Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Citations for movement sequence

Someone has just supplied a citation which was "required" for the sequence of movements in the English suites -- but this (like other such "citations" here) is a reference to a recording which lists the movements. This seems quite absurd to me: the sequence of movements can be checked directly by looking at the score, to which there are several links at the end of the article. I cannot see that mentioning any particular recording is any help at all. Am I missing something? I understand the need for verifiability, but some things are self-verifiable, and extraneous references just clutter up the text. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Birthday

Your article says J. S. Bach was born March 31st, 1685. According to all other sources including biography.com, and everything else I have heard it was March 21st. The churches in Ann Arbor when I was in college in 1985 had a birthday concert on 1985. So either you are wrong or everyone else is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Due to the change from the Julian to Gregorian calendar, both dates are valid. March 21st in old style dates, the 31st in new style, hence the "(OS 21 March)" notation. See Old Style and New Style dates. Rwessel (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an excellent answer. Can we somehow achieve that it doesn't get archived, because the question comes up again and again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This page being archived manually (IOW, no automated bot), so we would just leave a note so that the next person doing an archive will (hopefully) not archive the thread/section in question. If automated archived were set up, adding a {{subst:DNAU}} to the thread should cause it to never archive. Alternatively, a footnote like Note 1 in George Washington. Rwessel (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but then George Washington's birthday should be like March 4. And when I looked up Julian calendar it shows the dates going from Sep 2, 1752 to Sep 14, 1752 which is 2 days later (i.e., an additional 11 days more than the 1 day it should be). So why Mar 31 instead of April 1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

George Washington was born February 22, 1732 (O.S. February 11, 1731), not at the end of March/beginning of April. Rwessel (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, changes in the calendar happened at different times in different countries. The 1752 date is accurate for England and its colonies, but German-speaking countries made the switch much earlier -- in some cases in the year 1700, which was a leap year in the Julian calendar but not the Gregorian, which is why in 1685 there was only a 10-day discrepancy between the two, but an 11-day one in 1732. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But where he was was Germany and it was before adoption of the calendar. But this article just furthers my point that Wikipedia is very unreliable and most of the writers have their heads stuck in places where it is too dark to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, but quite wrong-headed. Once the Gregorian calendar was introduced somewhere but not everywhere (we're talking 1582 in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Poland only), then until such time as it did gain acceptance everywhere, there's a "comparing apples and oranges" problem. That's because 21 March 1685 in Germany was NOT the same day as 21 March 1685 in Italy, Spain etc. They were in fact 10 days apart. The day Bach was born was "called" 21 March in Germany where they were still using the Julian calendar, but it was the same day as 31 March in the Gregorian. Similarly, it's often been noted that Shakespeare and Cervantes died on exactly the same day, 23 April 1616: except, they didn't. Their deaths were separated by 10 days in real time. Shakespeare's 23 April 1616 (Julian) is equivalent to 3 May 1616 (Gregorian). Do we see Shakespeare's death day now being celebrated on 3 May rather than 23 April? No, but that isn't the point. The very much staggered introduction of the Gregorian Calendar throughout the world is a historical fact, and the only way we can make sense of the mismatch of the calendars at any point in time is to record the date of an event in the calendar in use in that place at that time, as well as recording the date it would have been in the Gregorian calendar had it been introduced there already. Then and only then we can compare apples with apples. This is exactly what we've done with Bach, and Handel, and every Russian person born before 1918, and many others.

Another example: Brahms and Tchaikovsky liked and respected each other personally, but hated each other's music and told each other so. I don't know if they were ever aware they shared the same birthday, 7 May. Probably not, because Brahms was born under the Gregorian calendar, while Tchaikovsky was born under the Julian, and he called his birthday 25 April. But the calendars were then 12 days apart, and they did in fact share the same birthday 7 May (Gregorian). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about Bach, but many people at the time adjusted their birthdays when the calendar change was implemented. George Washington, who until 1752 had celebrated his birthday on Feb. 11, changed it to Feb. 22 so his next birthday would be 365 days later. So in order to know when his birthday fell in a particular year, you need both dates available. (There's also the matter of needing to change his birth year from 1731 to 1732, which you can read about in footnote 1 of the George Washington article.) —Wahoofive (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing Bach's Birthday from Julian to Gregorian (O.S. to N.S.)

