Talk:Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach

message: Under "Concerto in C Major, BWV 1061" the article states: "The only time Bach returned to the two-harpsichord combination was in the Art of Fugue which he wrote near the end of his life.", without citation. Where in Art of Fugue is 2 harpsichords indicated? I am under the impression that intended instrumentation is not explicit for Art of Fugue.  Perhaps the author of this article meant the Musical Offering, which has pieces that are sometimes played with multiple harpsichords (Gustav Leonhardt used 2 harpsichords for the Canon a 4), although I am still under the impression that in general instrumentation is not explicit for the Musical Offering.
Matt1685 (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Composition for 2 harpsichords in the Art of Fugue?

message: "The middle movement has the four harpsichords playing differently-articulated arpeggios in a very unusual tonal blend, while Bach provided some additional virtuosity and tension in the other movements."
The fregment in question is note-for-note copying of Vivaldi with none whatsoever intervention by J.S.Bach, as great a composer as he was. From the wording in the article ther eader has impression that it was Bach who invebted those arpeggios, which he did not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.223.59 (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone rewrite this section?

message: Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bach's Triple Concerto. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Section has been archived. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BWV 1044 sourcing 

message: I am in process of sourcing and improving this section. I have completely rewritten the content—I have not quite finished the first draft. It was a problem that no content existed on BWV 894, but I coped with that as best I could. The section is quite short (it is better sourced than others) and in its entirety is designed to help the reader and blend in with the remainder of the article. I will continue with my edits. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BWV 1044 

message: Bach's keyboard concertos are usually understood as BWV 1052–1065. Outside that range there are BWV 1044 and 1050 (orchestral concertos with a significant solo part for the harpsichord), and some two dozen concertos for one or two keyboard instruments without orchestral accompaniment (see List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach). I suppose the "solo keyboard" concertos list page should at least be linked from this page on Bach's "keyboard" concertos. IMHO at least a WP:walled garden effect should be avoided here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That article will be listed for deletion. The classification was invented by Francis Schonken and is not supported by any recent literature on Bach. The creation of that list seems to be yet another attempt of his to waste pople's time. The easiest way around this is list the article for deletion. His recent editing shows he has no access to specialistic articles on these topics. That has resulted in him having huge gaps in his understand9ng of the subject. The encyclopedic treatise published by Laaber contradicts Francis Schonken's original research. Presumably he has created these irrational lists as another disruptive ploy. But he can explain himself at the AfD's rather than here. Mathsci (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to [[List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach]] from this article?

message: Both Scheibe and Spitta indicate the Italian Concerto (BWV 971) as a "Clavierconcert" (keyboard concerto). More importantly, Spitta's narrative of Bach's keyboard concertos (pp.616 –632 in Vol. II of the German edition) encompasses the concertos for one or more keyboards and orchestra, the Weimar arrangements (for solo keyboard), the concertos for three instruments and orchestra, and the Italian Concerto. So, apart from merely linking to the list of solo keyboard concertos, proposed in the previous subsection, I suppose a more integrated treatment of Bach's keyboard concertos (...Bach developing keyboard-centred concertos from earlier Italian and Italianate models...) would be beneficial for the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: These are historic 18th and 19th century historic documents, both of which count as primary sources. They cannot be used for presenting arguments on this talk page. Francis Schonken is unqualified to interpret directly anything that these authors write, particularly if it rests on just one word in German. He has adopted a view at odds with modern textbooks and journal articles, the usual reliable sources for creating content on wikipedia. Certainly the recent encyclopedic volumes on chamber music, orchestral music, keyboard music, etc, published by Laaber contradict his idiosyncratic and perverse classification. Given that his views are not backed up by any modern musicological literature, these postings just seem to be disruptive. Without being sourced in modern bach literature, his statements about Spitta and Schiebe have no more value on wikipedia than a string of random letters. Mathsci (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the complete version of Williams' musical biography of Bach. Francis Schonken's very bizarre point of view was at odds with the book. It discussed keyboard works such as the Italian Concerto and French Overture as related works, conceived as keyboard works.  The harpsichord concertos were discussed without any reference to these works (or the organ arrangements). So the present state of this article is fine. My worry is that people spend their time discussing lists, trying to tie other people in knots, while articles like Italian Concerto remain little more than sub-stubs. That piece is described in great detail in the literature, but there is no trace of that material in the article. Given the content-free state of that article why are we even discussing whether it be "included" or "mentioned" here. A priority should be to transfer the copious content about it in sources onto wikipedia, so readers can find that information on wikipedia. Until Italian Concerto is improved I cannot see any point in discussing it here. Francis Schonken's priorities on wikipedia seem to be misplaced. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Williams' narrative, pp. 361–71, includes the Italian Concerto, the Weimar transcriptions and the concertos for keyboard(s) and orchestra. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, compare what I wrote above ("...Bach developing keyboard-centred concertos from earlier Italian and Italianate models...") with Williams p. 367 "... It seems that the idea of a 'solo keyboard concerto' had been gradually maturing over time and was certainly accomplished by the 1730s. ...", and with Williams writing about how Bach's keyboard concertos relate to Italian and Italianate models, e.g. on pages 361–2 and 369. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrated narrative of Bach's keyboard concertos

message: Duplicates a lot of content. The Keyboard Concertos overview article already contains headings for each single work, and the material can easily be found there. Classical geographer (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Concertos for two, three and four harpsichords, BWV 1060–1065]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403032831/http://www.laco.org/performances/127/?program=1 to http://www.laco.org/performances/127/?program=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose to split the detailed discussion of BWV 1052 to a separate article (in which case the current article will retain a summary of the description of the concerto): there's certainly enough material for a separate article, and may help to keep the size of the current article to readable proportions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the changes are justified at the moment. At the moment there has been no WP:consensus for any such change. The onus would be on the particular user to explain why that was necessary. At the moment I see no difference between BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055 and BWV 1044. I might be worth going to the edit history of the article and the archive of WP:ANI from 2016 to see what edits have been made. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be proposing more splits shortly, and will add a general discussion area (maybe indeed these splits can be better discussed together). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of BWV 1052 

message: Same rationale as for BWV 1052 above, and general rationale in #Discussion of proposed splits below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This will not happen. There is no consensus at all. Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per below, there is enough support to proceed with this. Blanking the entire article as you did (again) is pure vandalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of BWV 1053 

message: See above split proposals, and #Discussion of proposed splits below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of BWV 1065 

message: See above split proposals, and #Discussion of proposed splits below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of BWV 1044 

message: See discussion here. Mentioned also already above in the #Wolff's view on the original version of BWV 1052 section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref cleanup