Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

JS Bach recording

Copied from User talk:Graham87.

Hi Graham. I can't say I think much of that recording. The harpsichord sounds very muffled and the acoustics are nothing to write home about. The interpretation has a few good points, but it flits over what is usually regarded as a grander opening. At break-neck speed, it could be handled better than she does. Are you willing to consider moving this to the appropriate section down the bottom? PS the info-page is inadequate: year, details? TONY (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the acoustics and the rushed nature of the recording ... I added it because it was a piece mentioned in the text and there happened to be a free version available. There's no information about the recording besides the Readme file from Pandora Music - it's obviously a live recording (as found in the subdirectory) and it's performed on an electro-acoustic harpsichord. Perhaps the prelude to English Suite No. 1 or another movement from English Suite No. 1 would be a more suitable recording to use as a sample as it was performed on an acoustic harpsichord. My favourite free Bach recordings performed on historical instruments are the Italian Concerto and Flute sonata in B minor harpsichord recordings, but they of course belong in a later part of the article. I've removed the recording and mention of the excerpt for now; all Bach recordings are now at Gallery of works by Johann Sebastian Bach. Graham87 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I could still organise the required letter of permission from the owner of a very good modern recording of that movement: the one that was taken down by the copyright police a few years ago. But it's such a lot of bother. TONY (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Even then, I'm unsure whether just a single recording in the body of the article would be appropriate. TONY (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Name?

I don't know how, or if you can edit titles, but Bach's name is misspelled. "Sebastien" is spelled with an e, NOT an a, as it is spelled here. It should be Johann Sebastien Bach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.135.96 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rrrright... - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Jean Sebastien Ruisseau? Eusebeus (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the proper German spelling that's with an e, the Americanization is probably with an a, but either way, it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.135.96 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You think, but are sure it's wrong? - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Point to a single authorititave English-language or German-language source - one will do - that spells it "Sebastien" and I'll be prepared to engage in debate with you about this. Otherwise, your claim is without foundation. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

References please? Gary King (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In Civilization II

See [1]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Legatissimo supremo. Baroque music is supposed to be crisp and dance-like, not porridge! TONY (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed in Weimar section.

Please correct a mistake in the Weimar section, namely the paragraph which mentions the 48 preludes and fugues. It states that they are paired in major and relative minor keys - this is incorrect - they are simply paired as major and minor keys. This can be verified by looking at any score of the preludes and fugues. For example, prelude and fugue 1 is in C major, where as no.2 is in C minor - if it were the relative minor, it would be in A minor. If still not convinced, please consult any well-informed musician.Jamespelham1978 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Each fugue is paired with a prelude in the same key, but there are no other explicit pairings. I agree that introducing the concept of relative minor makes it appear that the pairing scheme or the order is other than it really is: it's just one in each set for each major and minor key. I wonder if the discussion of the '48' should be moved out of the Weimar section: the heading is "Weimar (1708-17)", but the 48 were apparently collected in 1722 and 1744. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth revisited

I removed the "OS" and "NS" tags from his dates because I knew of no evidence to support them. I now see this issue has been raised before.

Reviving that discussion here, it seems to me eminently sensible:

• not only to make it absolutely clear whether "21 March 1685" is a Julian or a Gregorian date,
• but also to show the corresponding date in the other calendar.

We do this with lots of other biographies, via use of the {{OldStyleDate|LATER DATE|YEAR|EARLIER DATE}} template.

This would show up as:

• Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685 – 28 July 1750) ....

I appreciate this will raise some hackles. Music lovers are used to seeing the date "21 March 1685" and only that date, as Bach’s birthday, and quoting a different date seems like sacrilege. However, we're not here to placate ourselves but to tell it like it was. We do a similar thing for William Shakespeare, via a footnote saying that his widely-known death date 23 April 1616 (OS) is equivalent to 3 May 1616 (NS).

One of my concerns about mixing NS and OS dates in a lead para is that it's unsound in principle - it's mixing apples and oranges. Also, we stand to mislead some people about the true span of his life. He actually lived 10 days less than deducting "21 March 1685" from "28 July 1750" would lead one to believe. Use the same calendar for both dates, and only then will the calculation come out correctly. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've raised a similar issue with Handel - see here. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good idea about the O.S.—anything to avoid that ugly clutter right at the start. I wonder whether you could do the same thing for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky? But why did you relink the dates? MOSNUM no longer encourages this, and the other date fragments in the main text are not linked. It's better to allow the high-value links to breathe, don't you think? TONY (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tchaikovsky has been in this format for a long time, as have many other Russians who lived between 1582 and 1918. I'm not too familiar with MOSNUM, so thanks for the reminder. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes much more sense using the same calendar to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBoothby (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. We seem to have a consensus so I've made the change to the article. I must say it really hits one in the eye, particularly one who's only ever seen the 21 March date in the literature. But I'm sure we'll get used to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And how interesting that this edit happened on the anniversary of his death. (I notice stuff like that). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No tag needed

"...and brought it to its ultimate maturity" is not controverial. No "citation needed" tag required. — J M Rice (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've added a NPOV tag to the lead for reasons I suspect the current editors of this page where already aware of. Example: the article refers to his "unrivalled control of harmonic and motivic organisation in composition..." Prove he was unrivaled. The lead is full of statements like this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)