Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why does this article say Bach's birthday was March 31, when many other sources say it was March 21?
Due to the change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, both dates are valid: March 21 in Old Style dates, March 31 in New Style. Wikipedia uses New Style dates, but also includes the Old Style in small print – hence the "(OS 21 March)" notation. See Old Style and New Style dates for more details.
Former good article Johann Sebastian Bach was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.[edit]

A previous RfC had 3 supporting editors for changing the current arbitrary century marker dates to important benchmark dates in the Bach Legacy time-line, with 2 editors opposed which resulted in deadlock. 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 1829 (the date of the Mendelssohn Bach revival) as being of heightened importance to understanding the Bach Legacy as a whole. 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, 1750-1829, followed by 1830-1899, etc, leaving the rest of the section unchanged at this time. This RfC is to determine SUPPORT or OPPOSE for the enhanced specification of the benchmark dates over and against the use of arbitrary century markers currently used in the Bach Legacy section. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bach Legacy: 1750-1829[edit]

Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach, including over 100 cantatas and his St Mark Passion, of which no copies are known to survive. At one point, the diary of one family member records the selling of the high quality parchment used for the hand-written transcriptions to be used for their stock value as packing paper at a local cheese shop due to harsh financial necessity. The legacy of Bach's Matthew Passion, although surviving, also followed a complex historical path following Bach's death following its nearly complete loss. In 1829, with the backing of Zelter and the assistance of actor Eduard Devrient, Mendelssohn arranged and conducted a performance in Berlin of Bach's St Matthew Passion. Four years previously his grandmother, Bella Salomon, had given him a copy of the manuscript of this (by then all-but-forgotten) masterpiece.[1] The orchestra and choir for the performance were provided by the Berlin Singakademie. The success of this performance was an important element in the revival of J. S. Bach's music in Germany and, eventually, throughout Europe.[2] It earned Mendelssohn widespread acclaim at the age of 20. It also led to one of the few references which Mendelssohn made to his origins: "To think that it took an actor and a Jew's son to revive the greatest Christian music for the world!"[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Grove Music Online, Mendelssohn, Felix, §2
  2. ^ Mercer-Taylor 2000, pp. 73–75.
  3. ^ Todd 2003, pp. 193–198.
  4. ^ Devrient 1869.
(Note: I changed Fountains-of-Paris's boldface formatting to quotebox and reflist formatting, for ease of reading and understanding. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Support/Oppose section and background summary[edit]

