![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Finnish. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
I've been investigating the ornaments in bar 2 of the Aria as the two semi-quavers are treated differently from each other in my GG recording. The only specific reference I have found says that the falling thirds A F# D with slurred ornaments should be treated as fast and before their respective beats. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just reverted an edit discussing the style and tempo of the Gigue variation. My two reasons are:
I hope this seems reasonable. Opus33 ( talk) 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
According to a BBC announcer, anyway, one of the two Quodlibet folktunes is the theme around which Buxtehude organized his Capricciosa variations; whether Bach knew these or no is not established. The two works do have their similarities. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Might it be a good idea to include a few examples of appearances in modern media, like films or radio plays and the like? 75.104.96.37 ( talk) 07:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC) predcon
I'm not sure about the figured bass on the page, bar 26. Is that B meant to have a "6", since it is a G-major first inversion rather than a B-minor? jftsang 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I just checked the source, there is indeed a 6 missing. If someone is able to make the file anew that would be great. Glocqu ( talk) 07:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"Kraut und Rüben haben mich vertrieben, hätt mein' Mutter Fleisch gekocht, wär ich länger blieben"... I don't know *much* German, but surely that should be "vertreiben" and "bleiben", nicht wahr? Sebum-n-soda ( talk) 16:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Nein. Vertrieben and blieben are the past participles of vertreiben and bleiben, respectively. Without them, the text would be nonsensical in German. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Are any of the recordings in the External Links section off-limits in terms of copyright? Thinking specifically of the Glenn Gould link.
The link has been deleted because of the violation of copy right. I can't see the video. So this link should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.9.62 ( talk) 12:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing more. Ishizawa's performance is good. But it is not better or, at most, never the best. You don't have to listen to her play. So, it is not for the Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.9.62 ( talk) 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Using good sources at IMSLP (first printed edition (which Bach played on himself), I have corrected the order of some variation titles. Added Adagio to var. 25 as it is no less official then the already-labelled var. 7, 'al tempo di giga'. both were not in orignal edition but hand-added by Bach in his own copy (see the ref I added). Not 100% sure about whether some of the titles go before, or after the 'a 1 Clav.', but I used the first printed edition (on IMSLP) as a guide. Many later editions really mess around things (capitalising things that should be, moving them around in the score, adding hideous tempo interpretative markings on the score), the first printed edition was the cleanest. If any thoughts, do add, cheers.-- Cloudfloatcorrection ( talk) 03:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"Detailed study of the intellectual and psychological dimensions of one of these works. Includes MIDI audio samples plus pianistic information about Schoenberg, Schumann." is the evaluation commented on the link "Music of Intellect". I can find this by search Goldberg variations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.9.62 ( talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
What is up with "ô vero" in some of the titles? Is this a character encoding error or is this a valid variation on the "ovvero" I would expect? -- Ericjs ( talk) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The recently-editing Anon has complained to me about my reversions; I asked him/her to discuss on the talk page but he/she replied on my own talk page instead. Here is what (s)he said:
So, there two issues, whether Anon's insertions should stay, and whether his/her deletions are appropriate. I found the inserted material to be odd and not very encyclopedic, and I also think that getting rid of recordings of the Variations doesn't serve our readers very well. Opus33 ( talk)
>>>It is said to be in a public domain, so you think that it should be good and people should be able to access it. But it is not public, it is only free, suppoted by a company MusiScore. It is under business. Free is not a passport to the Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.250.16.159 ( talk) 05:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC) >>>Ishizawa's performance cannot be opened on iPad. In windows I could not open without downloading a special player which I don't like. If you think Ishizawa's performance is good, then you only have to indicate the right place to hear it, not here.