I'm surprised that Bach's birthdate is noted in Gregorian rather than what countless sources use, i.,e. March 21. The original German wiki notes it as March 21. Having done Bach research for a good many years, this is the first time I've seen the Gregorian date of March 31. Looking at Bach's contemporaries, the old style date is maintained. Why has this revision been made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.147.175 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the long discussion immediately above this one?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Citing the NS date first is misleading, pedantic and punctilious. This entry on Bach is unique in the entire body of secondary literature in music history (including contemporary scholarship) in drawing unnecessary attention to the "great controversy" of the very gradual adoption of the Gregorian (to the XX century in Russia). Each and every student who is asked to cite the birthdate of Bach will be given censure. Anyone who knows Bach will say "He was born on March 21, 1685." To expect ordinary music students to take the OS/NS differences into consideration is, of course, a misguided project. As a service, this date should be changed. Drawing attention to calendarism has nothing to do with the fact base on which we rely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.234.131 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? To omit the New Style date altogether or to reverse the order: Johann Sebastian Bach (21 March [N.S. 31 March] 1685 – 28 July 1750) was a German composer, … ? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I must say, I agree completely with 100.4.147.175 re the grossly misleading and pedantic use of a date that no other serious reference book uses. It has always mystified me that Wikipedia does this. Grove, the Oxford dictionaries, the Harvard dictionaries, the Encyclopedia Britannica all use 21 March. Not to mention the celebrations in Berlin for Bach's tercentenary on 21 March 1985. The only place you find 31 March is Wikipedia, its mirrors, and a book for school children in New Zealand (which I suspect relies on Wikipedia). Grove doesn't even mention that the date would be 31 in the Gregorian calendar. Why? No doubt because it is a pedantic irrelevance. At the very least, the order should be reversed. But frankly, I'd omit that clutter from an already cluttered lede and put the pedantry in a footnote for those who think it's necessary. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I was reading about the calculation of Orthodox and, for lack of a better word, Unorthodox Easter. Orthodox use the calendar that's older. The article coincidentally mentions March 21st because that is the considered date of the equinox, but this article (http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7050) states that old style March 21 is new style April 3, not March 31. if correct, this article should say Bach was born on April 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The calendars have continued to diverge since Bach's time. The Gregorian date on Bach's birthday would have been March 31 that year, so if you're, for example, identifying events which took place on the same day in Rome, you'd use March 31, 1685. The fact that there have been three years (1700, 1800, 1900) since then which were leap years in the Julian calendar — but which weren't in the Gregorian — is irrelevant. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Complaint

They censored a valid comment from me they didn't like. Wikipedia has a habbit of doing that to people they disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed comment was this. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. They are not for discussing the article's subject or for expressing your personal opinions about Wikipedia in general, or anything else for that matter. Off-topic comments like yours are regularly removed or archived by other editors. I suggest you read How to use article talk pages. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed the complaint. Tony (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have, either. But that comment did in no way contribute to the article's impovement, and so I didn't revert its removal. cookies crumble ... -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't remove the comment myself, although I have removed or archived off-topic comments from Talk pages on occasion. I was only explaining why that happened. Incidentally, 63.84.231.3, your comment would have been just as off-topic had you said "Just more evidence to show if you want reliable information use Wikipedia.". Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Just to show that I'm consistent, I refer you to this edit. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Musique concrète?

News of a petition, including the signatures of Günter Blobel and J. M. Coetzee, to save Bach's house, which is currently under a car park: [1]! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Classical composers

We've had a couple of reverts with regard to the Category:18th-century classical composers. If you view the category you'll see that they're all composers of music from the Classical period (as opposed to Baroque or Romantic), like Mozart. It doesn't mean composers of classical music broadly defined -- that wouldn't even make sense, since all composers of the 18th century composed that kind of music; none of them wrote jazz or hip-hop. Can we get a consensus on this? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've just had a look at that list and it includes Tomaso Albinoni, Carl Heinrich Biber, François Couperin, Johann Friedrich Fasch, Christoph Graupner, George Frideric Handel, Johann David Heinichen, Johann Joachim Quantz, Jean-Philippe Rameau, and George Philipp Telemann, all of whom are solidly classed as Baroque composers. If we are going to reach a consensus to remove Bach from this category, then his contemporaries and predecessors are really going to have to go as well. I don't find a separate category for Baroque composers. Should there be one? Alternatively, perhaps there should be a "late Baroque" category, as a sub-category of 18th-century composers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those guys don't belong there either. There's really no point in having a category of all 18th-century composers. I was afraid no one would see it if I brought it up on the category talk page, though, so I thought I'd start here. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that the category contains "18th century" in the name, which is redundant at best, and uselessly exclusionary at worst (Beethoven's not a classical composer?). Where's a better place to address this? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe the category is just redundant with List of Classical era composers. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit baffled when I noticed User:Mokgamen changing articles from Category:18th-century composers to Category:18th-century classical composers: who of the former does not belong into the latter? Looking at the context provided by Category:Classical composers, it seems that "classical" does not refer to Classical period (music) but to Classical music. To avoid confusion about what the category means, I would have preferred to stay with the original name. Now we have 2 categories for 18th-century composers with no obvious distinction criteria. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Easy Listening???!!!

This article seems to group alternative versions of Bach's works (very incomplete list) together under the wholly inappropriate banner of "Easy Listening" versions. Neither Wendy Carlos or Jacques Loussier are bracketed in these genre definitions either in life or on Wikipedia's other pages. Carlos is an electronic pioneer who is fundamental to the history of Electronic Music and Loussier is a highly respected Jazz pianist who has a major career spanning the latter half of the twentieth century and beyond. "Easy Listening" as used in this otherwise fine article appears to be a form of slur or the ignorance of the writer to the other forms of music available in the current time. Putting these fine artists together and tagging them with the "Easy Listening" badge is as wantonly wrong as lumping Debussy together with Palestrina and tagging them "Old Skool Classical Stuff". Subject to no objections I would like to rewrite the paragraph in question, expanding the article to show the effect that Bach had on contemporary musicians outside the formal so-called "Classical" music arena, rather than simply the effect these artists had on the "popularity of Bach". I'll start my changes in a week from now if there are no objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbled By The Knowledge Of Others (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "Easy listening" label adds nothing, really. (The article easy listening took me to something called beautiful music, in an even more wonky sense. Crumbs.) Why not a minor rewrite, avoiding "easy listening"... Imaginatorium (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Lutheran and Episcopal feast day