Another 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. This new RfC is open for review for your SUPPORT/OPPOSE opinions. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. As starting this RfC. The benchmark dates for the Bach Legacy are well-known and there is no reason to apply arbitrary century marker dates which are uninformative. The edit presented above is essentially the User:Buxtehude version of this Legacy material with citations added for the relevant Mendelsohn revival of Bach. The benchmark dates should be used. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Insufficient need or rationale. Century sections make much more sense and are easier to organize, especially with such a large amount of details for each century. For the reader, using 1750 and 1829 as cut-offs are overly confusing and unnecessary. There is no pressing need to over-pigeonhole date ranges. If we want to emphasize his death date, re-iterate his death date in that sentence. If we want to emphasize the importance of Mendelssohn's SMP performance, make that appropriately more emphatic in the text and give more details, or add a sub-subheading there. These are all issues that are better handled by good writing than by changing date ranges. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing copypaste !vote-stacking. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The editors from the previous related RfC where not in agreement with your position and they stated the following comments which I am quoting here directly below. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sectioning the reception by more meaningful dates. Also support keeping more detail and dropping less details whenever possible. Also support un-Disney-fying the article whenever possible. Please don't overly systematize the section according to periods, i.e. please don't make things fit if they don't or portray a simplistic story because it makes a simple narrative, but it's better than century-divisions. However, instead of a purely chronological organization, please consider thematic breakdown instead. So a section on the Mendelssohn Bach revival, in itself, rather than the year of the timeline division being set like that. Ultimately, all simplified versions are just that -- simplified. Thanks for you hard work, editors, and i hope you can get along. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support using more meaningful dates, and keeping more detailed text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC))
Reformatted as quotations for clarification. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris, I'm collapsing this inappropriate copypasting of !votes. If you continue to disrupt this talk page with copypasting !votes or creating repetitive RfCs, or disrupt the article by editwarring, your disruptive behaviors will be reported to an administrators noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agreeing with User:Softlavender on the signpost years. Although the paragraph on the Legacy is not part of the RfC for this vote, I want to vote against giving any support to the cheese shop anecdote. As I've pointed out before, the anecdote that Fountains-of-Paris named for User:Buxtehude is one that Buxtehude deleted on March 30. I'm also unhappy with Fountains-of-Paris for repeatedly starting RfCs, which obstruct editing the content. Marlindale (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the over-use of RfC bit. I think if he starts any more after this one, a case for administrative review or sanction is in order. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The actual comment from User:Buxtehude appeared to be in agreement with User:Jashiin on his preference that the edit be supported with further citations added. This is his statement from the first RfC reposted directly below this one. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "I would prefer to rely on the leading Bach scholars like Wolff and Geck as sources (see the helpful Geck reference that ‎Jashiin provided)." Buxtehude (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC) (facsimile posted by Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC))
Fountains-of-Paris, please read what Marlindale is actually saying. He's talking about this edit made by Buxtehude on March 30, deleting the butchershop anecdote. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I closed a previous RFC almost to this effect. I was required to be uninvolved to make that close. I will however now !vote against making this change that has no community consensus. Neither other editors nor I see the point to this RFC. I will repeat that I would suggest formal mediation, which, in my view, is preferred over administrative review for tedious refilings. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This participation by that same previous editor who closed the previous RfCs appears to be in Conflict of interest. If that editor was previously predisposed to Oppose the content of the previous RfCs then there appears a need to re-open the previous RfC contents as still applicable here, otherwise this last Oppose should be deleted as being a Conflict of interest. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Good grief, he wasn't "previously predisposed to Oppose the content of the previous RfCs"; he has closed previous RfCs here properly and neutrally [1], [2], carefully assessing WP:CONSENSUS. Here he is !voting from his own perspective, which is not a conflict-of-interest, since he will not be closing this RfC. You've already made these unfounded accusations against Robert McClenon at least once [3]; if you do it again you will be reported to an administrator's noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Publicize this RFC at various WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This RfC has already been posted for attention under 3-4 category headings. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me inappropriate to drag into the current RfC comments from the previous one. In fact the creator of the latest RfC, Fountains-of-Paris, is the only one to have voted in support of it. In the meantime, Fountains-of-Paris had accused me (formally) of edit warring, but this accusation was denied by Users Oshwah, Softlavender and Katie if I recall correctly. On another point, I don't favor formal mediation under the circumstances here. Marlindale (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't personally think formal mediation is necessary either, as consensus is clear and has been for some time, and RfC is a form of WP:DR that supersedes mediation or the need for it. I do think that Fountains-of-Paris's repetitive disruptive behaviors stand to be reviewed, however, if they continue. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment and possible close. This morning I have reconsidered all the comments made in the above discussion and it seems that by endorsing one of the previous edits made by another editor on the Bach page that this RfC close be brought to a possible close. Someone else took out my edit in morning in which I was endorsing one of the edits made by another editor. If someone else can restore the edit in which I was endorsing one of the edits made by another editor then I could offer to self-close this RfC as possibly acceptable to all involved. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris, you cannot close your own RfC. The fact that you would even propose that shows that you are out of touch. You may withdraw your own RfC if it is SNOW opposed, but you may not close your own RfC. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The closing of the RfC may have special problems in this case? I would like to see it closed, although the main thing I would like is for Fountains-of-Paris to stop editing this article and Talk page. Marlindale (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That was your edit being restored by me in the Mendelssohn material. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Not my edit, it was more complicated than that. Marlindale (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This is your signature and your time stamp. Your own edit identified with your signature on the Bach article appeared on this time stamp and was deleted by User:Francis: "01:53, 1 March 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (130,741 bytes) (+1,386)‎ . . (→‎19th century: preliminary efforts toward the 1829 revival)." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I would Support the general notion that broad date ranges don't need to correspond to century intervals (1700, 1800, 1900, etc) and should rather be informed by specific events and periods described by scholars as significant. Even middle school readers who read this page for class projects are smart enough to handle that. I don't have any commentary about which specific dates are best. -Darouet (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sectioning the reception by more meaningful dates. Also support keeping more detail and dropping less details whenever possible. Also support un-Disney-fying the article whenever possible. Please don't overly systematize the section according to periods, i.e. please don't make things fit if they don't or portray a simplistic story because it makes a simple narrative, but it's better than century-divisions. However, instead of a purely chronological organization, please consider thematic breakdown instead. So a section on the Mendelssohn Bach revival, in itself, rather than the year of the timeline division being set like that. Ultimately, all simplified versions are just that -- simplified. Thanks for you hard work, editors, and i hope you can get along. Yeah i did mean what i said before and i don't think it was "vote stacking" -- and can't we all get along and not be jerks to each other? Over Bach? Who is full of love? Wow... SageRad (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
NOTE to closing admin: This user (SageRad) was canvassed (pinged) by the initiator of this RfC (Fountains-of-Paris) in this edit: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The !vote above by SageRad was moved from the top of the survey to the correct chronological placement on 25 March 2016 by me. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The preceding note by User:SageRad was inserted almost a whole month out of date sequence.. It sounds familiar from the previous RfC. but with some new wording. It was "vote stacking" (so called by User:Softlavender) when Fountains-Of-Paris brought votes from the old RfC into this one. I don't know what will happen with this RfC. Marlindale (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a (fairly nonsensical in this context) verbatim copypaste from this canvassed copypaste [5], with an added coda. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Support -- Then let me rephrase this. I currently am here, because i am here, and not by any canvassing but because this is important to me, and i think the organization should be by meaningful periods if possible and not by arbitrary century boundaries. So there is my opinion on this current RfC on this day the 25th of March 2016, with good will and hoping you all can stop making mountains out of molehills and try to see each other's points of view and work with civility and integrity. Cheers, for the love of Bach. SageRad (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Struck duplicate !vote. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: This RfC is the second RfC on the exact same topic filed by Fountains-of-Paris within 40 days (and the third within 80 days): The previous one was filed 20 January and closed 22 February [6]; apparently not taking no for an answer, Fountains-of-Paris opened this current RfC four days later, and copypasted the "Support" !votes (thereby pinging/canvassing as well) he got in the previous RfC [7], but failing to copypaste the Oppose !votes. Additionally, Fountains-of-Paris had opened an even more confused and garbled RfC on 7 December 2015, closed 20 January 2016: [8]. In addition to various other forms of longwinded contentiousness and disruption on this talk page and article, on February 26 he opened an exceedingly incongruous filing against Marlindale (concerning these RfCs) on ANI: [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Lutheran chorale hymn tune[edit]

