![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
The section 'Return to Weimar" after mentioning the year 1708 says "Later the same year" [1708] "their first child was born", oddly, not named in the article. The oldest surviving sons, Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Philipp Emanuel, who are rather well known, were born in (about 1710) and 1714 respectively. Was the first child the daughter Catharina Dorothea, or a non-surviving child, or ? Marlindale ( talk) 04:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It was Catharina Dorothea Bach (1708-1774) according to Bach Family Marlindale ( talk) 04:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
A possible viewpoint is that Catharina Dorothea Bach was not notable enough to be mentioned. But then I would suggest deleting from the article "Later the same year their first child was born." I will wait a few days to see if anyone else finds their way to this section and has an opinion. Marlindale ( talk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Wahoofive and other editors, I hope to have here an informal discussion. Marlindale ( talk) 01:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I put in Catharina Dorothea Bach (1709-1774), just the name and dates. Marlindale ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone has put in not too long ago a "clarification needed" and three "citation needed". I propose we have a go at resolving these. I will first take on myself the topic of "political machinations" of the town council. It seems to me there were differences of opinion between JSB and the council, which Wolff sums up by saying he thought they were "penny pinching". Marlindale ( talk) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I made the change re "penny pinching". Regarding "prestigious position" of Thomaskantor, it seems that JSB's own prestige increased while in the position, for example the honorary Dresden court composer appointment? Marlindale ( talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone suggest maybe a secular cantata from the Leipzig period? There was one for renovation of he St. Thomas School itself, but that doesn't seem to me to be the best occasion to refer to. Marlindale ( talk) 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I also couldn't find a source for the questioned phrase, so I'm going to delete it. Marlindale ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I did delete that phrase, but it could be good to check the next-to-last difference in the article, where something else got lost, apparently a link to Spitta on the Web. Marlindale ( talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The article has a section, "Secular Cantatas" which it says were "usually for civic events such as council inaugurations." An example is BWV 212 "Mer Hahn en neue Oberkeet" (upper Saxon dialect) "We have a new governor" which celebrated an occasion when there was "homage from the peasants". There is overlap in language with what I recently deleted, but now I have doubts whether I should have. Marlindale ( talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, but since you seem knowledgeable on the subject at hand, may I suggest that you yourself revise the section on "secular cantatas"? Marlindale ( talk) 18:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The following was suggested by User:Jashiin on 10 December. I got around to following the hints. There is a Google Book, Johann Sebastian Bach, Life and Work by Martin Geck and John Hargraves. On p. 31, possibly beginning on p. 30, it says
"In his memoirs, Adolf Bernhard Marx, the music scholar from whom we have learned of the rediscovery, by Felix Mendelssohn, of Bach's St. Matthew Passion, recounts an anecdote according to which Mendelssohn's teacher, Carl Friedrich Zelter, `obtained the score of that immortal work from a cheese shop, where it was being used as wrapping paper.'"
In fact Mendelssohn obtained the score as a gift from his grandmother Bella Salomon. Note this anecdote is about the alleged finding, not the loss. Marlindale ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
On 11 and 12 January Martindale and Francis Schonken made numerous edits relating to the history of Bach's manuscripts after the composer's death. Martindale invited for further input on these edits. I think that would be a good idea. Reverting them all without proper talk page discussion with "the RfC isn't closed" as an excuse was imho not a very constructive action. So, here we are: please have a closer look at these edits and share with your fellow editors what you think about the content of these edits (avoiding to make this a mere procedural discussion: concentrate on content please – when the procedures are hampering the content discussion I'm happy to cut short the endless procedural back and forth). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Performers of Johann Sebastian Bach's music. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I did find "Sara" in Applegate, which I think is a good source, but some other sources have Sarah so I put Sara(h) in the Daniel Itzig article, sub-article Marlindale ( talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris made about 8 reversions of edits by Francis Schonken and me on 19 January. I plan to selectively un-revert some of the reversions, confined to the period 1750-1787 so that these will be independent of the current RfC topic, to have the first signpost year after 1750 as 1788 (RfC) or 1800 (otherwise, as it is now). Marlindale ( talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I did a draft of the restorations, although it could be improved in some details. I didn't find any events mentioned in the years 1788-1800, so the the signpost year 1800 could be changed to 1788 (year of CPEB's death), but neither does the text provide any natural reason for doing that. Years that are mentioned are when WFB and CPEB were in Berlin, not when they were alive. Marlindale ( talk) 05:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current chronology of the Bach Legacy section is arbitrarily organized by century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000, etc, rather than specific important dates directly relevant to the Bach Legacy section. Another RfC (see above on Talk page) has identified that the dates of 1788 (the death of Bach's son), and 1829 (the date of the Mendelssohn Bach revival) are of heightened importance to understanding the Bach Legacy as a whole. Bach's two composer sons (died 1784 and 1788, respectively) inherited many of Bach composition manuscripts and influenced their dispostion during their lives. Mendelssohn worked extensively to revive Bach's reputation between 1824-1829 with the revived performance of Bach's Matthew Passion in Germany in 1829. The dates in the Bach chronology should reflect this in a new and enhanced outline covering first, 1750-1788, followed by 1789-1829, followed by 1830-1899, leaving the rest of the section unchanged at this time. This RfC is to determine SUPPORT or OPPOSE for the enhanced specification of the important dates over and against the use of arbitrary century markers currently used in the Bach Legacy section. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There are, in a sense, two Bachs. One was born in 1685 in Eisenach, died in 1750, and lived as an organist and Kantor, part of the milieu of court, town, and church in eighteenth-century Germany. (...) The other Bach was born, slowly and painfully, during the first half of the nineteenth century; and he shows no sign of dying any time soon...