I'm adding a mention of this feast day in this article's legacy section, in order to include the Episcopal and Lutheran musicians' memorial on today's list of Holidays and Observances. Lutherans celebrate Bach, Handel and Schutz on the anniversary of Bach's death, and Epicopalians substitute Purcell for Schutz. I'm mentioning the reason here, because all the wikipedia articles for the other musicians mention the feast day. From this talk page, it seems that one or more editors may prefer the article as it is (and don't have the time to track down if/when a previous mention/s was/were removed, much less try to upgrade the status of this article, which seems on a downward trend).Jweaver28 (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on the article's talk page for discussion. No thanks for immediately making your changes to the article. This has been discussed several times in the past, with no clear consensus. The last time was in July 2013 at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 10#Addition of a Veneration section, before that in August 2012 at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 9#J. S. Bach, an Anglican Saint?? For reasons expressed there by others and me, I still oppose the inclusion of this section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Jweaver, I think I have to agree with Michael on this one. Tony (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Problematic claim and citation in the lead

"Bach's compositions include the Brandenburg concertos, the Mass in B minor, The Well-Tempered Clavier, two Passions, keyboard works, and more than 300 cantatas, of which nearly 100 cantatas have been lost to posterity.[2]"

Ahum. We're pretty sure that some cantatas have been lost (who knows how many were stored in the Weimar castle that burned down?). But to claim the number as "nearly 100" lacks evidence. Ref 2 is to a solid, well-written piece in the New York Review of Books last February by Gerge Stauffer. He's nice about Gardiner's book, but in the end is very critical about the stretches of the imagination—something that struck me in parts of Gardiner's BBC doco on Bach from a year or two ago. Tellingly, nowhere in the referenced review does the "nearly 100" claim appear; and if it's in Gardiner's book (which I haven't yet read), that should be referenced, with page number.

So I've a mind to remove that clause from the lead. What do people think? Tony (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely not a Bach expert, but that whole sentence strikes me as exceedingly odd. Bach's output was enormous, and to list it as "including" just these items would be odd anyway; the "nearly 100" is not plausible. (I mean that we can never know how many were lost, while "nearly" is a limit in the wrong direction.) I suggest changing it to something like "The best-known of Bach's works include...", and add at least "violin and keyboard concertos"... How about "and many sacred and secular choral works" (where "many" could be "over 200" or whatever). Imaginatorium (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here (fwiw) is the relevant bit from the reference: [2]

"The obituary stated that Bach composed five annual cycles, making a total of approximately three hundred cantatas. Only two hundred or so survive." Imaginatorium (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Which churches in Leipzig?

According to Spitta's 3-volume biography of Bach, as Cantor of the Thomasschule, 1723-1750, he had responsibility for music in the two main churches, the St. Nicholas Church or Nikolaikirche, and the St. Thomas Church. The article up to today had instead of the St. Thomas Church the "Paulinerkirche" which was the University Church. The WP article on the Paulinerkirche says Bach was Music director there but only for 1723-1725. It seems that Bach actually had worse relations overall with the University than predecessor Kuhnau had had. Anyhow for main responsibilities I am about to change Paulinerkirche to St. Thomas Church and put in a reference to Spitta. Marlindale (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant to and did put in Nikolaikirche in place of Paulinerkirche. Interestingly there was already on the page an image of the Nikolaikirche and still is now that I fixed details. So sometime in the past, someone had put in images of the correct two churches, whereas in between, someone had changed the text to put in Paulinerkirche. By the way the story of Bach's relation to other churches seems a bit complicated. Marlindale (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Under Kuhnau, musicians from the University could perform at the churches sometimes, but this apparently no longer happened with Bach, as the organist of the university was in conflict with him - is this important? Marlindale (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Nikolaikirche is mentioned in the following paragraph, adjoining its image, further evidence that the Paulinerkirche was inserted later, I would say by good faith error. Marlindale (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the Malcolm Boyd book 'Bach', Bach's predecessor Kuhnau as Thomascantor was also Music Director for the Paulinerkirche, but Bach only was in charge of "festal" (church holiday?) services there in 1723-25. See Talk of the Paulinerkirche article for more details. Marlindale (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As Kuhnau was music director for all three churches, it seems natural that he could use musicians normally at one church to play at another. Marlindale (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "The article up to today had instead of the St. Thomas Church the 'Paulinerkirche'"; that's not what I see in the version before your edit which mentions all three churches. After your edits, the Paulinerkirche, Leipzig, is not mentioned at all anymore; that seems unsatisfactory. You should work the sources you quote into the article without dropping the mention of Paulinerkirche. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point well taken, thank you, I will put in something about the Paulinerkirche. Marlindale (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Spitta index, organs, churches

I looked in Spitta's index for three churches, Thomaskirche, Nikolaikirche, and the third which WP articles (on Bach and itself) call(ed) Paulinerkirche but (the translators of) Spitta call "University Church." What I found in Spitta is about the organs of each church. In vol. II, pp. 281-291. Starting on p. 281, "The organs of the two principal churches [I believe this means Thomaskirche and Nikolaikirche} which, it is true, Bach in his capacity as Cantor was not required to play upon.... were old and worn out. There were two in the Thomaskirche." The larger had been renovated in 1721, with addition of (p. 282) 400 new pipes and mixture stops, "under the direction of Johann Scheibe," co-supervised by Bach and Görner, organist of the University Church. A lot of details of the organ are given. p. 283. "The smaller of the two organs in the Thomaskirche was the older," which despite repairs as late as 1727 "was of very little use, and in 1740 Scheibe had to take it ... away."

P. 286, "The Nikolaikirche contained an organ dating from ... 1597-1598," last repaired in 1692 before Bach's time, and early in his time, 1725, by Scheibe. "In both the Thomaskirche and Nikolaikirche the organs were tuned to 'chorus' pitch."