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)

A hymn tune is separate from a hymn harmonization such as are usually found in hymnals (since sometimes hymns are reharmonized), so the phrase "hymn tune" is a useful formulation. I agree, though, that the phrase you quote is redundant. It should just say "Lutheran chorale." Perhaps some well-meaning editor thought a few readers wouldn't be familiar with the word "chorale" and so added what was meant as a parenthetical explanation, i.e. "Lutheran chorale (hymn tune)", which is how it appears higher on the page. I don't think that's necessary the second time, so I've deleted it. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I have a (language?) problem with our article chorale, saying: "a melody to which a hymn is sung by a congregation in a German Protestant Church service" - At least in German, Choral means both text and melody/melodies, and often the fact that it is in four-part setting, and NOT sung by the congregation. What the congregation sings is rather no four-part setting, and would be called Kirchenlied = church song = hymn, - colloquially just Lied = song. A minister might announce: "Wir singen jetzt Lied Nr. 10" (We now sing song no. 10), never "Choral". If chorale equals "hymn tune" (as it reads to me), it's often wrongly applied when translating from German. If it's not equal to hymn tune, the article should be corrected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I read that sentence to mean the melodies of chorales (like organ chorales or the deutsche Magnificat in "Suscepit Israel") were the basis of the music, rather than the words. Of course the latter is also true sometimes! Not to be asinine ;-) but doesn't "wohl sungen hast du Nachtigal aber Kukuk singt gut Choral" suggest Choral can also mean tune, as we often assume with English "chorale"? Sparafucil (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
When Bach used a melody in an instrumental form, it carried not only the melody/music but implied text which the listener was expected to know. The chorale preludes in Orgelbüchlein have liturgical meaning derived from the meaning of the hymn lyrics. The Gregorian chant Magnificat Bach quoted in the Suscepit isn't any nice melody but refers to the meaning of the Magnificat. Therefore I think "A chorale is a melody" is kind of wrong, because the underlying text plays an important role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation footnote for name[edit]