The previous RfC at Johann Sebastian Bach had 4-5 editors in support of changes with citations added to the proposed text, and two editors Opposed User:Martindale and User:Francis Schonken. User:Martindale and User:Francis were apparently displeased with the progress of that RfC and they have returned to edit warring and forum shopping on the page and trying to force their version of the edit into the article. This was despite the caution warning from User:Softl to User:Francis Schonken to follow RfC policy and wait for a result. In addition, two previous Full Page Protections from User:Ymblanter and User:MusikA, for User:Martindale and User:Francis to stop edit warring and to encourage them to either participate in the RfC and await its outcome have been ignored. The two editors have refused to do this and have continued to set aside the warning made to them, and to force their version of the edit into the article against RfC Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Martindale, having knowledge of the open RFC, then began forum shopping on the DRN page which does not allow DRN when an RFC is open, and unfortunately managed to hook-in one of the unsuspecting editors there into doing the "no close/no consensus" demi-close on the old RfC. This new RfC is open for review for your SUPPORT/OPPOSE opinions. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 18:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Two editors User:Matrindale and User:Francis Schocken have been edit warring and forum shopping concerning this RfC and its previous RfC for several weeks and the page has gone to Full Page Protection twice as a result of my reuests to make a Full Page Protection of the Bach page because of their edit warring and forum shopping. This section is for comments related to their edit conduct of edit warring and forum shopping, as well as any other comments they have. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
TRACING THE BUTCHER SHOP "BUXTEHUDE" ANECDOTE The anecdote, given above, says that after Bach's death, some unspecified relative sold some manuscripts to a butcher shop for use as wrapping paper. User:Fountains-of-Paris has named this story for "Buxtehude". But User:Buxtehude wrote on 8 December:
"Actually, I didn't add that butcher shop story and edited that section on 30 March with the edit summary "No primary/reliable source found for anecdote."
In fact in that edit User:Buxtehude deleted the butcher shop anecdote. So it seems quite misleading to have named the anecdote after him. Later after learning from User:Jashiin that a "cheese shop" anecdote existed, Fountains-of-Paris changed the butcher shop anecdote just by substituting "cheese shop" in place of "butcher shop" whereas the anecdotes, such as they are, are actually different, e.g. losing vs. finding ms. Under the heading "Refined version of Buxtehude edit with requested citations added", a version is given with no citation for the (butcher or cheese) shop anecdote. So the heading contradicts the body.
(a) at 00:51 User:DrCrazy102, supervising our discussion, advised that contrary to Fountain-of-Paris's accusations, what Francis Schonken and I had done was NOT WP:FORUMSHOPPING (emphasis in original)
(b) Later that day Fountains-of-Paris requested a 5-day full page protection for the JSB article, which would have prevented any of us from editing it for 5 days, but so far the request is pending, not granted. This was a method that Fountains-of-Paris had used in other recent disputes on the article, as in making a lot of reverts of our edits and then getting the protection;
(c) Fountains-of-Paris, for whatever reason, has made no WP edits between 25 January and now. So, we may be cautiously optimistic that we will be able to continue editing the article. Marlindale ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC has a complex statement, I suggest not so suitable for a "support" vs. "oppose" choice. I suggest:
(a) I hope we can agree not to include any "butcher shop" or "cheese shop" anecdote as these are not well documented. For example User:Buxtehude has pointed out that he deleted on March 30 the anecdote named (misleadingly) for him.
About signpost years, I hope we can all agree to include 1829 as an important year in the JSB legacy.