P. 287 "In contrast to these old organs, which were of only moderate capacity, and liable to get out of order frequently, there had been in the University church since ... 1716 an organ which fulfilled the highest expectations, and which Bach must have chiefly employed when he played for his own pleasure or before other people." This suggests use of it was not part of his work as Cantor, unless perhaps in 1723-1725? Bach himself had been consulted, as a known leading organist, about this new organ and came from Köthen in 1716 to give his written opinion, which Spitta quotes on pp. 288-290. (Then Spitta goes into generalities about use of the organ in Lutheran services of the time: preludes, postludes) Marlindale (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Deathbed chorale

This edit removed the sentence: The final work Bach completed was a chorale prelude for organ, entitled Vor deinen Thron tret ich hiermit (Before thy throne I now appear, BWV 668a) which he dictated to his son-in-law, Johann Christoph Altnickol, from his deathbed. When the notes on the three staves of the final cadence are counted and mapped onto the Roman alphabet, the initials "JSB" are found.(Geiringer (1966), p. 256) with the edit summary "See essay "The Deathbed Chorale: Exposing a Myth" in Wolff (1991), p. 282". Prima facie, this seems to be a reliably sourced claim, based on Johann Nikolaus Forkel writings. It should only be removed if the source doesn't support it. If it does, I think it would be more helpful to rephrase and refute the passage, e.g. Based on Johann Nikolaus Forkel's biography of Bach from 1802, it has been a long-held myth that Bach's final work was a chorale prelude ... The notes of the final cadence can supposedly be mapped to form the initials "JSB".(Geiringer (1966), p. 256) This account has since been refuted.("The Deathbed Chorale: Exposing a Myth" in Wolff (1991), p. 282). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

For the moment I have removed your version from the main article, because of the following issues:

*"Based on Johann Nikolaus Forkel's biography of Bach from 1802, it has been a long-held myth that Bach's final work was the chorale prelude for organ Vor deinen Thron tret ich hiermit (Before thy throne I now appear, BWV 668a)..." So far it is correct, except the BWV number (BWV 668, not 668a).

*"...which he dictated on his deathbed to his son-in-law, Johann Christoph Altnickol." Probably he only dictated alterations to a previously written piece. To whom he dictated it is unclear based on the handwritten score.

*"The notes of the final cadence can supposedly be mapped to form the initials "JSB".[56] This account has since been refuted.[57]" This sentence does not make clear how numerologists arrive at this conclusion. Best to leave it out, I would say. What is refuted is not this numerological stuff, but that BWV 668 is the last work of Bach.

My personal conclusion: why waste time to accurately describe something that is not true?

Buxtehude (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a long-held and widely spread story; this article should clarify it. Further, the original text was followed by a reference to Geiringer (1966), p. 256. What does that source say? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are quite a few long-held and widely spread myths about Bach (although I wonder how many readers of this article are familiar with the myths). Rather than dwell on those, I would personally like to see more factual information about Bach's life, music and legacy in the article. There is still a lot that the article does not cover. I do not have access to Geiringer's book, but since it is almost 50 years old, it cannot reflect current insights. Buxtehude (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Buxtehude. Tony (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014

[Add to Bibliography titles] Pirro, André (1907. English translation by Joe Armstrong 2014). The Aesthetic of Johann Sebastian Bach. New York: Rowman and Littlfield. ISBN978-1-4422-3290-7. Bostonflute (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Most Popular Works Barely Mentioned

Some of his most well-known works, such as Toccata & Fugue, "Air", and "Jesu...Joy" are hardly mentioned or omitted. A music sample of each would be nice. --2605:E000:8645:2B00:B9E3:BE39:C1C1:985 (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All three works you mention have at least some discussion about Bach's authorship. Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, is most likely by Bach, but some like to to dispute it. Air on the G String is an arrangement by August Wilhelmj of Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major, BWV 1068; and Bach never wrote "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring", a transcription by various people of the last movement of Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147 to a text by Robert Bridges. They are all mentioned in the list of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach or its sub-articles, and music samples are in their repective articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Besides, they're not among his best works (IMO). Tony (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation in English

Isn't his name also frequently pronounced as "back" in English? Various puns presuppose such a pronunciation (just search the web for "hunchbach" or "Nickelbach", for example). Even PDQ Bach seems to be based on it ("pretty damn quick back"). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not in my experience, but the most usual English pronunciation, similar to "Bock", can be construed that way in wordplay contexts. The Welsh, of course, have got their own jokes about this "great" composer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kohl, as does a cursory search of online dictionaries. I have heard fine musicians say "bahck" or "bock" (or "bark" if pronounced by some residents of England or by Bostonians) but never heard "back" from anybody who is even slightly familiar with so-called classical music. But I think Kohl should explain that Welsh reference. Oh, I get it (by looking online)! Bach in Welsh means "little one"!David Couch (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

Add some info about WMG, they own Bach's music - warner music group

46.109.65.175 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody owns Bach's music, all of it is public domain. Warner Music Group may have copyright on some recordings of Bach's music, but that's hardly notable. There are many recordings of everything Bach wrote. Also, edit requests are meant to be specific, like: change this sentence to "...." or something like that, not general requests for information. If you have specific information about WMG that is notable and relevant to this article, you can post it here and somebody will look at it. You can also create an account and make some edits elsewhere and afterwards you'll be able to edit this yourself. - Lindert (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

Do we really need this here? Seems odd to me. No one ever heard of the critic. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Criticism section was indeed out of place, it broke up the Legacy section with criticism that was levelled during Bach's lifetime. More information on the reception history of Bach's music would be welcome in this article, though. Buxtehude (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's better now -- thank you. (One of the removed sentences -- the one containing "...deliberately composed in a manner that did not move forward at all" doesn't make sense. Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Passions, oratorios, Magnificat?