"Sebastian" isn't pronounced with a "Z" sound in English, so there needs to be an English pronunciation guide for the entire name, not just for the surname as exists now. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I just tried to fix that. Marlindale (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that {{IPA-de|ˈjoːhan zeˈbasti̯an ˈbax|}} gives the German pronunciation, which is correctly transcribed with /z/. If an English pronunciation is desired, it should be added to the respective English pronunciation guide in that footnote; the German pronunciation should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In English we want the sibilant (voiceless) sound of s as first letter in Sebastian. A different but analogous case would be the name Strauss for which the first s is sibilant in English but in German, like English sh.. One might look at that for guidance on possibly giving both pronunciations? If someone is sure they understand it, go ahead and make the change, I am not at all knowledgeable about representing phonetics.. Marlindale (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a pronunciation guide for Strauss (Johann or Richard) so maybe that won't help. `Marlindale (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Now I tried to give both German and English pronunciations. Willl someone who understands IPA PLEASE CHECK. Marlindale (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment... the current footnote, as I see it in my browser is the immensely confusing:
   [ˈjoːhan zeˈbasti̯an ˈbax]; pronounced /lang/ (* listen)
In English, at least in the English spoken in England while I was living there, his middle name is always pronounced with an /s/, not a /z/, and if the article is intended to help people who know less about the subject than the editors, I think it should give this pronunciatin first. Is it really necessary to give the modern standard German pronunciation as well? How does this help, without a proper explanation of the various states, dialects, etc involved in the last 300 years. What is the function of the 'hat' thing under the 'i'? I guess this is some detailed phonetic claim about the voicing of the vowel, but such things do not belong in a general phonemic guide to pronunciation, which is all that is appropriate here. Some speakers will have different levels of voicing, and no native speaker would claim they were mispronouncing. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits of main article[edit]

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 was your edit being restored in the Mendelssohn material. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I looked at some of the differences. I didn't change my opinion that Francis was correct. For example, at 15:34 today a version resulting from an edit by Fountains-of-Paris said that Telemann was the godfather and teacher of JSB's son CPE Bach. He was the godfather but not the teacher; JSB himself was the musical teacher of all his musician sons, as the main article says. Francis Schonken had deleted material containing the Telemann bit at 15:35, correctly. In the original version of this section I mentioned the two usernames of the other editors. Those were removed by someone, not me, which was inappropriate..Marlindale (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Your own edit identified with your signature on the Bach article appeared on this time stamp and was deleted by User:Francis: "01:53, 1 March 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (130,741 bytes) (+1,386)‎ . . (→‎19th century: preliminary efforts toward the 1829 revival)." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The original form of this section, by me, had the usernames Francis Schonken and Fountains-of-Paris in the title. Those usernames were later removed, not my me. Fountains-of-Paris is the only apparent editor of the section other than me, in the meantime. So did he remove his own username from the title? On my edit with a time stamp, all I say again is, it's more complicated than that. Marlindale (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Fountains-of-Paris, please stop edit-warring to revert edits without verifiable WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page. Marlindale and Francis Schonken, I believe you may restore your versions, as Marlindale has agreed above that his own additions were in excess and that he agreed with Francis Schonken's removal of them. Fountains-of-Paris, always post WP:DIFFs instead of timestamps; learn to do that now before you waste any more editors' time. Stop edit-warring and stop your disruptive editing. You have been on this path of repetitively disruptively editing this article and this talk page for nearly four months now. I am going to issue a formal final warning on your user talkpage. If you continue on this path in spite of this formal final warning, you will very likely find yourself reported at an administrators' noticeboard and very likely sanctioned in the form of a topic-ban or block. If you disagree with someone's edit, then immediately post a discussion thread (not an RfC) about it on this talk page rather than edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC); edited 03:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cantata questions[edit]

I came - after unwatching the article for a while - to check how BWV 4 is mentioned, fixed minor formatting things.