(c) The RfC proposes 1788, the year of CPE Bach's death, as a signpost year. Why not? CPEB was in Berlin from 1738 to 1768. His influence on his father's legacy stemmed from those years. From 1768 to 1788 he was in Hamburg pursuing his own highly successful composing career. In 1805 Abraham Mendelssohn, Felix's father, bought JSB manuscripts "brought down from" CPEB. Francis Schonken and I have given other reasons for keeping 1800 rather than 1788 as a signpost year. Marlindale ( talk) 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Francis Schonken: and anyone else who happens to notice this, 19 February: is the above proposed compromise resolution OK with you? If all goes well we could close the (new, current) RfC and get away from procedures and back to content. Marlindale ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
DRN Case (result: closed due to new RfC, refile if needed)
|
---|
|
You will see that User: Fountains-of-Paris has reverted multiple edits by User:Francis Schonken and myself, not vice versa. Even some talk page paragraphs by Francis were reverted by Fountains-of-Paris as Francis showed in DRN (Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Talk: Johann Sebastian Bach). So who is edit warring? Marlindale ( talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There are only three recent editors. User:Francis Schonken and I have been agreeing on most points. In the new RfC located in the DRN (but now not visible there since the DRN was closed) he gave substantial reasons against the new RfC, specifically for keeping 1800 as a signpost year. User:Fountains-of-Paris disagrees (usually giving procedural, not content reasons). Arguably the majority of 2/3 should be able to work its will, but Fountains-of-Paris claims individual power based on RfCs. The discussion may be sterile until and unless other editors join in. Marlindale ( talk) 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Marlindale here: Thank you, that's good to know. The new RFC has been revised by Fountains-of-Paris while it is in progress and actually the same happened with the previous RFC. Is that legal (assuming for present purposes thatḥ it did happen)? Marlindale ( talk) 04:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been a half dozen posts here since I asked for a return to the topic, and exactly zero of them have mentioned Bach. Just STFU about that procedural stuff already. Take it to the appropriate page. — Wahoofive ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Marlindale here: I was happy to see that there have been edits to the article itself today and hope we can continue with that,. Re my inquiry about whether something was 'legal' I regret it and apologize. Marlindale ( talk) 22:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon has closed the second RfC and suggested formal mediation. only on the signpost years. I suppose this means that the cheese and butcher shop anecdotes are no longer in play. I decided to consult 6 people (5 voters on the RfC, plus User:Buxtehude), For those who have supported 1788 (CPEB's death) as a signpost year, please consider the arguments against it by Francis Schonken and me. I suspect that 1829 may have few or no votes against it this time. If in your responses here there is a consensus, we're done. If not, would you agree to formal mediation? Marlindale ( talk) 01:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
In a concerto, as I understand, there is a "concertino", consisting of one or a small number of instruments, and a "ripieno" or " basso continuo" of the remaining instruments. In Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, BWV 1050, for example, the concertino is a flute, violin, and harpsichord, and the ripieno a violin, viola, cello, violone, and maybe harpsichord. It is said that this is the first example of a concerto with a solo keyboard part. The concerto BWV 1044 has the same concertino. . Vivaldi's L'Estro Armonico is a set of concertos for violin(s) (1, 2, or 4), cello, strings, and continuo. Bach's violin concertos (concertino is a solo violin) BWV 1041, BWV 1042, 2 violins BWV 1043, seem different from Vivaldi's and closer to later (classical) concertos in some way(s) I currently don't know how to formulate. Marlindale ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of these had been deleted for a second time. I am going to put them back, changing wording in some longer ones to make quite clear I am not edit warring. Fountains-of-Paris had accused me of edit warring, but three administrators all found in my favor. It begins to seem almost like Sisyphus, but I really want to protect the article against attacks. Marlindale ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, false alarm this time. I searched and found I was wrong, the passages I was concerned about actually look intact. I only found that in one case where I had unnecessarily given two references, only one was left, which was sufficient. Marlindale ( talk) 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote rather a lot in about 1800-1830 today. Very possibly I made small errors or maybe large ones. To some extent I tried to follow Softlavender's ideas about subheads: I put in a subdivision year 1830 which seemed suggested by the material,, but in 1800-1830 there is a content section on the 1829 Mendelssohn revival, containing the event in 1824 when his grandmother gave him a score of the Matthew Passion. Any thoughts? Marlindale ( talk) 05:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This term appears in the article ("The Lutheran chorale hymn tune was the basis of much of his work."), and I would like to know what it means. I would understand "Lutheran hymns", but the duplication of "chorale" and "hymn" seems strange, and even more the reduction to only the "tune". The hymns in both text and tune were the basis. Even when he composed chorale preludes, he reflected the text and the liturgical meaning. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Francis Schonken and I nearly always agree in essence, but if i make an edit and he says I've given too much detail, I often agree.
