Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 4

message: # Might we remove "JS" from "JS Bach" in the second paragraph?  I think it's clear which Bach is being discussed.  If we need to establish that JS is short for Johann Sebastian, we can do that immediately following the statement of his name in the first sentence.
# the IPA is confusing for many; might we try the approach taken by Bordeaux to give a clear and accurate guide to pronunciation?
# I'm not sure it's necessary to state that Bach did not introduce any new forms.  I can only recall very few articles where the introduction of new forms was mentioned in the first paragraph (Jacopo Peri and Monteverdi come to mind), and at any rate forms tend to evolve according to more general patterns, so it's no skin off Bach's back not to have made any startling innovations in that area.
# The list of major works seems to be somewhat unordered to me; for example I might put the Mass in B minor or the St Matthew Passion first.  I suppose this is rather subjective, so it's not such an issue.  However, the Well-tempered Clavier likely should be added, and also possibly the orchestral suites.
# We might want to note that he wrote for (and mastered, if you are willing to take that verbal path) every existing genre during his life except opera.  I propose e.g. "He mastered every available genre of his era, except an absence from operas, and is regarded as one of the great  ...." "He mastered nearly every available genre, and is .." (reword as you like)
# Eponyms: these two items need to be either deleted entirely or placed at the end of "Legacy".  I prefer the former, as they serve only to reveal that someone in government at one time admired Bach.
# I place each of these matters under consideration on this talk page because of the request in the source to discuss introduction changes, else I'd Be Bolder.  —Sesquialtera II (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so let's replace the IPA with a spoken .ogg pronunciation like Bordeaux--we'd just need someone with an accurate accent to make the three-second recording.  As to forms, then place aside other composer articles in my reasoning; the current wording seems almost like we're scolding Bach for not being more innovative.  Removing "Although he introduced no forms" would add impact to the overall lead as well.  Regarding the works, you have a point, but on the other hand it is already somewhat arbitrary; the Goldberg Variations and the keyboard suites/partitas are chosen over the rest of the keyboard output, and the St Matthew Passion is mentioned but not the St John, etc.  I suggest the WTC because, in my experience, that's the keyboard work most people know, along with Goldberg. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the negative statement; it would be nice not to replace it with another negativity ("except opera"). What did you have in mind? Alternatively, the statement could be dropped ....? Tony 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, dropped seems better to me.  I have also updated the "mastered" statement, but I don't feel strongly about including it, so we can take it or leave it.   —Sesquialtera II (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Johann Sebastian Bach (pronounced ) (21 March 1685 O.S. – 28 July 1750 N.S.) was a prolific German composer and organist whose sacred and secular works for choir, orchestra and solo instruments drew together the strands of the Baroque period and brought it to its ultimate maturity. He enriched the prevailing German style with a robust contrapuntal technique, a control of harmonic and motivic organisation from the smallest to the largest scales, and the adaptation of rhythms and textures from abroad, particularly Italy and France. Revered for their intellectual depth, technical command and artistic beauty, his works include masses, concertos, suites, partitas, preludes, and a large number of cantatas, of which about 220 survive. He is regarded as one of the great composers of all time."
How's that for an interim improvement? What is missing, for a good lead, is just a little biographical information, don't you think? The lead is too short for such a major article, and somehow needs to be split again into two, or possibly three paras. (Need to link the genre terms, too, I guess.) Tony 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it, although I think "fugues" should also be included.  I'm not convinced that we should generalize instead of citing specific famous pieces, but on the other hand, adequately citing all of Bach's important works would be rather cumbersome and make the lead less concise and powerful.  Biographical information--Possibly.  Contrast the approaches by the Mozart and Beethoven articles--I rather like the directness of Mozart (though it needs some copyediting).  I don't know what we would put in--a bit about the Bach family, and a bit about Bach's liturgical life?  Overall, I would be happy with what you have written above.  —Sesquialtera II (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much the family, but a summary sentence or two on the broad thrust of his career, working for the aristocracy and then, in Leipzig, the church/state? And the Lutheran thing should be mentioned, as it was central to his art and life? Tony 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, you are correct--I just had a look through WP:LEAD and it recommends that the lead be almost like the article in miniature... meaning that it's quite appropriate to mention all of the things you have listed. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes we are. It's written in British English, as loudly proclaimed at the top for as long as I can remember. WP practice is not to change existing style unless there's consensus/a good reason, in any case. Tony 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then, let's proceed optimistically. I am your ally in any efforts to preserve dotless usages. I have fixed one "C.P.E." in the article just now. Know this, also: I am against almost all uses of "/", including yours! I pounce on it in articles. Where do you stand with en dashes and em dashes? Myself, I prefer a spaced en dash in sentence-level punctuation. I rarely deploy an em dash, except if the article has clearly settled on its use – and then only with gritted teeth. So I can't change dashes in the present article. –Noetica 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the "dots," (which can be treated a little less dogmatically, I feel), the other aspect of the introduction I mentioned, the seeming randomness of the works introduced was not discussed. Any suggestions (or objections regarding my suggestion) about fixing that unwieldy "list of works" sentence in the introduction?Anderfreude 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction & eponyms 