Also in external links jsbach.org appears to be dead so should probably be removed unless it is now somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmarshall ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought excerpts from this recording were selected because the recording was released into the public domain and so it doesn't have the copyright restrictions that other recordings have. But a recent edit has stated that "some of German people reject it because of the copyright problem". What does that mean? Its not really in the public domain after all? DavidRF ( talk) 13:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Open Goldberg Variations" is a business. Free is not a certificate for the goodness. Ishizawa's performance is not bad. But no one has to listen to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iorijapan ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No one knows Ishizawa if it is not zero dollar. There are many beautiful performances. All can be listed in this Wiki. It should be the reason of this Wiki without exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iorijapan ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 December 2012
As the Director of the Open Goldberg Project (non-profit organization EIN 27-3992022), I can confirm 100% that the recordings used by Kimiko Ishizaka are public domain, and that they were produced in a not-for-profit way (not that such a consideration would matter beyond the licensing). This includes Germany. There are no legal issues whatsoever in using the recordings here. RobertDouglass ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the title of the page be "Goldberg" Variations rather than Goldberg Variations? The latter suggests that the work's title is Goldberg Variations; but of course the work is untitled: it is an untitled set of variations differentiated by others by the nickname 'Goldberg', much as, say, Beethoven's 14th piano sonata is nicknamed 'Mondschein'. Or have I missed the memo on classical-music titling conventions? 152.78.90.200 ( talk) 15:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to the removal of the following material from the main text of the article, but I would like to add a section near the bottom of the article for it.
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a matter of proportion. The Goldberg Variations are, let's face it, extremely famous, and indeed about 80,000 people visit the WP article every year. For illustrating what the Variations are like, we should do our best to find a recording with a really talented performer giving a fairly mainstream rendition. The reading public would naturally expect us to pick something good. (I'm fairly happy with the recordings by Kimiko Douglass-Ishizaka that we currently have; perhaps they are not on Andras Schiff's level but they do the music justice.)
If there's external evidence that Bruno Degazio's work has become notable, then that's a great reason to start an article about him. But we should have a standard performance to illustrate the Variations themselves. Opus33 ( talk)
Per the discussion above, I propose to merge the section on "Transcribed and popularized versions" into Goldberg Variations discography, leaving only a summary here of the discography article. The discography article could be renamed to something like Goldberg Variations versions and discography. If people object to this merge, then I would like to add Bruno Degazio to the list in "Transcribed and popularized versions". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
"This short variation (16 bars) is usually played at a slow tempo." - removed because without a database of tempos of different performances, the assertion appears unsupported.
Sorry to undo all the work editor IB did, but really, sound recordings have to meet a certain minimum standard to be included and these completely-wooden, mechanically-timed performances in my opinion don't qualify. The recordings we already had were by a competent musician and pending further developments I think they are the recordings we should be using. Lastly, the "Music Portal" is far too general to be of any use in this a particular article so I took that out too. Opus33 ( talk) 21:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Finnish. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
I've been investigating the ornaments in bar 2 of the Aria as the two semi-quavers are treated differently from each other in my GG recording. The only specific reference I have found says that the falling thirds A F# D with slurred ornaments should be treated as fast and before their respective beats. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just reverted an edit discussing the style and tempo of the Gigue variation. My two reasons are:
I hope this seems reasonable. Opus33 ( talk) 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
According to a BBC announcer, anyway, one of the two Quodlibet folktunes is the theme around which Buxtehude organized his Capricciosa variations; whether Bach knew these or no is not established. The two works do have their similarities. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Might it be a good idea to include a few examples of appearances in modern media, like films or radio plays and the like? 75.104.96.37 ( talk) 07:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC) predcon
I'm not sure about the figured bass on the page, bar 26. Is that B meant to have a "6", since it is a G-major first inversion rather than a B-minor? jftsang 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I just checked the source, there is indeed a 6 missing. If someone is able to make the file anew that would be great. Glocqu ( talk) 07:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"Kraut und Rüben haben mich vertrieben, hätt mein' Mutter Fleisch gekocht, wär ich länger blieben"... I don't know *much* German, but surely that should be "vertreiben" and "bleiben", nicht wahr? Sebum-n-soda ( talk) 16:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Nein. Vertrieben and blieben are the past participles of vertreiben and bleiben, respectively. Without them, the text would be nonsensical in German. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Are any of the recordings in the External Links section off-limits in terms of copyright? Thinking specifically of the Glenn Gould link.