Fountains-of-Paris in recent edits to the main article claims that Francis and I disagree, but that was not helpful. It would have resulted in some case(s) in reversion back to an earlier edit by me, deleting useful material by Francis, or otherwise inappropriate, but I did not want that at all. Marlindale ( talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
On looking again at today's back-and forth edits between the two. in which I believe Francis is correct, I think that Fountsin-of-Paris's multiple reverts are a very serious matter. How long will this go on? As long as the latest version is by Francis I'm OK with it for now, but I'll have to look further later to see if some of my own edits may have been damaged. Marlindale ( talk) 19:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That is the spelling I would have used, I don't recall seeing, until today, Oratoria which I guess is a Latin plural of Oratorium? But this is best taken up with Francis as there may be several places where the plural occurs. Marlindale ( talk) 22:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The Christmas Oratorio is a set of six cantatas, yes? Marlindale ( talk) 22:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The article List of masses, passions and oratorios by Johann Sebastian Bach, I believe created and it is so far mainly edited by Francis Schonken, uses the plural we agree on, in the title and within it, so the one "Oratoria" may have been an isolated exception. Marlindale ( talk) 23:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This has been touched upon in a few sections above, but couldn't see where best to reply, so started a new section on this specific topic.
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
On point 2, Wolff p.362 lists about 15 Extraordinaire Concerten in honor of the Electoral-Royal family, such as on birthdays, name days, and coronations, by the Collegium Musicum. These concerts began in 1727, well before Bach was appointed as Court Composer. I don't think these concerts (of secular cantatas) were commissioned by the Court. Marlindale ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
In 1739 the Council used a petty excuse to disallow Bach to stage the St John Passion again. So, instead of writing what the Council "didn't do" after 1738 (true, they didn't write about the Ernesti conflict any more), I'd write what they did (interfere with Bach's art, which for 1739 is the salient point in the biography of this article's subject).
The important point being, still, that currently even the most basic description of the tensions between Bach and his superiors is missing from Wikipedia's Bach-biography. Ernesti isn't even mentioned once. I'd say this is a serious defect of this biographical article. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I came - after unwatching the article for a while - to check how BWV 4 is mentioned, fixed minor formatting things.
Back to writing, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, next, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC))
1. Mention BWV 4 in the biography - where and how?
2. Delete a sentence on recitative - done.
3. Divi Blasii - to me, St. Blasius's Church seems fine in English. "divi" is not in my limited Latin vocabulary. Medieval Latin? Of course we can keep the redirect.
4. About some "better known" cantatas - I gave footnotes to show they are.
5. Some cantatas mentioned in Church cantata (Bach); that article needs clarification.
6. I don't know yet about Elector (Dresden), King of Poland.
7. Second annual cycle incomplete, did not consist only of chorale cantatas. We've tried to fix this, have we succeeded? See question 5, Marlindale ( talk) 18:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
8. BWV 71 was the first cantata whose score was published, yes? But "only cantata print extant" seems unclear. It seems to me paradoxical that a cantata first published much later, perhaps in a Bach-Ausgabe, would nevertheless have no copies preserved.
9. Plural "oratorios" - done.
10 about Dresden, Poland, Mass? Readers wouldn't understand this until it was written into the article, which hasn't been done yet and might not be. Marlindale ( talk) 01:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
3. In English, for a church named for a saint, for example St. Anthony, the usual name is St. Anthony's Church. There are about 15 churches with that name. There is a WP article St. Paul's Church, Frankfurt am Main (not redirected) in which the German name is given as Paulskirche. With the name at issue there is a St. Blasius Church, Shanklin on the Isle of Wight. Maybe what seems clumsy is Blasius's. So I am going to delete the 's. Marlindale ( talk) 21:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
First, congratulations on your featured article today. But:
a. What does Thomaskantor have to do with this question?
Later: I see it doesn't. I was aware that Bach had different responsibilities among four churches and had helped make revisions about that sometime in the past few years. Marlindale ( talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
b. "Easter egg": in American English that's a hard-boiled painted egg, hidden for children to find. You seem to use it a different way, twice so far, to mean a disappointing find?
