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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Do these articles from the 1911 encyclopaedia ever actually inspire anybody to clean them up and improve them? This one is so difficult to read and so pompous in tone it puts me right off doing anything to it (short of deleting the whole thing). I can't see how anybody will benefit from it to be honest - people who don't know Bach already will surely be put off him by this, and those who do know Bach and want to know more will give up after a couple of paras and search elsewhere. I know that something is better than nothing, but I think even quite a stubby NPOV piece in good modern English would be better than this. I almost think that just the non-1911 material on its own would be better. But I'm very reluctant to delete it because it is so long. Any views? -- Camembert
[eight months later] - I've removed it. I don't think it was doing us any favours being there. If somebody disagrees with the removal, they can put it back, but they should note that the page was 32KB big, which is right on the cusp of what is editable for some browsers, so it would probably have to be broken off into its own page anyway, and then the value of it deceases even more. I'd like to replace it with an external link, but the text at 1911encylopedia.org is messed up, and I can't find it anywhere else. So it's gone. I'll try to work on the article over the next few weeks to pad it out a bit. -- Camembert
This article used to mention that Bach is one of the all-time greats in the first sentence. The current entry only hints at Bach's pre-eminence. To people who know Bach it is unnecessary to say more than "Ah, Bach" but those new to him may not realise his importance based on this article.
I remember that the theme that Frederick II played for JSB was judgged not to be very simple, au contraire. Errasing "simple"? Hhc2 16:41 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have a question about this Spitta bio. Does it pre-date Forkel (1808)? Noel 22:59, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This article as well as many others related to Bach, the BACH motif and fugues, all assert that the last fugue of the Kunst der Fuge remained unfinished, as Bach died before he could complete it. Though it's nearly established canon by now, Christopher Wolff and several other noted Bach researches contend that it's simply false: the KdF *was* finished, it just wasn't handed over to posterity correctly by keepers of the Bach estate -- the final editions were not incorporated. (See, notably, the book Johann Sebastian Bach by Christopher Wolff.)
This, together with the "Bach dictated the choral 'Vor deinem Thron tret' ich hiermit' at his death bed" canard (not present in the article, thankfully), is perhaps the most commonly cited Bach myth. I don't have direct access to original material about it, though, which is why I'm reluctant to alter the article too much. For now, I've eliminated the remark, as it adds too little to the main article to be sorely missed. Could somebody sort it out once and for all and present the different views (probably in The Art of Fugue)? We'll get around to updating the linking articles in the aftermath.
I note the comment that CPE Bach 'earned the respect of Mozart'. This seems to rather understate his significance given the prime influence his work had on all the 'Classical' period composers and through them on the early development of 19th cent romanticism (esp. with relation to piano works). Does anyone object to a small emendation to include at least reference to Haydn and Beethoven? -- Alistairnoble 01:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. In fact when 18th-century music critics talked about the great Bach they meant CPE Bach, not JS.
I agree as well. I think it is safe to consider CPE Bach as one of the founders of the Classical period style. The main reason however why CPE Bach was better known than his father was that his father's music was still in the process of discovery in this period and it was too complex and underappreciated except to the ears of other composers (perhaps the definitive description of Bach would be that he was the "composers' composer". I read that Haydn spent a good deal of time searching for a copy of the full mass in B minor). Suffice to say the name JS Bach didn't become a household name until a series of composers brought his work to the eyes of the public (particularly Mendelssohn) more than 50 years after his death.
Is March 21, 1685 correct? One contributor has been changing it to March 31. Is there any uncertainty? Verifiable references only, please. JRM 12:20, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
If it is all in Gregorian than it must be the 31st.
Who gives it won't kill you to be 10 days off of each other
A couple of questions:
I took this addition by an anon out of the article: "However, opinions differ on this, with some scholars believing that the Mass in B Minor was, in fact, his final work." The B minor mass was assembled between 1747 and 1749 from pieces which were composed previously. Even though the process of assembly was a late one, it is misleading at best to state that "some scholars believe it to be his final work" since it was entirely composed long before. The Crucifixus, for example, comes from 1714; the Kyrie and Gloria were originally composed and dedicated to the Elector of Saxony in 1733; the Sanctus was first performed on Christmas Day in 1724; etc. At the very least I'd like to see a source on who these "some scholars" are. Thanks, Antandrus 15:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't we place the remark that there is only one painting of which it is sure that it is Bach? The first one showed. Of all the other paintings it isn't sure wether or not it's Bach! Lucas
At some point Bach referred to the St.Mathew Passion as his best work. Does anyone have a reference that supports this?