This is a strange heading in a biography article, listing the works in the supposed order of duration. How about Magnificat, Passions, oratorios? A bit of development, from the relatively early Magnificat 1723, St John Passion 1724, Easter Oratorio 1725, St Matthew Passion 1727, Christmas Oratorio 1734, to the Ascension Oratorio 1735. - Or group differently: Passions and oratorios vs. Church music in Latin? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the Magnificat would be more comfortable grammatically in that list. I don't much care about the order, since several methods could be used. Much of the Ascension Oratorio was drawn from earlier works; the Magnificat was revised in ?1728—does the chronological really work? Tony (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not grammar as much as the sorting, as you seem to agree: why not place the Magnificat with Church music in Latin, as in the List of compositions. To suggest that Bach wrote first Passions, then Magnificat, seems wrong to me. Magnificat was rather early in Leipzig, Passions later, most Leipzig cantatas later, 1724 Sanctus (the one that made it to the Mass in B minor) later. - As for a 1728 revision of the Magnificat, do you have different sources? Then please add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to help start missing related articles

Anybody interested in Bach and related biographies and musical groups please help expand and start the missing entries from the Bach Cantatas website at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Missing articles:Bach Cantatas site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

what the ...?

It's disappointing to see gender unnecessarily elevated to inform categories. Why is this distinction being made? Tony (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cause(s) of death

For a few reasons I think this topic does not belong in the Lead. It seems not relevant to the essence of Bach as a composer. There is a section about the death. The lead has a statement as fact, "modern historians believe" the death was caused by a combination of pneumonia and stroke. In the section, this is called speculation. I think we should not speculate about an event over 250 years ago. Spitta's biography, vol. 3, p. 274, gives some details. Spitta confirms that Bach had "apoplexy", a stroke. He does not mention any lung disease. He confirms a statement attributed to a contemporary newspaper that "Medical treatment associated with the [failed eye] operation had such bad effects that his health, hitherto unfailing, was severely shaken" and he was left totally blind. Medical sources confirm that stroke is often associated with high fever (half of hospitalized stroke cases) and that might have led to the pneumonia speculation? What I propose to do in short is to remove any details of Bach's death (other than the date) from the Lead, and revise the section, referring to Spitta as indicated, Marlindale (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that cause-of-death info should be removed from the lede as an insignificant biographical detail. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bach's religious convictions

Apologies if this has been dealt with before, but the article seems light on Bach's actual relationship with the religious music he created. Sources agree that the Lutheran Church was far more than a generous client, he remained a deeply committed orthodox Lutheran at a time when new ways of worship were starting to prevail.Rumiton (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know what really went on in his mind about religion. In that sociopolitical setting, Lutheranism was just part of the furniture—there was little psychological choice. Certainly Bach injected a great deal of irony into his word-setting in his two passions, on a micro-scale; but I'm not sure that proves anything about his internal belief system. Whether it was the Lutheran church or the state who were the generous employers at Leipzig, Arnstadt, and Mülhausen is ambiguous. The state paid the salaries. If injecting more into the relationship between religion and his music, what would be your priorities, given the rationing of space? Tony (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Bach was not employed by "the church", but by courts and finally the city of Leipzig, see Thomaskantor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Royal court composer" to King August III of Poland, in Dresden

As far as I can tell from Spitta and from the article itself, Leipzig period, this position, granted in 1736, was more or less an honorary one, a "title and style," far from a full-time position. Spitta says Bach visited Dresden only four times between 1723 and his death in 1750, but his main position remained in Leipzig. The article says that by getting this honor, Bach hoped to gain leverage with the Leipzig authorities. I think it is too complicated to explain this in the Lead, where as now stated it gives a misleading impression, so I propose to delete it from there, while possibly supplementing the text about it in the Leipzig period with material from Spitta. Marlindale (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, - I tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Inserting "the title of" seems a simple, concise solution, thank you. Marlindale (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent move of a lot to archive

It seemed rather a drastic action, but as I did not have any reason myself to revert any of it, I did not. Marlindale (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Mizlerischer Bücherverlag

There seems to be some misunderstanding in this article about German grammar when referring to the "Mizlerischer Bücherverlag". "Mizlerischer" is an adjective and subject to declination in German; for detail, see e.g. wikt:lustig#Declension. The salient bit is that the nominative in strong declension (without article) or in mixed declension (with indefinite article) is "Mizlerischer Bücherverlag". The form "Mizlerischen Bücherverlag" only occurs in genitive, dative and accusative cases (except singular dative where it's "Mizlerischerem"). The confusion probably arose from reading citations in German of the form "… im Mizlerischen Bücherverlag" or in prose "Gründung des Mizlerischen Bücherverlag" – those are declensions (dative, genitive). Please restore the nominative "Mizlerischer Bücherverlag". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You should adress this useful lecture directly to User talk:Buxtehude since he doesn't seem to understand the rules of declination in German. Hartenhof (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, restore name, as found here also. We look silly in the eyes of the world often enough, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections and clear explanation; sorry for the inconvenience this caused. Buxtehude (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Preservation of most of Bach's compositions, 1750-1850.