c. If St. Blasius is not a common name it's because he is not a very well-known saint. I mentioned the usage in English for churches named after saints. Marlindale ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
5. This question, on clarifying the article Church cantata (Bach), I think you took care of very well in your revision today. Many thanks, Gerda. Marlindale ( talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
8. The original question was "[Do we] want to mention that BWV was the first printed work" etc. which needed to be clarified but now has been. In the article it now says that BWV 71 is an "elaborate, festive cantata", whereas the publication year placement seems like rather dry details, once they are elaborated. Are they already there in the article on BWV 71? If yes, maybe that's good enough. Marlindale ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
The section 'Return to Weimar" after mentioning the year 1708 says "Later the same year" [1708] "their first child was born", oddly, not named in the article. The oldest surviving sons, Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Philipp Emanuel, who are rather well known, were born in (about 1710) and 1714 respectively. Was the first child the daughter Catharina Dorothea, or a non-surviving child, or ? Marlindale ( talk) 04:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It was Catharina Dorothea Bach (1708-1774) according to Bach Family Marlindale ( talk) 04:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
A possible viewpoint is that Catharina Dorothea Bach was not notable enough to be mentioned. But then I would suggest deleting from the article "Later the same year their first child was born." I will wait a few days to see if anyone else finds their way to this section and has an opinion. Marlindale ( talk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Wahoofive and other editors, I hope to have here an informal discussion. Marlindale ( talk) 01:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I put in Catharina Dorothea Bach (1709-1774), just the name and dates. Marlindale ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone has put in not too long ago a "clarification needed" and three "citation needed". I propose we have a go at resolving these. I will first take on myself the topic of "political machinations" of the town council. It seems to me there were differences of opinion between JSB and the council, which Wolff sums up by saying he thought they were "penny pinching". Marlindale ( talk) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I made the change re "penny pinching". Regarding "prestigious position" of Thomaskantor, it seems that JSB's own prestige increased while in the position, for example the honorary Dresden court composer appointment? Marlindale ( talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone suggest maybe a secular cantata from the Leipzig period? There was one for renovation of he St. Thomas School itself, but that doesn't seem to me to be the best occasion to refer to. Marlindale ( talk) 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I also couldn't find a source for the questioned phrase, so I'm going to delete it. Marlindale ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I did delete that phrase, but it could be good to check the next-to-last difference in the article, where something else got lost, apparently a link to Spitta on the Web. Marlindale ( talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The article has a section, "Secular Cantatas" which it says were "usually for civic events such as council inaugurations." An example is BWV 212 "Mer Hahn en neue Oberkeet" (upper Saxon dialect) "We have a new governor" which celebrated an occasion when there was "homage from the peasants". There is overlap in language with what I recently deleted, but now I have doubts whether I should have. Marlindale ( talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, but since you seem knowledgeable on the subject at hand, may I suggest that you yourself revise the section on "secular cantatas"? Marlindale ( talk) 18:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The following was suggested by User:Jashiin on 10 December. I got around to following the hints. There is a Google Book, Johann Sebastian Bach, Life and Work by Martin Geck and John Hargraves. On p. 31, possibly beginning on p. 30, it says
"In his memoirs, Adolf Bernhard Marx, the music scholar from whom we have learned of the rediscovery, by Felix Mendelssohn, of Bach's St. Matthew Passion, recounts an anecdote according to which Mendelssohn's teacher, Carl Friedrich Zelter, `obtained the score of that immortal work from a cheese shop, where it was being used as wrapping paper.'"
In fact Mendelssohn obtained the score as a gift from his grandmother Bella Salomon. Note this anecdote is about the alleged finding, not the loss. Marlindale ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
On 11 and 12 January Martindale and Francis Schonken made numerous edits relating to the history of Bach's manuscripts after the composer's death. Martindale invited for further input on these edits. I think that would be a good idea. Reverting them all without proper talk page discussion with "the RfC isn't closed" as an excuse was imho not a very constructive action. So, here we are: please have a closer look at these edits and share with your fellow editors what you think about the content of these edits (avoiding to make this a mere procedural discussion: concentrate on content please – when the procedures are hampering the content discussion I'm happy to cut short the endless procedural back and forth). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Performers of Johann Sebastian Bach's music. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I did find "Sara" in Applegate, which I think is a good source, but some other sources have Sarah so I put Sara(h) in the Daniel Itzig article, sub-article Marlindale ( talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris made about 8 reversions of edits by Francis Schonken and me on 19 January. I plan to selectively un-revert some of the reversions, confined to the period 1750-1787 so that these will be independent of the current RfC topic, to have the first signpost year after 1750 as 1788 (RfC) or 1800 (otherwise, as it is now). Marlindale ( talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I did a draft of the restorations, although it could be improved in some details. I didn't find any events mentioned in the years 1788-1800, so the the signpost year 1800 could be changed to 1788 (year of CPEB's death), but neither does the text provide any natural reason for doing that. Years that are mentioned are when WFB and CPEB were in Berlin, not when they were alive. Marlindale ( talk) 05:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current chronology of the Bach Legacy section is arbitrarily organized by century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000, etc, rather than specific important dates directly relevant to the Bach Legacy section. Another RfC (see above on Talk page) has identified that the dates of 1788 (the death of Bach's son), and 1829 (the date of the Mendelssohn Bach revival) are of heightened importance to understanding the Bach Legacy as a whole. Bach's two composer sons (died 1784 and 1788, respectively) inherited many of Bach composition manuscripts and influenced their dispostion during their lives. Mendelssohn worked extensively to revive Bach's reputation between 1824-1829 with the revived performance of Bach's Matthew Passion in Germany in 1829. The dates in the Bach chronology should reflect this in a new and enhanced outline covering first, 1750-1788, followed by 1789-1829, followed by 1830-1899, leaving the rest of the section unchanged at this time. This RfC is to determine SUPPORT or OPPOSE for the enhanced specification of the important dates over and against the use of arbitrary century markers currently used in the Bach Legacy section. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There are, in a sense, two Bachs. One was born in 1685 in Eisenach, died in 1750, and lived as an organist and Kantor, part of the milieu of court, town, and church in eighteenth-century Germany. (...) The other Bach was born, slowly and painfully, during the first half of the nineteenth century; and he shows no sign of dying any time soon...