I'd venture to guess this article is going to fail Featured Article due to lack of information on Bach's music. It might be wise to start planning an outline on works, something like this:
If this gets too long we can spin it off into a separate article, but let's wait and see. The content of each of these sections must be not just a list, rather a description of what he composed, how typical or atypical it was for Baroque compositions, and how often they're performed today. The secular cantatas, for example, are rarely done (except the Coffee Cantata, perhaps), and same for the solo cantatas and many of the solo sonatas.
Wonder if it's realistic to have a section on "Compositional style" as well? — Wahoofive | Talk 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This section is maybe not as important as the rest of the article, but.. why is Andras_Schiff listed? It links to a small article which states that Schiff's "one of the best known living interpreters of J.S. Bach", which is POV I reckon - moreover, I don't think I've ever met any musician or performer who would consider Schiff's interpretations as something outstanding. I'd rather see Rosalyn_Tureck listed here (not only because she "specialized" in Bach, but also because players like Gould admitted her influence), or Wanda_Landowska. Is there really something special in Schiff's playing?
Also, the article Sir_Colin_Davis from the "See also" list has no mention of Bach. I know nothing about Sir Colin Davis, so either he shouldn't be mentioned in the "See also" list, or the article on him lacks something important that would be connected with Bach somehow.
I'd make changes (Tureck, Landowska..) myself, but I really am no expert, so I figured I'd ask first :) Jashiin 11:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, since there were no objections, I did the edit. Added Helmut Walcha as well, since his recordings of Bach's complete organ works seem to be considered classic. I think a small list of noted performers of Bach's pieces wouldn't hurt; if it grows too big then we'll just move it to a separate article. Also, I removed the link to the Gödel, Escher, Bach book (its mentioned just above the "see also" header), and added List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach - it was mentioned in the middle of the article, kind of hard to find for such a useful link I think? Jashiin 16:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I've already asked about this in Talk:Bach family, but since there was no response there, I figured maybe I would ask here as well. Would a template listing famed composers of the Bach family look good on Bach-related pages? I could start working on one, but, seeing how for instance Johann Sebastian Bach is already so big, I'm not sure if its a good idea. Jashiin 09:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The creators of opensource edited this article. Listen to it at http://www.radioopensource.org/wp-content/os_pilot_3.mp3. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
In the subsection "Other keyboard works", it says:
Which is it? Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
Friday, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Is there anyone who says otherwise about Bach? I doubt it, so there's no research representing the other POV to report. So it's not just my opinion, but the statement of all research on Bach. Cognition 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Please tell me you're kidding. And while I'm asking for favors, please stop edit warring also. It is appropriate to say someone like Bach is "regarded" as a great composer. I hesitate to point this out in fear that you'll run off and start more edit wars, but you'll find that other articles about famous composers use neutral language quite similiar to what you've been removing here. Friday 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
While many consider Bach great I suspect a far greater number (sadly) think he and all classical music is a load of rubbish, SqueakBox 16:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm copying the following discussion from my talk page. Paul August ☎ 14:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
(start of copied text)
Hello. Don't get me wrong, I find Johann Sebastian Bach to be among the most significant, intellectually stimulating and influential too. But what does "great" mean, exactly, in that first sentence? If it means what I've just said in my previous sentence, then the article already says that - it's the next sentence! If it has other meanings, let's add them. Also, I really do think "of all time" is redundant. Please would you look at a discussion over at the composers project? Best. -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there should be some indication of Bach's significance stronger than that second sentence, as it is encyclopedic. I'm still not happy with the word "greatest", because it's vague - and as you say it's an abbreviation, I'd really much rather include a modification of your expansion of the abbreviation above (I may try one day when I've more time). I don't accept that "everyone knows what it means" - "greatest" means different things to different people, and there's too much of the peacock and the "top ten" about it. And Britannica doing something is by itself no reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. For now I modified the page according to this bit of NPOV policy. Hope it's acceptable. -- RobertG ♬ talk 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
(End of copied text)
Anyone object if I move the information on his post in Arnstadt from 'Formative years' to the next section ('Professional life')?