Bach died in 1750, and systematic publication of his music by the Bach-Gesellschaft began about 1850. In the intervening century some fraction of Bach's music is thought to have been lost including some 100 cantatas and a St. Mark Passion. For the music preserved, who preserved it? CPE Bach, JSB's second son, was the last of his 11 sons to die, in 1788. Johann Christian B., the last born, died earlier, in 1782, and also probably had not carriied many of his father's manuscripts to England. Do the Bach-Gesellschaft volumes, 1850-1900, give indications of where the works had been located? Marlindale (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe they don't. Tony (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Composer sons

JSB had I believe three: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Johann Christian Bach, and Wilhelm Friedemann Bach.. They might be mentioned in the Lead and/or under Legacy? The statement "Bach is the father, we are the children" was made about CPE Bach by Haydn or Mozart according to different sources I've seen? JC Bach contributed to the origin of the classical "galant" style of Haydn and Mozart I think.. As of now CPE is mentioned as co-author of an obituary of JSB, not highlighted that I saw. Various details need checking, but does the concept seem reasonable? Marlindale (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There was at least one more composer son, Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach, making four. This one and WF Bach might not be mentioned in the Lead? The statement about CPE Bach being the father was made by Mozart to Gottfried van Swieten according to a few sources. One in The Guardian said in the second half of the 18th cent., the name "Bach" in musical circles was almost entirely used about CPE not JSB. Marlindale (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Google for `Bach's sons' gave a header Johann Sebastian Bach > sons and a listing of 11 of them. The four composer sons mentioned above are the first four sons on the list. None of the other sons seems to have composed. . JC Bach was the 11th and youngest son. Marlindale (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

He did, however have a grandson who was a very good composer. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst Bach is said to be "the only grandson of JSB 'to have gained fame as a composer" Marlindale (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) In the WP article on him as of now there is a discography with just one recording. Searching a compendious source (original research) I was unable to find any (other) recordings.

CPE Bach is now mentioned in the Lead and JC Bach in the Leipzig period when he was born. I have no current plan to mention the other two son composers WF and JCF Bach, or the grandson WFE, as they seem less distinguished than CPE and JC. Marlindale (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I mentioned the two sons in proportion to their importance as composers in their times, which really was not equal between the sons, and that these two were more important than Wilhelm Friedemann or JCF. So I don't see how this was "inconsistent." Buxtehude reverted the mentions, Of course I'm disappointed, but it would not be right for me to revert.. Marlindale (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I did note the rationale behind your edit. It is probably generally accepted that Carl Philipp Emanuel was the most important as a composer, but any ranking of all four of his composer sons would be rather subjective. Furthermore, I don't think text about the career of Bach's sons should be placed in either the lead or in the middle of a section about Bach's own life. Buxtehude (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It would have been better and more collegial to look at and make a comment in this Talk section before making the edit that brusquely cancelled out its previous result. There was also an interchange between Gerda Arendt and me on my own Talk page which others could not be expected to have seen (but could now if they like). As a result of that I decided to say nothing about composer sons other than CPE and JC. I suggested there grounds for the importance of JC, second to CPE. If a composer son is going to be mentioned, I think something about career is needed to indicate why the son is notable. For this to be done in the Legacy section would be fine with me. I think the fact that the famous Bach in 1750-1800 or so was CPE is interesting in relation to JSB's late recognition as the great composer he was.

For an example of the process working well I hope, see the previous Talk topic on "Royal Court Composer" in Dresden (myself and Gerda Arendt). Marlindale (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to more information on Bach's composer sons per se. Any text should however be well-placed, well-sourced and in balance with the rest of the article. Have a look at the structure of the German Wikipedia-article on Bach as an example (use Google translate if needed). Buxtehude (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have ben looking for sources on the sons, beyond the references in the individual articles. I looked at the Oxford Companion to Music. It does not have articles on the individual sons but rather an article on the Bach family which mentions all four composer sons. On CPE Bach I think omission of Beethoven's admiration is disappointing, but there are other sources for that. The article has many more lines about each of JC and CPE than about WF or JCF. For now I plan to insert a reference to the Bach familly article in the JC Bach article, where it can confirm a statement in the Legacy section of that about Mozart's appreciation which has lacked a reference up to now. Marlindale (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

A isource I plan to use, as previously on CPEB, is Guy Dammann in The Guardian 24 February 2011. Guy Dammann iis said to be also music critic for the Times Literary Supplement and to teach at the Guildhall School of Music.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlindale (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

Please add ...

• Bach On Bach, by Peter Bach jr. the international Johann Sebastian Bach Project

... as this is the largest German and largest international Bach website created by a family member of this family of musicians: largest collections of tributes, genealogy, stamps, Bach places and much more.