  1. I think the cantata - his first chorale cantata - deserves mentioning in the biography part.
  2. "The recitative is part of the corresponding Bible reading for the week and the aria is a contemporary reflection on it." - Really? It seems not typical, rather the exception that recitative is biblical text, most recitatives are on contemporary poetry. Perhaps better mention nothing that generalizing. Two Bible readings were prescribed for the Sundays and feast days, epistle and gospel, to be precise.
  3. Divi Blasii, Mühlhausen - why use a redirect?
  4. A list of cantata names without indication why those were chosen (from around 200) as representative seems not helpful. Sorting by BWV number is also not the best idea. Explain somewhere that is not chronological. Would be nice to have an article Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, not only a redirect.
  5. "These include O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20, Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140, Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland, BWV 62, and Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1." - it's not obvious by what criteria they are sorted, not chronology, not liturgical year, - BWV 140 at the end would make more sense.
  6. We have to omit so much,- do we need to know that the elector in Dresden was also king of Poland? (True, but does it help understanding Bach's music better?)
  7. "Bach started a second annual cycle the first Sunday after Trinity of 1724, and composed only chorale cantatas, ..." - that was the plan, but didn't quite succeed, see Chorale cantata (Bach), - so "only" is not correct.
  8. Want to mention that BWV 71 was the first printed work, and is the only cantata print extant?
  9. (added 23 March) Why do "Passions and oratoria" (why not "oratorios" in the English-speaking Wikipedia?) come first? The cantatas were written from 1707, the first Passion in 1723, and that St John, why Matthew first? Christmas Oratorio in 1734, why not mentioned?

Back to writing, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, next, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

Many thanks for the questions. It may take a while to get them answered.
One suggestion:: the fact that the Elector in a region of Protestant Germany was also King of Catholic Poland meant that a Mass was a form of choral music suitable for both. This I think may have led to the B minor Mass being composed in honor of that person.
I looked at List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach to which BWV redirects. It has sections, before the list itself, about BWV and other related catalogs. The history shows Francis Schonken has done a lot of work on that article. I don't favor now creating a separate article Bach Werke-Verzeichnis instead, I think we have higher priorities than that, if indeed we would ever want to make that change. `Marlindale (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope Francis can help with some other questions, as you yourself might with others, Gerda. Marlindale (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just two answers: Do you really think the average reader understands the connection between the mentioning of "King and Poland" and the Mass in B minor? How about mentioning "the Catholic Dresden court"? Matching Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), in German Missa, BWV 232 I. Bach received the title Court composer for that mass (Kyrie and Gloria), - that could be clearer.
We had an article on BWV, and I believe that the merge (which I missed until it happened), which leads to a link to the looong list from BWV, was not a good idea. For the cantatas, we offer two steps: explain by footnote that BWV is the catalogue name, and provide the link to the list from there, example BWV 4 (heading for TFA on Easter Sunday, therefore I am concerned about articles linked from it, such as this one ;) ) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
ps: Francis understood the BWV problem and worked on something shorter, Bach Werke Verzeichnis (a soft redirect, but open the redirect itself). A German name without hyphens is not historic, but after out latest Orthography reform, everything is possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, maybe what I should have said about the B minor Mass is that it could serve both Bach's main employer in Protestant Leipzig and his somewhat honorary position under Augustus (Dresden, Poland). That is not yet said in the article but could be? About BWV, I'm accustomed to trusting Francis's judgment on matters he has worked on, and I would only depart from that in case of clear evidence. I think we should wait to hear from him. Marlindale (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I printed the list of questions and am numbering them as
1 for the suggestion to mention BWV 4 in the biography,
2 for "The recitative ...
For 2, following Gerda's suggestion, I deleted the sentence from the article. It had no cited reference.
On questions 4 and 5, the listed cantatas are said to be "among the best known". Sorry, Gerda, but it does not say the sample is representative, please look again. "Among the best known" might not make much sense to someone with Gerda's expertise on cantatas, but to me as an amateur perhaps more typical of readers, it seems correct so I don't see any change needing to be made.
Leaving some questions for another day, question 8, "Want to mention....?" the formulation for one thing seems unclear. Does it mean the only original-edition cantata print extant? Maybe that belongs in the article on BWV 150 (which, Gerda says she is just now writing). Should it also be in the Bach article? Marlindale (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts and action. I now numbered my questions, sorry, should have done that before. The first printed work was BWV 71 (not BWV 150), which is mentioned, even the printing, but it's not mentioned that it is the only one of which the print is extant. A second one is lost completely, and that's about it. Worth mentioning? - I am not going to write BWV 150, but improving it to GA status. - We heard from Francis, see his talk, he came to agree with me that Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis is the better name. - The "best-known": any criteria for that vague attribute? Who says so? BWV 147 is probably not so well-known, just "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" from it. I would be surprised if BWV 4 was better known than BWV 12. Anyway, if we leave the selection, could we sort by chronology rather than the arbitrary BWV numbers? - The Mass in B minor could not serve his Leipzig employer, only the Kyrie + Gloria (Missa, for Bach) written in 1733 for the Dresden court. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find "Divi Blasi, Mühlhausen", where is it? I revised Chorale cantata (Bach) to say that in the second cycle, the first 40 are chorale cantatas, not the last 13, responding to one of your questions. Marlindale (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
That's my question, where is it. It's Divi Blasii, Mühlhausen, why instead say St Blasius's Church, a clumsy construction? When we German can have it in Latin, English can also have it Latin. - I dropped that sentence in Church cantata (Bach), as a detail not quite correct: Bach himself regarded 2 of the 13 as chorale cantatas, - who are we to not count them? - Details should be in Chorale cantata (Bach), - I had no time to check that one, it grew too fast for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
For several of the questions, and future ones, it would help a lot to specify what is the title of the section under which they appear. Marlindale (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding questions 4 and 5, "some of the better known" church cantatas, I looked in Oxford Companion to Bach which has an article up to a full page on each cantata. I inserted footnotes to it confirming most of those now listed in the article are called well known. I looked at adjoining pages in the Companion and found several cantatas with shorter articles on them not saying they are well known. But I can't be expected to go through all of the over 190 cantatas on which of them are notable, that would mean reading a large proportion of the Companion. One option would just be to eliminate the mention of "better known" cantatas. Is that what people would prefer? Marlindale (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Questions 4 and 5 are actually, it seems to me, about different short lists of cantatas. It was on those in Question 4, from the main article, that I wrote the previous answer and revised the article. The list of four in Question 5 (BWV 20,140, 62,1) are from Church cantata (Bach) since had 140 deleted so it's now BWV 20, 62, 1, and there is a "such as" there which is not clear. Marlindale (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
I inserted some words in the preceding, but to me it seems the issue of Question 5 is rather, to clarify the article Church cantata (Bach). Marlindale (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