This article needs a LOT of intensive editing; in my view, it should be put up again for feature article status by the end of the year.
Tony 03:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I've added a subtitle and brief notes for this section, in response to a comment in relation to the failed attempt to promote this to a featured article. I will attempt to write this section soon.
Tony 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been editing the first couple of sections for a while, but on and off. I'm a way for 10 days (until 22 August) and will try to put more time into it then. I'm afraid I think that the text in the style section needs to be rewritten—I created the section a couple of weeks ago, but didn't write more than suggestions for points to be covered. POV needs to be removed, and I'd like it to be more technically descriptive, without putting off non-specialists, of course.
I think that we need to ration the information that goes into the account of his life—it's only a summary, and daughter articles are required for areas that people feel need a greater level of detail. There may be a good case for articles on the canatas, the keyboard works, and other major genres. Have you read Wolff's wonderful biography?
Tony 02:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether anyone agrees that the anecdote concerning Sebastian's copying music at this elder brother's place should be either removed or relocated? Currently, it appears to be a distraction from the account of his development, and, in any case, is conjectural.
What about removing it for the moment, and relocating it, and similar anecdotes, in a separate, linked article 'The life of JS Bach: anecdotes', if people are keen to include it?
It appears to me that we need to save text wherever possible, so that currently weak sections, on matters such as musical style, can be beefed up to address the complaints that quashed the attempt to promote the article.
Any comments?
By the way, is JFC Bach worth listing at the top as an important son? I'd have though he could be removed.
Tony 05:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree with Wahoofive, that we should work on the text as a whole (at least for a while) before deciding to create daughter articles. Jashin, I take your point about the anecdotes, but the 'copying by moonlight' one just didn't fit where it was. I wonder whether we might consider inserting anecdotes at a later stage, when everyone's reasonably happy with a bird's eye account of his life and works. There are many anecdotes, some of which may have come down us in embellished form, so perhaps we need to be circumspect in our choice.
How many people are involved in improving this very important article? For a while, I got the impression that no one cares about it.
Tony 04:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It's very messy at the moment; I know that there was calendar slippage in the early 1700s, but surely the footnote is good enough. I'm going to remove the links to Julian and Gregorian calendars, and relocate them in the footnote. Tony 14:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
May I put in a request that we minimise the number of footnotes. An 'Ibid' has crept in as footnote 3, against Germany. I'm unsure how that will help the reader, and might even put some people off. Footnote symbols may have a place, but they don't make the text any easier to read. Tony 14:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The image captioned 'Morning prayers ...' is surely not authentic. It doesn't appear to depict the Bach family, and no one is praying. Tony 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll remove both. Tony 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
An anon addition prompted me to look over the External Links section - it needed trimming! I was bold, and removed several external links not primarily about Bach. Apart from obviously promotional links, I also removed: the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig (the site is about the Bach Archiv organisation, not about Bach); pianoparadise.com (the small biography doesn't add anything, and the rest of the site is mostly links to Amazon); the Geocities (/imyfujita) link (on grounds of quality, "Richter and Gould created Bach's music through the piano" and garbled, confused account of "pure temperament" (sic) and equal temperament); the Mutopia link (commented out because it's broken, I will try it again in a few days, but I can't find Bach anywhere on the Mutopia home page); the ELCA link (it was phrased as a commercial promotion for a video, and the link took me to the home page of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).
I also replaced some double entries with a single entry for the site's home page. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice work, Robert, thanks. Tony 22:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The trouble with the term "piper" is that in American English anyway it conjures up the famous childhood "Pied Piper of Hamlin" story, and images of that silly guy tripping along playing on his flute. Bagpipes, too, come into it. But not the manifold / multifold civic responsibilities which J.A. Bach performed, all of which combined to influence his son J.S. so greatly. I see online one site which describes JA as having been "Hausmann", which the site translates as "director of music for the town".
C. Wolff also goes on at length in his opus to show how broad-ranging and sophisticated JA's position was: part of Wolff's "learned musician" thesis but perhaps accurate whether or not one accepts that. JA's household, in any event, was well-equipped with music, various instruments, talent, tradition: far more than "piper" might suggest -- "beer fiddler", for instance, was a pejorative term in Bach's time, and "piper" sounds similar.
So I suggest the following change be made: "Johann Ambrosius Bach, was the town musician in Eisenach..."