The previous RfC at Johann Sebastian Bach had 4-5 editors in support of changes with citations added to the proposed text, and two editors Opposed User:Martindale and User:Francis Schonken. User:Martindale and User:Francis were apparently displeased with the progress of that RfC and they have returned to edit warring and forum shopping on the page and trying to force their version of the edit into the article. This was despite the caution warning from User:Softl to User:Francis Schonken to follow RfC policy and wait for a result. In addition, two previous Full Page Protections from User:Ymblanter and User:MusikA, for User:Martindale and User:Francis to stop edit warring and to encourage them to either participate in the RfC and await its outcome have been ignored. The two editors have refused to do this and have continued to set aside the warning made to them, and to force their version of the edit into the article against RfC Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Martindale, having knowledge of the open RFC, then began forum shopping on the DRN page which does not allow DRN when an RFC is open, and unfortunately managed to hook-in one of the unsuspecting editors there into doing the "no close/no consensus" demi-close on the old RfC. This new RfC is open for review for your SUPPORT/OPPOSE opinions. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 18:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Two editors User:Matrindale and User:Francis Schocken have been edit warring and forum shopping concerning this RfC and its previous RfC for several weeks and the page has gone to Full Page Protection twice as a result of my reuests to make a Full Page Protection of the Bach page because of their edit warring and forum shopping. This section is for comments related to their edit conduct of edit warring and forum shopping, as well as any other comments they have. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
TRACING THE BUTCHER SHOP "BUXTEHUDE" ANECDOTE The anecdote, given above, says that after Bach's death, some unspecified relative sold some manuscripts to a butcher shop for use as wrapping paper. User:Fountains-of-Paris has named this story for "Buxtehude". But User:Buxtehude wrote on 8 December:
"Actually, I didn't add that butcher shop story and edited that section on 30 March with the edit summary "No primary/reliable source found for anecdote."
In fact in that edit User:Buxtehude deleted the butcher shop anecdote. So it seems quite misleading to have named the anecdote after him. Later after learning from User:Jashiin that a "cheese shop" anecdote existed, Fountains-of-Paris changed the butcher shop anecdote just by substituting "cheese shop" in place of "butcher shop" whereas the anecdotes, such as they are, are actually different, e.g. losing vs. finding ms. Under the heading "Refined version of Buxtehude edit with requested citations added", a version is given with no citation for the (butcher or cheese) shop anecdote. So the heading contradicts the body.
(a) at 00:51 User:DrCrazy102, supervising our discussion, advised that contrary to Fountain-of-Paris's accusations, what Francis Schonken and I had done was NOT WP:FORUMSHOPPING (emphasis in original)
(b) Later that day Fountains-of-Paris requested a 5-day full page protection for the JSB article, which would have prevented any of us from editing it for 5 days, but so far the request is pending, not granted. This was a method that Fountains-of-Paris had used in other recent disputes on the article, as in making a lot of reverts of our edits and then getting the protection;
(c) Fountains-of-Paris, for whatever reason, has made no WP edits between 25 January and now. So, we may be cautiously optimistic that we will be able to continue editing the article. Marlindale ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC has a complex statement, I suggest not so suitable for a "support" vs. "oppose" choice. I suggest:
(a) I hope we can agree not to include any "butcher shop" or "cheese shop" anecdote as these are not well documented. For example User:Buxtehude has pointed out that he deleted on March 30 the anecdote named (misleadingly) for him.
About signpost years, I hope we can all agree to include 1829 as an important year in the JSB legacy.