Further on cantata questions[edit]

1. Mention BWV 4 in the biography - where and how?

(Probably) application for Mühlhausen post --GA Done 3/26, Marl.

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.

St. Blasius's Church is obviously no common English name, doesn't appear in the church article (which makes irt an Easter egg to arrive there), is no redirect. "Divi" means "... of Saint...". --GA - - - See still further, below, Marl 3/27

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.

A bit more precise, please. --GA See Talk page of that article, Clarifications requested, Marl 3/26

6. I don't know yet about Elector (Dresden), King of Poland.

To my understanding: Poland doesn't need to be mentioned, as having nothing to do with Bach. The elector's court in Dresden was Catholic, that's enough. --GA

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)

No. The second cycle is complete. It is not identical to the chorale cantatas cycle, ask Francis, who made a nice table of where they overlap and where not. The chorale cantatas cycle was not completed during the second cycle, true, but Bach added a few missing ones later, and incorporated one earlier work (BWV 4, back to the beginning) . Worth mentioning perhaps that he repeated that early work for his first year in Leipzig, and his second. --GA

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.

You are right, "only one where a print during Bach's lifetime survived" is more precise,

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)

See above: then drop Poland. Better include. That he applied for a post in Dresden, writing Kyrie and Gloria of the (later completed) Massin B minor seems one of the significant aspects of his biography. He applied for work, and will have been disappointed to receive only a title.
Thanks for the fixes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Still further on questions not yet answered[edit]

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)

I explained that Kantor is not cantor, that Thomaskantor is not restricted to the Thomaskirche. It's interesting that the German church has a Latin name, which you loose if you simply translate it. To click on a link from St. Blasius Church, to find Divi Blasii looks like an Easter egg to me. And is the translation a common name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 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)

It's an example of better using an original term than a misleading translation. --GA

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?