BachUeberBach (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Need a reliable secondary source that shows the importance of this particular website in relation to Bach. Cannolis (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cannolis, all for us "is new" as we are new in the community, both Wiki and Bach: this is our apology if the answer might be too long. We didn't expect your answer so fast and didn't check and discover your answer out until today. Sorry. Thanks for requesting more proof. BachUeberBach is the largest German and International Bach website and in many themes there is way more information beyond Wikipedia. This website is the new reference in Bach genealogy all over the world. Same with stamps, tributes, Bach places, societies, choirs, orchestras and many more themes. Many Bach institutions worldwide link to it. We correspond with Bach Institutions like Bach archive, Bach House in Eisenach, St. Thomas Church, Officials in Arnstadt, Wechmar and Dornheim [3] plus video on the bottom of this page). I am related to JSB and we found dozens of relatives of Bach with a new tool. "BachueberBach", respectively "Bach On Bach" is no. 1 on many ( 35 languages ) foreign Google searches in their native language, even in India (जोहान सेबेस्टियन बाख; put this in Google) and China (约 翰·塞巴斯蒂安·巴赫 国际 项目+视频; put this in Google). We are the last and currently important genealogists regarding Bach earlier than Veit. The reliable second sources: Director Dr. Hansen Bach House Eisenach, thee Bach City # 1 together with Leipzig; Paragraph 27 as first recommendation on the net: [4] Paragraph 27 as first recommendation on the net! Next Bach.de: [5] (Pos. 6) , thee authority for decades: Bach-Cantatas with some 40 Links for instance Links in General [6] Pos. 7) plus Bach in Arts Ulm Cathedral (Must see my pictures, Cannolis: [7], Bach Cantatas ( there is a link to Bach-Cantatas on your Wiki page) is thee reference as a Bach website in the world. Check Wikipedia "Bach On Stamps" we have 120 more. Wikipedia Bach Choirs: we have dozens more. Important Bach Cities Ohrdruf [8]; Position 6) Arnstadt [9]; last article hint to a new website ) and Muehlhausen [10]; No. 1, whole article + 3 links !!! link to us. Please add our site to your page please as it's a total of more than 3 years of work with thousands of hours travel, taking photos, writing and researching. Best regards and thanks for reading that much and reconsidering, Peter --BachUeberBach (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Done. I think that website fully satifies #3 at WP:ELYES. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

Apart from Mr Schonken's WP:OWNERy approach to the current misguided bibliography section (presumably he'll push me up against WP:3RR so, fellow editors, please do eventually fix that mistake), this is a very well curated and cared for article. As such, I won't put these two old sources in for now: but here are the EB9 and EB11 articles on Bach, both of which are pretty thorough for their era, and might be used for future article expansion:

• Hueffer, Francis (1878), "Johann-Sebastian Bach" , Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th ed., Vol. III, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 194–196.
• Tovey, Donald Francis (1911), "Johann Sebastian Bach" , Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–130.

Kindly use these rather than the EB template, which lacks most of this info and makes it look as though Hugh Chisholm wrote the entire encyclopædia. — LlywelynII 11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

? don't think we need these. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If they're not being used at the moment, you absolutely don't. I've included them here so people have them available and can include them if they're helpful for sourcing some minor point or period information. — LlywelynII 12:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

English pronunciation

needs sourcing. Wiktionary isn't authoritative at all, but it doesn't agree with this article. Word Reference's discussion isn't a WP:RS but it shows some people use the [x] pronunciation but others don't and even need to have the sound explained to them (the ch from "loch"). No idea how these guys came up with "bark" but possibly it's a British tinged thing. So... sourcing and possibly dialectical variants are in order. — LlywelynII 12:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just checked a couple of dictionaries (both 20-30 yrs old). Merriam-Webster collegiate (US) gives /ba:x/ or /ba:k/, where the a has an umlaut, said to mean as in "father" and "bother" for most US speakers (these are completely different vowels in BrE). The related Longman dictionary (LDEl) gives /ba:k/ or /ba:x/ (reverse order) where the a (written 'ah') is as in "father". (The US dictionary says that /x/ is like "ich" and "buch" in German -- again these are different consonants! -- where the UK dictionary says 'ch' in "loch".) The ABRSM forum in fact reaches a consensus on (an approximation to) /ba:x/; I have spent 30+ years in England being at least a bit musical, and I do not ever recall hearing anyone saying /ba:k/, so I am unconvinced by LDEL's version. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, "bark": well, in many dialects of England (not mine, Gloucestershire), 'bark' is pronounced with no distinct 'r' at all. So 'father' and 'farther' are pronounced the same. So 'bark' is just a way of indicating a long /a:/. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Biographies

Initial conversation

don't need a separate section carved out of the bibliography section, which should only list the works being used by the page's citations. They should go into a #Further reading section if they're not being used... but (a) Further Reading sections are generally terrible unless they're being lovingly curated by a specialist or are carefully listing what the actual value of each inclusion is and (b) there's no need for it here: there's an entire article on Bach's biographies so we shouldn't do a half-arsed partial list here.

These two were unused. Kindly reinclude them in the #Bibliography section once they're being used to verify some point in the text that isn't covered by one of the other works:

• Gardiner, John Eliot (2013a). Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven. New York: Alfred O. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-375-41529-6.
• Gardiner, John Eliot (2013b). Music in the Castle of Heaven: A Portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9662-3.

 — LlywelynII 11:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree with your approach, so I'm going to revert for now, until if and when a consensus shows otherwise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no actual rationale in there. How do you think it is beneficial to include 2 unused sources and a partial biography list when we have an entire linked article on Bach's biographies? — LlywelynII 11:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd keep Gardiner, it's the most recent new extended biography.

So it should be easy to use it for something. Otherwise, kindly keep it here or, at the very least, make some reference to its status in the article and use that as an excuse for its inclusion.

Your re-arrangements are more problematic than whether or not to include the Gardiner biography though. The separate article is about biographical writings on the composer, not on all the rest of Bach scholarship. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Struck my comment while broken by someone else. Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That isn't problematic. It's a {{see also}}, not a {{main}}, and even if we did call it {{main}} there's nothing wrong with it being the main article for only part of the section it heads. (If there's a separate article on J.S. Bach scholarship, by all means link to that also.) — LlywelynII 11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the approach problematic, and see no consensus emerging on it (unless one person talking to himself is seen as a consensus). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's 3rr I've bumped up against but you're quite right that you're not a consensus. I'll go ahead and try to get some outside opinions. — LlywelynII 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

The current formatting of this page

• cuts the #References section in half instead of keeping it together, for no apparent reason, and
• cuts the #Bibliography section in half instead of keeping it together, in order to
• create a partial separate list of biographies, some of which are used in this article, some of which aren't, but which
• doesn't include the full treatment already provided by Biographies of J.S. Bach, which has an entire article all to itself on the subject.