(c) The RfC proposes 1788, the year of CPE Bach's death, as a signpost year. Why not? CPEB was in Berlin from 1738 to 1768. His influence on his father's legacy stemmed from those years. From 1768 to 1788 he was in Hamburg pursuing his own highly successful composing career. In 1805 Abraham Mendelssohn, Felix's father, bought JSB manuscripts "brought down from" CPEB. Francis Schonken and I have given other reasons for keeping 1800 rather than 1788 as a signpost year. Marlindale ( talk) 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Francis Schonken: and anyone else who happens to notice this, 19 February: is the above proposed compromise resolution OK with you? If all goes well we could close the (new, current) RfC and get away from procedures and back to content. Marlindale ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
DRN Case (result: closed due to new RfC, refile if needed)
|
---|
|
You will see that User: Fountains-of-Paris has reverted multiple edits by User:Francis Schonken and myself, not vice versa. Even some talk page paragraphs by Francis were reverted by Fountains-of-Paris as Francis showed in DRN (Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Talk: Johann Sebastian Bach). So who is edit warring? Marlindale ( talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There are only three recent editors. User:Francis Schonken and I have been agreeing on most points. In the new RfC located in the DRN (but now not visible there since the DRN was closed) he gave substantial reasons against the new RfC, specifically for keeping 1800 as a signpost year. User:Fountains-of-Paris disagrees (usually giving procedural, not content reasons). Arguably the majority of 2/3 should be able to work its will, but Fountains-of-Paris claims individual power based on RfCs. The discussion may be sterile until and unless other editors join in. Marlindale ( talk) 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Marlindale here: Thank you, that's good to know. The new RFC has been revised by Fountains-of-Paris while it is in progress and actually the same happened with the previous RFC. Is that legal (assuming for present purposes thatḥ it did happen)? Marlindale ( talk) 04:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been a half dozen posts here since I asked for a return to the topic, and exactly zero of them have mentioned Bach. Just STFU about that procedural stuff already. Take it to the appropriate page. — Wahoofive ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Marlindale here: I was happy to see that there have been edits to the article itself today and hope we can continue with that,. Re my inquiry about whether something was 'legal' I regret it and apologize. Marlindale ( talk) 22:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon has closed the second RfC and suggested formal mediation. only on the signpost years. I suppose this means that the cheese and butcher shop anecdotes are no longer in play. I decided to consult 6 people (5 voters on the RfC, plus User:Buxtehude), For those who have supported 1788 (CPEB's death) as a signpost year, please consider the arguments against it by Francis Schonken and me. I suspect that 1829 may have few or no votes against it this time. If in your responses here there is a consensus, we're done. If not, would you agree to formal mediation? Marlindale ( talk) 01:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
In a concerto, as I understand, there is a "concertino", consisting of one or a small number of instruments, and a "ripieno" or " basso continuo" of the remaining instruments. In Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, BWV 1050, for example, the concertino is a flute, violin, and harpsichord, and the ripieno a violin, viola, cello, violone, and maybe harpsichord. It is said that this is the first example of a concerto with a solo keyboard part. The concerto BWV 1044 has the same concertino. . Vivaldi's L'Estro Armonico is a set of concertos for violin(s) (1, 2, or 4), cello, strings, and continuo. Bach's violin concertos (concertino is a solo violin) BWV 1041, BWV 1042, 2 violins BWV 1043, seem different from Vivaldi's and closer to later (classical) concertos in some way(s) I currently don't know how to formulate. Marlindale ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of these had been deleted for a second time. I am going to put them back, changing wording in some longer ones to make quite clear I am not edit warring. Fountains-of-Paris had accused me of edit warring, but three administrators all found in my favor. It begins to seem almost like Sisyphus, but I really want to protect the article against attacks. Marlindale ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, false alarm this time. I searched and found I was wrong, the passages I was concerned about actually look intact. I only found that in one case where I had unnecessarily given two references, only one was left, which was sufficient. Marlindale ( talk) 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote rather a lot in about 1800-1830 today. Very possibly I made small errors or maybe large ones. To some extent I tried to follow Softlavender's ideas about subheads: I put in a subdivision year 1830 which seemed suggested by the material,, but in 1800-1830 there is a content section on the 1829 Mendelssohn revival, containing the event in 1824 when his grandmother gave him a score of the Matthew Passion. Any thoughts? Marlindale ( talk) 05:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This term appears in the article ("The Lutheran chorale hymn tune was the basis of much of his work."), and I would like to know what it means. I would understand "Lutheran hymns", but the duplication of "chorale" and "hymn" seems strange, and even more the reduction to only the "tune". The hymns in both text and tune were the basis. Even when he composed chorale preludes, he reflected the text and the liturgical meaning. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Francis Schonken and I nearly always agree in essence, but if i make an edit and he says I've given too much detail, I often agree.