I was told (if I remember right) that I should not link from Mass in B minor structure to Mass in B minor, as misleading. (I think that was called Easter egg, but may be wrong. Thought it was a nice pun on Easter, but it seems not to have worked.) I think it's more misleading to come from St. Blasius Church and arrive at Divi Blasii. --GA
Marlindale, see WP:EGG. So named because they are hidden surprises (and should not be). -- Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I realize there is a problem with that link, to the article on a church where Bach worked. See a couple of paragraphs below, "I looked into..." The church is called St. Blasius (maybe with ' or 's) church in English, or Blasiuskirche in German. In the mulltiple references to the church I found in four books, all used the English or German name. The church has a Latin name Divi Blasii which I had seen only in the title of the article being linked to, so there was the EGG, exacerbated by "divi" being an unfamiliar word I think to most readers, but I see that below, Gerda has given references about how the name Divi Blasii arose. I am going to revise the Bach article accordingly. Marlindale (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

Misunderstanding, sorry: I think this particular church is rarely called St. Blasius Church, more often Divi Blasii or Blasiuskirche. Generally: The church names in articles on compositions are the original (common) names, for example Paulinerkirche, which is not named after the Saint but the order. In cantata articles, we say Thomaskirche, matching Thomaskantor. --GA
I looked into what this church was called in a few books on Bach in English. In Gardiner, 2013, Vintage ed., it's called Blasiiuskirche on pp 178, 180. In the Oxford Companion, J. S. Bach, Boyd, Ed., 1999, article on Mŭhlhausen, it's also called Blasiuskirche each time it's mentioned. In the New Bach Reader ed. Wolff 1998, it occurs several times on pp. 49-58, always in English, as Church of St. Blasiius, organ of St. Blasius's, etc. In Spitts, vol.1, are "of St. Blasius many times, but also sometimes "Blasiuskirche'.I did not see "divi Blasii' mentioned in any of the four books. Moreover I didn't find "divi" in an unabridged dictionary of English. I would suggest that in the title of the WP artlcle on the church, "Divi Blasii" be replaced by "Blasiuskirche". Marlindale (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Blasiuskirche seems to be a rather colloquial version of Divi Blasii [10], - is that what we go for? Here is an explanation that the original "St." was replaced by "Divi" when turning to Protestant. See also: [11][12]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 1 April 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)

You don't have to mention that, but think as VERY FEW of his works were printed during his lifetime, it might be interesting to learn what was printed. "Elaborate" and "festive" could be used for almost all cantatas for feast days I guess, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oratorios[edit]

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 German user Wikiwal will strongly disagree, we had pages of discussion in 2010 (on de). But I would say so. Dürr lists the six for six occasions of the Christmas season on their day. The Church cantata follows him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the English plural is "oratorios". Fixed now. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 25 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)

"...Königlich-Pohlnischer und Churfürstlich Sächsicher Hofcompositeur..."[edit]

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.