The link has been deleted because of the violation of copy right. I can't see the video. So this link should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.9.62 ( talk) 12:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing more. Ishizawa's performance is good. But it is not better or, at most, never the best. You don't have to listen to her play. So, it is not for the Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.9.62 ( talk) 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Using good sources at IMSLP (first printed edition (which Bach played on himself), I have corrected the order of some variation titles. Added Adagio to var. 25 as it is no less official then the already-labelled var. 7, 'al tempo di giga'. both were not in orignal edition but hand-added by Bach in his own copy (see the ref I added). Not 100% sure about whether some of the titles go before, or after the 'a 1 Clav.', but I used the first printed edition (on IMSLP) as a guide. Many later editions really mess around things (capitalising things that should be, moving them around in the score, adding hideous tempo interpretative markings on the score), the first printed edition was the cleanest. If any thoughts, do add, cheers.-- Cloudfloatcorrection ( talk) 03:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"Detailed study of the intellectual and psychological dimensions of one of these works. Includes MIDI audio samples plus pianistic information about Schoenberg, Schumann." is the evaluation commented on the link "Music of Intellect". I can find this by search Goldberg variations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.9.62 ( talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
What is up with "ô vero" in some of the titles? Is this a character encoding error or is this a valid variation on the "ovvero" I would expect? -- Ericjs ( talk) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The recently-editing Anon has complained to me about my reversions; I asked him/her to discuss on the talk page but he/she replied on my own talk page instead. Here is what (s)he said:
So, there two issues, whether Anon's insertions should stay, and whether his/her deletions are appropriate. I found the inserted material to be odd and not very encyclopedic, and I also think that getting rid of recordings of the Variations doesn't serve our readers very well. Opus33 ( talk)
>>>It is said to be in a public domain, so you think that it should be good and people should be able to access it. But it is not public, it is only free, suppoted by a company MusiScore. It is under business. Free is not a passport to the Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.250.16.159 ( talk) 05:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC) >>>Ishizawa's performance cannot be opened on iPad. In windows I could not open without downloading a special player which I don't like. If you think Ishizawa's performance is good, then you only have to indicate the right place to hear it, not here.
Also in external links jsbach.org appears to be dead so should probably be removed unless it is now somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmarshall ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought excerpts from this recording were selected because the recording was released into the public domain and so it doesn't have the copyright restrictions that other recordings have. But a recent edit has stated that "some of German people reject it because of the copyright problem". What does that mean? Its not really in the public domain after all? DavidRF ( talk) 13:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Open Goldberg Variations" is a business. Free is not a certificate for the goodness. Ishizawa's performance is not bad. But no one has to listen to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iorijapan ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No one knows Ishizawa if it is not zero dollar. There are many beautiful performances. All can be listed in this Wiki. It should be the reason of this Wiki without exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iorijapan ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 December 2012
As the Director of the Open Goldberg Project (non-profit organization EIN 27-3992022), I can confirm 100% that the recordings used by Kimiko Ishizaka are public domain, and that they were produced in a not-for-profit way (not that such a consideration would matter beyond the licensing). This includes Germany. There are no legal issues whatsoever in using the recordings here. RobertDouglass ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the title of the page be "Goldberg" Variations rather than Goldberg Variations? The latter suggests that the work's title is Goldberg Variations; but of course the work is untitled: it is an untitled set of variations differentiated by others by the nickname 'Goldberg', much as, say, Beethoven's 14th piano sonata is nicknamed 'Mondschein'. Or have I missed the memo on classical-music titling conventions? 152.78.90.200 ( talk) 15:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to the removal of the following material from the main text of the article, but I would like to add a section near the bottom of the article for it.
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a matter of proportion. The Goldberg Variations are, let's face it, extremely famous, and indeed about 80,000 people visit the WP article every year. For illustrating what the Variations are like, we should do our best to find a recording with a really talented performer giving a fairly mainstream rendition. The reading public would naturally expect us to pick something good. (I'm fairly happy with the recordings by Kimiko Douglass-Ishizaka that we currently have; perhaps they are not on Andras Schiff's level but they do the music justice.)
If there's external evidence that Bruno Degazio's work has become notable, then that's a great reason to start an article about him. But we should have a standard performance to illustrate the Variations themselves. Opus33 ( talk)
Per the discussion above, I propose to merge the section on "Transcribed and popularized versions" into Goldberg Variations discography, leaving only a summary here of the discography article. The discography article could be renamed to something like Goldberg Variations versions and discography. If people object to this merge, then I would like to add Bruno Degazio to the list in "Transcribed and popularized versions". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
"This short variation (16 bars) is usually played at a slow tempo." - removed because without a database of tempos of different performances, the assertion appears unsupported.
Sorry to undo all the work editor IB did, but really, sound recordings have to meet a certain minimum standard to be included and these completely-wooden, mechanically-timed performances in my opinion don't qualify. The recordings we already had were by a competent musician and pending further developments I think they are the recordings we should be using. Lastly, the "Music Portal" is far too general to be of any use in this a particular article so I took that out too. Opus33 ( talk) 21:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)