  
The tendency for a thick contrapuntal texture IS a trait that sets Bach apart from other Baroque composers  of his time; while most of his contemporaries explored simpler "gallant" styles of the early and mid 18th-century, JS Bach focused primarily on thick contrapuntal textures.  Not mentioned before was Bach's consistent use of denser chromaticism (as opposed to the increasing diatonicism in vogue during his life).  I am sure that the author of this article will include this and other traits in his description.
As suggested earlier in the article, "Bachian" traits are otherwise not innovations by Bach, but intensifications of conventional Baroque musical practice which include:  idiomatic exchange between the human voice and other instruments (passagework for the human voice more suited for other instruments [this was a typical complaint against Bach during his lifetime]; simplification of the modal system (gradual abandonment of the "church" modes save what we now call the major and minor keys); stark vocal inflection in recitatives (exaggeration of pitch contours in human speech) to highlight aspects of texts and stir emotions in the listener (a clear example of the Doctrine of the Affections).  Again, it is not my purpose to write the style section, as I am sure that the author will do this.
I will clarify some language--I have used similar language with my students who were non-music majors, and since they generally readily understood , then I used similar language in my suggestion to avoid jargon--of course they had the advantage of listening examples.  "Linear" derives from the voice-leading [of individual melodic lines] in the counterpoint that follows the tonic-dominant harmonic progression.  A consistent motor rhythm is a incessant rhythmic drive, usually articulated at the quarter-note or eighth-note.  I will not address the issue of "good" composers whose works appear to lack a sense of momentum, as this is a value judgement and has no place in an informative article.  Kemet 3 January 2006
Please don't make offensive threats on my user page. Tony 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style