-- Kessler 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Tony 05:35, 31 August 2005 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Do these articles from the 1911 encyclopaedia ever actually inspire anybody to clean them up and improve them? This one is so difficult to read and so pompous in tone it puts me right off doing anything to it (short of deleting the whole thing). I can't see how anybody will benefit from it to be honest - people who don't know Bach already will surely be put off him by this, and those who do know Bach and want to know more will give up after a couple of paras and search elsewhere. I know that something is better than nothing, but I think even quite a stubby NPOV piece in good modern English would be better than this. I almost think that just the non-1911 material on its own would be better. But I'm very reluctant to delete it because it is so long. Any views? -- Camembert
[eight months later] - I've removed it. I don't think it was doing us any favours being there. If somebody disagrees with the removal, they can put it back, but they should note that the page was 32KB big, which is right on the cusp of what is editable for some browsers, so it would probably have to be broken off into its own page anyway, and then the value of it deceases even more. I'd like to replace it with an external link, but the text at 1911encylopedia.org is messed up, and I can't find it anywhere else. So it's gone. I'll try to work on the article over the next few weeks to pad it out a bit. -- Camembert
This article used to mention that Bach is one of the all-time greats in the first sentence. The current entry only hints at Bach's pre-eminence. To people who know Bach it is unnecessary to say more than "Ah, Bach" but those new to him may not realise his importance based on this article.
I remember that the theme that Frederick II played for JSB was judgged not to be very simple, au contraire. Errasing "simple"? Hhc2 16:41 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have a question about this Spitta bio. Does it pre-date Forkel (1808)? Noel 22:59, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This article as well as many others related to Bach, the BACH motif and fugues, all assert that the last fugue of the Kunst der Fuge remained unfinished, as Bach died before he could complete it. Though it's nearly established canon by now, Christopher Wolff and several other noted Bach researches contend that it's simply false: the KdF *was* finished, it just wasn't handed over to posterity correctly by keepers of the Bach estate -- the final editions were not incorporated. (See, notably, the book Johann Sebastian Bach by Christopher Wolff.)
This, together with the "Bach dictated the choral 'Vor deinem Thron tret' ich hiermit' at his death bed" canard (not present in the article, thankfully), is perhaps the most commonly cited Bach myth. I don't have direct access to original material about it, though, which is why I'm reluctant to alter the article too much. For now, I've eliminated the remark, as it adds too little to the main article to be sorely missed. Could somebody sort it out once and for all and present the different views (probably in The Art of Fugue)? We'll get around to updating the linking articles in the aftermath.
I note the comment that CPE Bach 'earned the respect of Mozart'. This seems to rather understate his significance given the prime influence his work had on all the 'Classical' period composers and through them on the early development of 19th cent romanticism (esp. with relation to piano works). Does anyone object to a small emendation to include at least reference to Haydn and Beethoven? -- Alistairnoble 01:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. In fact when 18th-century music critics talked about the great Bach they meant CPE Bach, not JS.
I agree as well. I think it is safe to consider CPE Bach as one of the founders of the Classical period style. The main reason however why CPE Bach was better known than his father was that his father's music was still in the process of discovery in this period and it was too complex and underappreciated except to the ears of other composers (perhaps the definitive description of Bach would be that he was the "composers' composer". I read that Haydn spent a good deal of time searching for a copy of the full mass in B minor). Suffice to say the name JS Bach didn't become a household name until a series of composers brought his work to the eyes of the public (particularly Mendelssohn) more than 50 years after his death.
Is March 21, 1685 correct? One contributor has been changing it to March 31. Is there any uncertainty? Verifiable references only, please. JRM 12:20, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
If it is all in Gregorian than it must be the 31st.
Who gives it won't kill you to be 10 days off of each other
A couple of questions:
I took this addition by an anon out of the article: "However, opinions differ on this, with some scholars believing that the Mass in B Minor was, in fact, his final work." The B minor mass was assembled between 1747 and 1749 from pieces which were composed previously. Even though the process of assembly was a late one, it is misleading at best to state that "some scholars believe it to be his final work" since it was entirely composed long before. The Crucifixus, for example, comes from 1714; the Kyrie and Gloria were originally composed and dedicated to the Elector of Saxony in 1733; the Sanctus was first performed on Christmas Day in 1724; etc. At the very least I'd like to see a source on who these "some scholars" are. Thanks, Antandrus 15:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't we place the remark that there is only one painting of which it is sure that it is Bach? The first one showed. Of all the other paintings it isn't sure wether or not it's Bach! Lucas
At some point Bach referred to the St.Mathew Passion as his best work. Does anyone have a reference that supports this?