  1. The title of Bach's Nekrolog reads, in part, "...Königlich-Pohlnischer und Churfürstlich Sächsicher Hofcompositeur..." (Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian court composer). I see no reason to put "Royal-Polish" after "Prince-electoral" (or even omit "Royal-Polish" completely) when referring to Bach's sovereign in the context of his biography, or when referring to the title Bach received from that sovereign, etc.
  2. Whether "Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian court composer" was "more" than a title I don't know: Wikipedia editors should not fill in details not provided by reliable sources. AFAIK, the title Bach received from his sovereign did not entail the comission of compositions, or an income, or whatever, so, strictly speaking, it might have been not more than a title.
  3. There is some history-writing as to why Bach wanted this title, e.g. Eidam 1999 sees it as a way Bach was seeking leverage from the highest civil authority against the injustices he had suffered from his employers and the Leipzig university. Bluntly, that's what Bach wrote to his sovereign in the application letter for the title. However, that didn't work out that way: against the forces at work in Leipzig, the effect of a high-ranking title was negligible.
  4. Eidam names a few scholars that, without explaining themselves, downplay the "Royal-Polish" aspect in historiography about Bach. I don't think we should give the detail of this historians' tiff in the main Wikipedia article about Bach, keeping the balance as it is in the Nekrolog (i.e. "Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian") will probably suffise.
  5. Did Bach get the title for the Mass for the Dresden court? Tricky, but the honest answer is that we don't know. The Mass was filed in the sovereign's archives upon arrival in Dresden, never to be looked at again until long after the sovereign's death. To the best of our knowledge it was never performed in the presence of the sovereign. The petition for the court composer title had to be reminded to the sovereign a few years later, and only then Bach got it. In sum: what role that composition played is not known, but likely not a big one. The music performed when the sovereign visited Leipzig a few times probably was more decisive than the archived music, never performed in front of the sovereign.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed information. I agree that Bach didn't receive the title "for" the Missa (Kyrie + Gloria), but what do we know about his reasons to write the elaborate piece for the court? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Re. "what do we know about [Bach's] reasons to write the elaborate piece for the court?" – I don't think anything specific is known about these reasons. Bach's letter accompanying the composition to Dresden is extant, and a part of it is quoted in the Mass for the Dresden court article. The rest is educated guesswork, but I've seen no conclusive answer to that question in related educated guesswork by scholars. So, again, as I said in #2 above, best to refrain from filling in details not provided by reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back, Francis. On point 3, did the title help Bach in Leipzig? Wolff 2013, p. 372 wrote "The Dresden court title seems to have had the desired effect of protecting Bach from further unpleasantness in Leipzig. It apparently helped resolve the prefect dispute with the St. Thomas rector [Ernesti], which had simmered from the summer of 1736 to early 1738; since that year, no further complaints from either side are on record." In 1737 Bach had addressed three letters of complaint about Ernesti to King Friedrich August, 12 Feb., 21 Aug., and 18 October (The New Bach Reader...). The response in December was noncommittal, telling the Leipzig council to "take such measures as you shall see fit." Spitta, vol. 3 pp. 10-11 writes that "At the time of the Easter [1738] Fair, the King himself came to Leipzig..... Now, at last, [Bach's] suit was brought to an issue, which, under the circumstances, we may infer were in every way favorable to him. The sudden lack of all documentary evidence points to the conclusion that this was brought about by the personal intervention of his Majesty."

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)

Re. #3: Historians excell in interpreting lack of evidence. Eidam unearths some unplaisantries after Bach had received the title, the last of which was a few weeks before the composer's death: the City Council was already openly negotiating with his successor, who was indeed appointed without much ado soon after Bach's death (compare the year it took after Kuhnau's death to appoint Bach 27 years earlier). My point is that when historians give such a wide range of interpretations to too few hard facts to render a complete picture, Wikipedia's main Bach biography, which is a summary of summaries, should not delve in the details of the incompatible historians' interpretations. Such detail can go in dedicated articles (e.g. I already put some of this in Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Still on #3, you wrote "Against the forces at work in Leipzig, the effect of a high-ranking title was negligible." I think we need to separate two issues. One was that Bach preferred to spend more time and effort composing, whereas the Council preferred that he put more effort than he did into teaching. On this it would have been useless for Bach, I suppose, to ask the King's support. But the argument between Bach and Ernesti, in which Ernesti openly defied Bach's authority, was one on which sought the King's support. That was not a hopeless cause. Bach petitioned the King three times in 1737 about it. In 1738 Bach got what he wanted on that, although not in writing from the King. Marlindale (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The sovereign's proclamation of the court composer title arrived halfway through the crisis with Ernesti (1736). As such the title had no effect in ending that dispute: it still took the Council six months to implement an evasive reply, then, after the next humiliations, Bach had to write his sovereign again (1737), and before an intervention of the latter (1738) nothing got solved one way or another.
I think the Wikipedia article on Bach should give a short description of the conflict with Ernesti, based on historical facts, as described by historians, but should stop short where historians start to lose themselves in contradictory musings based on, literally, "absence of facts". --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an adage "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and a related WP article Argument from Ignorance. That's something we need to be careful about, I agree. Records of the Leipzig City Council from the relevant period I believe have been preserved. Rather than concluding with Spitta that the Bach-Ernesti dispute had ended sometime in 1738, might we just say that there is no Council record of it continuing beyond 1738? Marlindale (talk) 23:01, 30 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 agree that both the Ernesti dispute and the issue of the St John Passion are worth mentioning Marlindale (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160409031308/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach

Leave a Reply