message: It seems some people prefer (or Pmanderson prefers, at least) to keep links to the Bach crater and the Bach Ice Shelf.  However, I disagree with this as outlined above; furthermore, the crater doesn't even have an article.  If we were to keep these sorts of things, I feel it would only be appropriate to include things like Bach Street in Anyville, USA (I recall that such streets exist) and other tributes to Bach.  This type of collection of eponyms is useful in its own respect, but I don't think such a list belongs in this article; it should be kept to articles like List of eponyms.  See a prior discussion on this topic regarding Handel.  This information doesn't lend any understanding to Bach or his music, just his indirect impact on society, which again is useful in its own respect but (as I understand it) isn't what Wikipedia is about. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. Tony 05:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crater & ice shelf 

message: Pursuant to the matter that was raised on this page some weeks ago (now archived), the status has been removed. The reasons are:
*Criterion 2a: insufficient referencing
*Criterion 3a: inadequate treatment of the facts in some places, e.g., Cöthen and Style.
Tony 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting GA status 

message: Is there any particular reason why this concerto is of such inordinate size? Both of the fast movements surpass 11 megabytes, and the slow movement is more than nine. The file size may be of no great concern to broadband users, but don't forget about dial-up users. I was under the impression that ogg files are smaller than others such as mp3, wma, and aac , but my recording is smaller by quite a bit. The other files are rather large, also. Am I missing something?? Vlmastra 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  But what we're missing is the identity of the concerto.  Can you oblige?  JackofOz 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much the identity of the concerto that bothers me, but the fact that it's played on 19th/20th-century instruments, including the use of piano solo rather than harpsichord. While I don't feel strongly enough to remove it, if a better equivalent came along that was free of copyright issues, I'd vote to replace the current recording.Tony 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current recording of which concerto?  What is the "this concerto" that Vlmastra is asking about?  JackofOz 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Keyboard Concerto 

message: Even Bach's biographers suggest that his life was somewhat boring. I don't think so. Before "Amadeus," who would have thought that someone would make such a movie about Mozart? I would begin with a quiet city, then show Bach starting, say, the "famous" D minor Tocatta (so that viewers would have something familiar to begin with), then babies wake and cry, dogs howl, etc. Then the church members would complain about the "strange variations."
I have seen programs that show little slices of his life, but never a full movie (not with just his music, but having Bach as a character). Has anyone seen such a movie?
iter praemium est 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes i think a movie on Bach would be a good idea 64.105.103.232 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I bet the non-level of Historically informed performance practice in a 1968 film might promote serious cringing today. Probably an interesting semi-historical document on our view of Bach forty years ago though (ever tried reading Grove articles from 100 years ago? Quite a trip). MarkBuckles  (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies about Bach's life? 

message: Any objections if I were to enfold the last paragraph of the Choral/Vocal section into Wiki's entry on the Calov Bible?
--Fugueman 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calov

message: Rmky - Thanks for reducing it. I can't see the point of it all. Discussion pages are for discussion, after all. Tony 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. I went back and copied what was removed. Otherwise, it looks like some vandal changed "FFAC" to "DGA".--Rmky87 23:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clutter 

message: Why is there a question mark? Is the authenticity uncertain? The image information doesn't say anything about it and it probably should if there's uncertainty. Best, MarkBuckles  (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Teri Noel Towe seems to demonstrate here that the portrait is probably not of Bach (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get the actual content — the layout of the site could not be more poorly designed). Strad 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Bach? Image