I'd venture to guess this article is going to fail Featured Article due to lack of information on Bach's music. It might be wise to start planning an outline on works, something like this:
If this gets too long we can spin it off into a separate article, but let's wait and see. The content of each of these sections must be not just a list, rather a description of what he composed, how typical or atypical it was for Baroque compositions, and how often they're performed today. The secular cantatas, for example, are rarely done (except the Coffee Cantata, perhaps), and same for the solo cantatas and many of the solo sonatas.
Wonder if it's realistic to have a section on "Compositional style" as well? — Wahoofive | Talk 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This section is maybe not as important as the rest of the article, but.. why is Andras_Schiff listed? It links to a small article which states that Schiff's "one of the best known living interpreters of J.S. Bach", which is POV I reckon - moreover, I don't think I've ever met any musician or performer who would consider Schiff's interpretations as something outstanding. I'd rather see Rosalyn_Tureck listed here (not only because she "specialized" in Bach, but also because players like Gould admitted her influence), or Wanda_Landowska. Is there really something special in Schiff's playing?
Also, the article Sir_Colin_Davis from the "See also" list has no mention of Bach. I know nothing about Sir Colin Davis, so either he shouldn't be mentioned in the "See also" list, or the article on him lacks something important that would be connected with Bach somehow.
I'd make changes (Tureck, Landowska..) myself, but I really am no expert, so I figured I'd ask first :) Jashiin 11:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, since there were no objections, I did the edit. Added Helmut Walcha as well, since his recordings of Bach's complete organ works seem to be considered classic. I think a small list of noted performers of Bach's pieces wouldn't hurt; if it grows too big then we'll just move it to a separate article. Also, I removed the link to the Gödel, Escher, Bach book (its mentioned just above the "see also" header), and added List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach - it was mentioned in the middle of the article, kind of hard to find for such a useful link I think? Jashiin 16:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I've already asked about this in Talk:Bach family, but since there was no response there, I figured maybe I would ask here as well. Would a template listing famed composers of the Bach family look good on Bach-related pages? I could start working on one, but, seeing how for instance Johann Sebastian Bach is already so big, I'm not sure if its a good idea. Jashiin 09:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The creators of opensource edited this article. Listen to it at http://www.radioopensource.org/wp-content/os_pilot_3.mp3. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
In the subsection "Other keyboard works", it says:
Which is it? Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
Friday, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Is there anyone who says otherwise about Bach? I doubt it, so there's no research representing the other POV to report. So it's not just my opinion, but the statement of all research on Bach. Cognition 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Please tell me you're kidding. And while I'm asking for favors, please stop edit warring also. It is appropriate to say someone like Bach is "regarded" as a great composer. I hesitate to point this out in fear that you'll run off and start more edit wars, but you'll find that other articles about famous composers use neutral language quite similiar to what you've been removing here. Friday 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
While many consider Bach great I suspect a far greater number (sadly) think he and all classical music is a load of rubbish, SqueakBox 16:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm copying the following discussion from my talk page. Paul August ☎ 14:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
(start of copied text)
Hello. Don't get me wrong, I find Johann Sebastian Bach to be among the most significant, intellectually stimulating and influential too. But what does "great" mean, exactly, in that first sentence? If it means what I've just said in my previous sentence, then the article already says that - it's the next sentence! If it has other meanings, let's add them. Also, I really do think "of all time" is redundant. Please would you look at a discussion over at the composers project? Best. -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there should be some indication of Bach's significance stronger than that second sentence, as it is encyclopedic. I'm still not happy with the word "greatest", because it's vague - and as you say it's an abbreviation, I'd really much rather include a modification of your expansion of the abbreviation above (I may try one day when I've more time). I don't accept that "everyone knows what it means" - "greatest" means different things to different people, and there's too much of the peacock and the "top ten" about it. And Britannica doing something is by itself no reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. For now I modified the page according to this bit of NPOV policy. Hope it's acceptable. -- RobertG ♬ talk 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
(End of copied text)
Anyone object if I move the information on his post in Arnstadt from 'Formative years' to the next section ('Professional life')?
