Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543

message: There is an in-use tag on this article. That has been disregarded through that tag, where disruptive edits have occurred. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-use 

message: * See listing at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Musical score. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report on [[WP:NOR]] 

message: Other suggestions:
#Use  instead of  or  for the Morricone/De Rosa interview book:
#Current article prose speaks about this book first as De Rosa's book, and then, after mentioning Morricone, it follows in the next sentence that it is his book, even implying that the composer did the writing. Could be formulated clearer (for which the "interview" format of the reference might help). Afaics De Rosa does the writing (Morricone does what every interviewee does: speaking, not writing), but otherwise it is Morricone's book (the  of the book is Morricone's words, as it is indicated in the title, not De Rosa's questions, nor his work of transforming the spoken words into readable copy).
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ennio Morricone: In His Own Words is a book, so it should be cited as a book.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That it is an interview, and thus should be cited as an interview is an as valid approach (within the limits of what is possible with cite templates for formatting the ref). See also the information page of the book which identifies the authors and collaborators as "interviewee", "interviewer" and "translator" respectively. Anyhow, whatever helps best to make the phrasing clearer about it being De Rosa's or Morricone's publication, and avoid the erroneous indication that Morricone did the writing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: De Rosa interviewed Morricone for the book, but the work cited is not an interview.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  re. "... is not an interview" – I have no clue why you would say that... can you explain? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These things are books, not interviews. They may contain interviews, but are not interviews. What is being cited is the book titled Ennio Morricone: In his own words, as written by De Rosa.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

text: This might be in order then:The semantic discussion whether the book contains a collection of interviews or an interview spread over multiple sessions has little relevance to the matter at hand, I suppose. Also, the mode of publication (whether it is published in a journal or in a book) seems to have little relevance to the issues at hand, which are still that in current article prose it is called De Rosa's and in the next sentence Morricone's (which is suboptimal as article text), and suggesting that Morricone did the writing (which he didn't, and so is also confusing article text). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because that implies Morriconne is the author of the book, when he isn't. That's De Rosa. The article has this text , which makes it crystal clear the book is De Rosa's, but the words "ambiguous tango" are Morriconne's.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Then your problem seems to be with the  template, where the "interviewee" is presented as the main author of any interview. That template's talk page redirects to Help talk:Citation Style 1 – maybe raise the issue there, if you think that it should be possible that the interviewer (and/or editor, publisher) of an interview be listed as its (main) author in an "interview" citation template. Again, my main issue is not with reference formatting, but with "... In his book he writes ..." (quoted from current article content, with my emphasis), where in the article's current context "his" and "he" in this phrase clearly refer to Morricone, being the only person mentioned in the preceding sentence. Either the book is De Rosa's (in which case the phrase I quoted should be reformulated), or it is Morricone's (in which case other parts of the paragraph, and the presentation of the reference, should be modified). Or, as a third solution, two authors may be indicated for the book (De Rosa and Morricone), in which case some updating of the prose also seems indicated to make the paragraph easier to follow for a casual reader (instead of the somewhat unclear phrasing it has now). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If your issue is with the text, then address that, not the citation. E.g. .  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See #2 of the two points in the OP of this subsection. How could I have been more clear there was an issue with the text? How to resolve it was dependent on the reference format (#1 of the two suggestions in the OP of this subsection): since that is sorted as "no change", then the direction on how to sort #2 was clear too, of course. Thanks for doing it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are were two completely independent issues. One concerns how to cite a work, the other is how to attribute a quote.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview/book

message: The Reger material is now more or less complete. So I am starting the Bach reception section on Mendelssohn. As early as 1812, versions of BWV 543–548 become available for purchase: the earliest seems to be through the Viennese publisher Josef Riedl (1788–1837). Mendelssohn acquired his copy in 1817 and performed it in St Paul's Cathedral, London. He had only 3 organ items amongst his regular repertoire: BWV 552 (the so-called St Anne from Clavier-Übung III), the Passacaglia BWV 582 and BWV 543, "The Great". Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendelssohn and family 

message: The edit to the article prominently adding a musical quotation from the Prelude, BWV 543 (or is it BWV 543a?) is WP:UNDUE,  WP:POINTY and WP:OR. The musical analysis of the prelude has not yet even been completely summarised from the 2003 book by Peter Williams (for the fugue, that has mostly been done). Proposed edits have been discussed ad infinitum on this talk page; similarly on the talk page of WikiProject Classical Music, where an attempt to delete the report by Headbomb was attempted; and in Headbomb's report on WP:ANI, where administrators commented on disruptive edits to the article talk page. I have agreed with Headbomb on his suggested modifications to the short Morricone segment. The recent edit on the actual article page, adding a huge musical quotation, was purely disruptive. The edit was a way of unbalancing the article in a controversial way. 
The actual article concerns:
* Sources used in BWV 543 and its variants, including high-resolution images, created by me on Commons. The sources describe in detail how the prelude for BWV 543a and BWV 543 differ in the beginning bars.
* Musical analysis of BWV 543 (mostly from Williams and Jones). 
* Bach reception, from books of Stinson, Little, Anderson, et al, still on-going.
This is one of the most famous preludes and fugues of Bach. The segment on Morricone was an anecdote concerning a very well-known film composer. The edit pushing the undue and prominent musical quotation into the article "in the voice of wikipedia" was disruptive. It is quite out of keeping with the article itself.   
I would also point out that, as explained in detail in the article, there are two completely different versions of the beginning of the prelude, i.e. BWV 654a/1 and BWV 543/1. So choosing which prelude is being used is arbitrary. It is WP:OR with reference to Morricone, etc. For the Morricone segment, any attempts to assess WP:CONSENSUS have been ignored. The edit here as well as previous edits arbitrarily tagging the article do not help readers of this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNDUE]] quotation for section on Morricone film scores