Talk:Eight Short Preludes and Fugues

untitled

In the Brieitkopf & Härtel Edition edited by Heinz Lohmann, the German title he gives to the work is Acht kleine Präludien und Fugen, and the English title Eight little Preludes and Fugues. While the use of "klein", "kleine", and "kleinen" all denote "small" or "little" in German, the use of "little" as the translation of "kleine" is perhaps more accurate.

Lohmann also puts forth the following information in the 1982 edition that might be desired to be incorporated into the article:

• The original manuscript bears the title VIII PRAELUDIA èd VIII FUGEN di J.S. BACH (?), with the question mark being added in the early part of the 18th century.

• K. Tittel refuted the claim that the work was written by Johann Tobias Krebs or by his son, Johann Ludwig Krebs.

• P. Kast, claimed that the manuscript belonged to on of J.S.Bach’s last pupils, Johann Christian Kittel, with the handwriting being that of Johann Christoph Georg Bach, son of Johann Andreas Bach, son of Johann Christoph Bach, J.S. Bach’s eldest brother.

• The Brieitkopf & Härtel Edition continues to print Johann Sebastian Bach as the composer of the work, though they as a publishing firm do not claim or deny its authorship being so.

• The work contains eight preludes and eight fugues pairs together by key:
  • Präludium and Fuge in C (BWV 553)
  • Präludium and Fuge in d (BWV 554)
  • Präludium and Fuge in e (BWV 555)
  • Präludium and Fuge in F (BWV 556)
  • Präludium and Fuge in G (BWV 557)
  • Präludium and Fuge in g (BWV 558)
  • Präludium and Fuge in a (BWV 559)
  • Präludium and Fuge in b (BWV 560)

• The stepwise cyclical of modes is indicative of the solmisation tonal system used around the time of 1700 by composers like Buxtehude, Fischer, and Kuhnau.

I have played two of the eight, and might be able to record some of each for a media file.

WeberC

Merge from Short Prelude and Fugue in G Minor

This stub about the G minor fugue should receive its own section within this article. Perhaps we should add a similar section for each of the other fugues in the set.--Bje2089 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Authority control

Opposing addition of the {{authority control}} template:

• links to questionable MusicBrainz;
• contains a link that goes nowhere.

Wikidata can handle authority control (for which Wikidata is more suited than Wikipedia). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

These have been added to many many thousands of articles without incident, and I don't see why this one should be an exception. Five out of the six links work ... maybe they're not that useful *now* but they may be in the future, and we shouldn't be waiting until a particular user has deemed all the links useful until adding it. A recent RFC on MusicBrainz's inclusion in authority control was closed as no consensus ... and as it says there, the links in the template are mostly for disambiguation and inclusion of links does not necessarily signify that they are reliable sources. Graham87 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not useful for this article anyhow, for reasons explained above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, the RfC you refer to (known very well to me: I initiated it) resulted in me removing the {{authority control}} template from many music-related articles where the template is not strictly needed (which is the case here). That is an editor choice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Support addition of {{Authority control}} - There are currently 6 IDs available, which go unseen by the Wikipedia reader/editor unless they click the "Wikidata item" link on the left margin. If an editor wishes to suppress a certain ID in {{Authority control}}, they may do so via a null parameter value; for example, |MBW= would suppress MusicBrainz work ID (P435). This is explained under Template:Authority control/doc#Usage. If an editor wishes to remove an ID completely from {{Authority control}}, they may request it on the template talk page (ample time is always given for airing concerns prior to adding IDs to be recognized by the template).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support authority control, to have access to the useful links. Even IF a reader would know where to find Wikidata on the left, it's a rather user-unfriendly display, where the same links would be harder to locate, and this is an article with few entries compared to others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I helped contributing to this article in 2008. I could see from my watchlist that there some form of disruption. I see that user:Graham87 has explained the data. As far I can tell, for this stub that data plays very little role. The sources for the article were not in good order.

I actually had written quite a detailed account for the article clavichord and pedal clavichord, because of Orgelbüchlein (the instrument was used for practice purposes). Later that became a sub-article pedal clavichord. For this particular article, however, reliable sources had nor been provided. I have corrected that today using the 2003 book of Peter Williams. He has also written brief descriptions of each BWV 553–560 which could be added as appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dou

This picture is dated c. 1665, i.e 20 years before JS Bach was born. If the pieces are by JSB or his pupils then it's really not an appropriate illustration.......According to the article, one of the pieces may be post-1730. Can something be found which is at least close to the likely date(s)?--Smerus (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The high resolution image was chosen because it was a clavichord. You're right that pedal clavichords were used for practice by Bach's pupils (one manual, one pedalboard). I'll look for other Commons images. There is a clavichord from the Bachhaus in Eisenach which is very poor quality. In the Musée de la Musique in Paris, there are better examples. Mathsci (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)