Anyone [ snip ] think that's a good idea? I don't, but I'm bumping up against WP:3RR at this point. (My own proposed formatting is here, but I'm open to third options that don't treat the #Bibliography section like a #Further Reading one.) — LlywelynII 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

• I'd like the biographies discussed in Biographies of Johann Sebastian Bach in a separate sublist (with the boilerplate link to that article), and the other studies, scholarship, and biographies of other composers in the second sublist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this should be formatted, but this is not (surely!) a comment on the RfC, it appears to be a response to the RfC. I will add my own comment below, but urge reformatting. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC question OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. So I changed the heading to one which seems to make sense. A "Comment regarding the RfC topic" would be a metacomment, discussing whether the RfC topic was OK. Let's get on with discussing the issue. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have observed the bickering; I noticed that Francis Schoncken has done a lot of work on this page recently, which I have not looked at closely, but I assume good faith. As far as I can see, no rational reason has been given for the prima facie absurd provision of two lists of JSB biographies, one much shorter than the other. It seems obvious that given the full list on the "Biographies..." page, this page should simply have a link to that list somewhere: at the top of the References section, unless someone has a better idea. Then I'm sure the rules for references mean that some of these biographies will be included in the list of references, more or less automatically. Have I missed something? (Update, in response to comment above by Francis Schonken: Do you mean you think there should be a copy of the "List of biographies" from the "Biographies..." page embedded in the list of references? What on earth for?) Imaginatorium (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Re "Do you mean you think there should be a copy of the "List of biographies" from the "Biographies..." page embedded in the list of references?". No. Just the most prominent ones, and then only these editions that contain the page numbers used in the references on this page. These would usually be more recent, and English and/or on-line available, editions for the page on the composer, and first editions (many of them not in English) for the page that is about the biographies, and when they first appeared and/or were first translated in English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Re. a full article treating the same topic as a more condensed section on another page: see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, that's how it works. Some of these biographies are needed here, as they are linked to from the numbered references section (with page numbers that may only apply to the particular editions as listed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• From your comments it rather seems that I did not miss anything. Of course an article will sometimes include a summary of a topic dealt with more fully somewhere else. So a summary paragraph commenting on the huge number of such biographies, and saying "See ... for a full list", would be totally OK -- but a sublist is not a summary! It is also IMO preferable to separate out the sometimes tedious listings of references from "Further reading", except that in this case it seems unlikely that there will be any further reading other than the biographies in the separate article. Yes, of course if a reference is referenced on this page, it has to appear in the list of references, and as you say with specific edition and page number info. This is not an argument for having a separate sublist. It is also extremely undesirable to have different versions of the same thing ("List of Bach biographies"): no-one would rationally want to look at the shorter one; there is an update problem if one gets added to the shorter list; and no reason for having two lists is yet in evidence. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nah, can't say that I see where you are heading with what you try to explain, at least not how it would affect the page. But please make a proposal of where and how you'd link to the "Biographies..." article from this page. When I see it before me it might make more sense than a hundred words can explain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict over the RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue handled afaics. Francis Schonken (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Rfc's should be worded neutrally [-Schonken]

Don't comment out the RFC, attempting to avoid new opinions you were just pretending to request. If you have a more neutral phrasing you'd prefer, add it. Don't ever edit my talk page comments: WP:TPO. — LlywelynII 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:TPO. This is not your page. DO NOT EDIT talk page comments, particularly as a means to avoid outside opinions. If you have more neutral phrasing, employ it. If mine is too biased, let them come and share their thoughts on that subject. — LlywelynII 12:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, RfC's should be worded neutrally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the repeated policy violations w/r/t editing my talk page comments, you've now hit the bright line WP:3RR. Kindly cease and desist so I don't have to go through the trouble of having you frozen out of a page I'm sure you're usually quite helpful in curating. The extent of the non-neutral wording in the description (that you're overprotective) is now obviously a neutral assessment of the edit warring you've engaged in. Present your case and allow other editors to come by and comment on the original issue. — LlywelynII 14:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't launch the RfC before it is worded neutrally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That was 3rr. Kindly cease editing this page pending admin review. — LlywelynII 14:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No RfC launch before it is worded neutrally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed (i.e. rejected). The request as made was mostly a request about user conduct and Third Opinion does not handle questions of user conduct; for that speak to an administrator or file at AN, ANI, or the proper subsection of ARBCOM. The part which was not a conduct request, i.e. whether the RFC is phrased neutrally, has not been sufficiently discussed here. Third Opinion, like all moderated content dispute resolution processes, requires extensive talk page discussion before assistance will be given. I will add a couple of things, however: First to Francis Schonken: Just continuously saying that it's not neutral doesn't say much unless you also say how it's not neutral. Second to LlywelynII, I rather suspect that it's what you say in the RFC after the bullet points which is the source of most of Schonken's complaint and I'd suggest striking that; if he believes that the bullet points are not neutral, he's going to have to make a case for that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

Indeed, Transporterman worded my objection on why it is not neutral, don't think I'll need to rephrase that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point, "over-protective" is a profoundly neutral way of assessing your behavior. All the same, if that was your issue, it's nixed.
Thank you for your time, 3Oman. — LlywelynII 14:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.