Fountains-of-Paris in recent edits to the main article claims that Francis and I disagree, but that was not helpful. It would have resulted in some case(s) in reversion back to an earlier edit by me, deleting useful material by Francis, or otherwise inappropriate, but I did not want that at all. Marlindale ( talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
On looking again at today's back-and forth edits between the two. in which I believe Francis is correct, I think that Fountsin-of-Paris's multiple reverts are a very serious matter. How long will this go on? As long as the latest version is by Francis I'm OK with it for now, but I'll have to look further later to see if some of my own edits may have been damaged. Marlindale ( talk) 19:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That is the spelling I would have used, I don't recall seeing, until today, Oratoria which I guess is a Latin plural of Oratorium? But this is best taken up with Francis as there may be several places where the plural occurs. Marlindale ( talk) 22:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The Christmas Oratorio is a set of six cantatas, yes? Marlindale ( talk) 22:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The article List of masses, passions and oratorios by Johann Sebastian Bach, I believe created and it is so far mainly edited by Francis Schonken, uses the plural we agree on, in the title and within it, so the one "Oratoria" may have been an isolated exception. Marlindale ( talk) 23:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This has been touched upon in a few sections above, but couldn't see where best to reply, so started a new section on this specific topic.
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
On point 2, Wolff p.362 lists about 15 Extraordinaire Concerten in honor of the Electoral-Royal family, such as on birthdays, name days, and coronations, by the Collegium Musicum. These concerts began in 1727, well before Bach was appointed as Court Composer. I don't think these concerts (of secular cantatas) were commissioned by the Court. Marlindale ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
In 1739 the Council used a petty excuse to disallow Bach to stage the St John Passion again. So, instead of writing what the Council "didn't do" after 1738 (true, they didn't write about the Ernesti conflict any more), I'd write what they did (interfere with Bach's art, which for 1739 is the salient point in the biography of this article's subject).
The important point being, still, that currently even the most basic description of the tensions between Bach and his superiors is missing from Wikipedia's Bach-biography. Ernesti isn't even mentioned once. I'd say this is a serious defect of this biographical article. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I came - after unwatching the article for a while - to check how BWV 4 is mentioned, fixed minor formatting things.
Back to writing, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, next, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC))
1. Mention BWV 4 in the biography - where and how?
2. Delete a sentence on recitative - done.
3. Divi Blasii - to me, St. Blasius's Church seems fine in English. "divi" is not in my limited Latin vocabulary. Medieval Latin? Of course we can keep the redirect.
4. About some "better known" cantatas - I gave footnotes to show they are.
5. Some cantatas mentioned in Church cantata (Bach); that article needs clarification.
6. I don't know yet about Elector (Dresden), King of Poland.
7. Second annual cycle incomplete, did not consist only of chorale cantatas. We've tried to fix this, have we succeeded? See question 5, Marlindale ( talk) 18:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
8. BWV 71 was the first cantata whose score was published, yes? But "only cantata print extant" seems unclear. It seems to me paradoxical that a cantata first published much later, perhaps in a Bach-Ausgabe, would nevertheless have no copies preserved.
9. Plural "oratorios" - done.
10 about Dresden, Poland, Mass? Readers wouldn't understand this until it was written into the article, which hasn't been done yet and might not be. Marlindale ( talk) 01:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
3. In English, for a church named for a saint, for example St. Anthony, the usual name is St. Anthony's Church. There are about 15 churches with that name. There is a WP article St. Paul's Church, Frankfurt am Main (not redirected) in which the German name is given as Paulskirche. With the name at issue there is a St. Blasius Church, Shanklin on the Isle of Wight. Maybe what seems clumsy is Blasius's. So I am going to delete the 's. Marlindale ( talk) 21:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
First, congratulations on your featured article today. But:
a. What does Thomaskantor have to do with this question?
Later: I see it doesn't. I was aware that Bach had different responsibilities among four churches and had helped make revisions about that sometime in the past few years. Marlindale ( talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
b. "Easter egg": in American English that's a hard-boiled painted egg, hidden for children to find. You seem to use it a different way, twice so far, to mean a disappointing find?
c. If St. Blasius is not a common name it's because he is not a very well-known saint. I mentioned the usage in English for churches named after saints. Marlindale ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
5. This question, on clarifying the article Church cantata (Bach), I think you took care of very well in your revision today. Many thanks, Gerda. Marlindale ( talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
8. The original question was "[Do we] want to mention that BWV was the first printed work" etc. which needed to be clarified but now has been. In the article it now says that BWV 71 is an "elaborate, festive cantata", whereas the publication year placement seems like rather dry details, once they are elaborated. Are they already there in the article on BWV 71? If yes, maybe that's good enough. Marlindale ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)