This article needs a LOT of intensive editing; in my view, it should be put up again for feature article status by the end of the year.
Tony 03:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I've added a subtitle and brief notes for this section, in response to a comment in relation to the failed attempt to promote this to a featured article. I will attempt to write this section soon.
Tony 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been editing the first couple of sections for a while, but on and off. I'm a way for 10 days (until 22 August) and will try to put more time into it then. I'm afraid I think that the text in the style section needs to be rewritten—I created the section a couple of weeks ago, but didn't write more than suggestions for points to be covered. POV needs to be removed, and I'd like it to be more technically descriptive, without putting off non-specialists, of course.
I think that we need to ration the information that goes into the account of his life—it's only a summary, and daughter articles are required for areas that people feel need a greater level of detail. There may be a good case for articles on the canatas, the keyboard works, and other major genres. Have you read Wolff's wonderful biography?
Tony 02:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether anyone agrees that the anecdote concerning Sebastian's copying music at this elder brother's place should be either removed or relocated? Currently, it appears to be a distraction from the account of his development, and, in any case, is conjectural.
What about removing it for the moment, and relocating it, and similar anecdotes, in a separate, linked article 'The life of JS Bach: anecdotes', if people are keen to include it?
It appears to me that we need to save text wherever possible, so that currently weak sections, on matters such as musical style, can be beefed up to address the complaints that quashed the attempt to promote the article.
Any comments?
By the way, is JFC Bach worth listing at the top as an important son? I'd have though he could be removed.
Tony 05:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree with Wahoofive, that we should work on the text as a whole (at least for a while) before deciding to create daughter articles. Jashin, I take your point about the anecdotes, but the 'copying by moonlight' one just didn't fit where it was. I wonder whether we might consider inserting anecdotes at a later stage, when everyone's reasonably happy with a bird's eye account of his life and works. There are many anecdotes, some of which may have come down us in embellished form, so perhaps we need to be circumspect in our choice.
How many people are involved in improving this very important article? For a while, I got the impression that no one cares about it.
Tony 04:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It's very messy at the moment; I know that there was calendar slippage in the early 1700s, but surely the footnote is good enough. I'm going to remove the links to Julian and Gregorian calendars, and relocate them in the footnote. Tony 14:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
May I put in a request that we minimise the number of footnotes. An 'Ibid' has crept in as footnote 3, against Germany. I'm unsure how that will help the reader, and might even put some people off. Footnote symbols may have a place, but they don't make the text any easier to read. Tony 14:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The image captioned 'Morning prayers ...' is surely not authentic. It doesn't appear to depict the Bach family, and no one is praying. Tony 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll remove both. Tony 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
An anon addition prompted me to look over the External Links section - it needed trimming! I was bold, and removed several external links not primarily about Bach. Apart from obviously promotional links, I also removed: the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig (the site is about the Bach Archiv organisation, not about Bach); pianoparadise.com (the small biography doesn't add anything, and the rest of the site is mostly links to Amazon); the Geocities (/imyfujita) link (on grounds of quality, "Richter and Gould created Bach's music through the piano" and garbled, confused account of "pure temperament" (sic) and equal temperament); the Mutopia link (commented out because it's broken, I will try it again in a few days, but I can't find Bach anywhere on the Mutopia home page); the ELCA link (it was phrased as a commercial promotion for a video, and the link took me to the home page of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).
I also replaced some double entries with a single entry for the site's home page. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice work, Robert, thanks. Tony 22:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The trouble with the term "piper" is that in American English anyway it conjures up the famous childhood "Pied Piper of Hamlin" story, and images of that silly guy tripping along playing on his flute. Bagpipes, too, come into it. But not the manifold / multifold civic responsibilities which J.A. Bach performed, all of which combined to influence his son J.S. so greatly. I see online one site which describes JA as having been "Hausmann", which the site translates as "director of music for the town".
C. Wolff also goes on at length in his opus to show how broad-ranging and sophisticated JA's position was: part of Wolff's "learned musician" thesis but perhaps accurate whether or not one accepts that. JA's household, in any event, was well-equipped with music, various instruments, talent, tradition: far more than "piper" might suggest -- "beer fiddler", for instance, was a pejorative term in Bach's time, and "piper" sounds similar.
So I suggest the following change be made: "Johann Ambrosius Bach, was the town musician in Eisenach..."
-- Kessler 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Tony 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)