Talk:List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach

Sonatas: content of list page, and spin-off article

{{Ill}} template

Re. [1] – There's a difference between:

{{ill|de|Organ Sonatas (Bach)|Triosonaten für Orgel (Bach)}}

(showing as:)

Organ Sonatas (Bach)

and

[[:de:Triosonaten für Orgel (Bach)|Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530]]

(showing as:)

Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530

The first uses the {{ill}} template, as explained at WP:REDDEAL: it leaves a redlink for someone who wants to start the article. The second is the kind of interlanguage link that should be avoided in mainspace (it takes the reader "by surprise" to another Wiki), while the "de" link in the first option indicates the language code for "German". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why make any reference at all to the German article? Just leave the redlink without to Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530. That is what the title of the article will be. Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "Why make any reference at all to the German article?" – de:Triosonaten für Orgel (Bach) is at least a start for someone who wants to start the article on English Wikipedia.

Re. "Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 ... is what the title of the article will be" – I suppose the "s" of "sonatas" should be capitalised per the "fixed set" principle at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization of generic names, so I'd propose either Organ Sonatas (Bach) (compare Cello Suites (Bach)), Organ Sonatas, BWV 525–530, Six Organ Sonatas, BWV 525–530 or Six Sonatas for Organ, BWV 525–530 (compare Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1014–1019). Of these proposals I'd personally favour Organ Sonatas (Bach): nor the "Six" nor the BWV range (with an ndash) are needed here, while these six are all the ones in the BWV catalogue (which is not the case for the Violin & Harpsichord Sonatas BWV 1014–1019). In other words I'd choose the shortest unambiguous one, per WP:CRITERIA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have a bit of prior experience of this kind of thing. Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel). I did not create those final titles, although I created the articles. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Handel articles on the sets of Organ Concertos obviously don't follow guidance (concerti grossi is something else, while Italian). Bach's articles on sets of compositions follow the naming conventions afaik. I see no reason to start an article with a title that should be changed immediately after creation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few more examples of articles following the fixed set principle: Twelve Violin Sonatas, Op. 2 (Vivaldi), 12 Fantasias for Solo Violin (Telemann). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, a "See also:..." exclusively pointing to a place where there's nothing to "see" makes no sense, so I'd go back to the See also with the {{ill}} template, or, if that is not intuitive enough for the average reader, change the section header to:
==Six Sonatas (BWV 525–530)==
("for organ" is redundant in a list that exclusively contains compositions for organ, compare BWV^2a, p. 311) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not choose the titles. There is a comparable set of compositions for solo violin by Bach, with a similar purpose (one movement was transcribed for organ in BWV 29—oh look, it was me who uploaded the original manuscript of the organ part on Commons). It is entitled Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach). If you could change that title by engaging with the corpus of Bach editors on wikipedia, then perhaps your arguments might be more convincing. But that title contradicts almost everything you've written. Besides there is no uniformity in the academic or musical world as to what to call these organ works. (Many organists still call these "trio sonatas", but that is sloppiness.) I don't think capitalisation of sections of articles works the way you think. In mathematics it is not used at all. I've written a lot of articles in that area; and some of the major contributors to wikipedia were active there. So I am not going to unlearn what I have learnt there.

At present I'm busy encoding the lilypond files for SATB for the third section of BWV 39/i, part of the very elaborate process in creating ogg files and miniscores for quotations. I might not respond rapidly during that process. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) redirects to Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin (Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Organ sonatas

In the 2010 Breitkopf & Härtel Urtext edition of the Sonatas, Trios and Concertos, prepared by the musicologist Peter Dirksen and others, there are two prior versions of BWV 528/2. These are separately classified as "trios". Both are in D minor and are completely different (the first has distinct motifs). They appear on pages 118-119 and 120-121 of the volume. This does not agree with Francis Schonken's notes. Why add content that contradicts published sources; and why attempt to use a primary source like the Bach-Archive? The Bach-Archive can be a useful guide, but wikipedians are not in a position to make commentary on those manuscripts themselves in the voice of wikipedia. Please use the proper sources (like Dirksen's edition with its extensive commentary and notes, almost a book in itself). As it turns out Breitkopf & Härtel have generously made public the pdf file of Dirksen's introduction;[2] as well as the contents.[3]

Also BWV 529/2 has an earlier version has been published with two different preludes and fugues. But this list page is not the place to enter into a discussion of the history and self-borrowings of the Trio Sonatas, which is quite complicated. It results in errors and omissions which can only confuse the reader (basically the attempted precise statements are incorrect). Francis Schonken, could you please correct your mistakes? I don't know why you attempted to make these edits without having proper sources at your disposal. I have four or five editions of the Trio Sonatas, including a Hungarian miniscore which, when enlarged, allows pieces like BWV 529/3 to be performed without page turns; I've also performed the Trio version of BWV 21/1 from the CD-ROM of Breitkopf & Härtel Urtext edition (once in a funeral service). Not everything is available on the web. I was surprised to find Dirksen's introduction; but the notes on each movement from the end of the volume are not there. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are no "errors": The 1998 edition of the Bach-Werke Verzeichnis (BWV^2a) and the Bach Digital website (BD) are reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, such as this list. If you don't think they are, take them to the reliable sources noticeboard. The BWV of 1998 lists an early version of BWV 282/2 and calls it "Andante". Dirksen publishes an "early" version and a "middle" version.

If you feel, per the neutral point of view policy, that the informations contained in BWV 1998 and the BD website need to be complemented by those found in other sources (such as Dirksen), such information can be added – although, as you suggest, the level of detail for a list is somewhat limited too. The 1998 edition of the BWV and the BD website both being "lists" by nature, that would be, imho, more or less the level of detail required for this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You have used the new references and information which I provided (with some effort), but you haven't said thank you. When I help Gerda Arendt, she always says thank you. You make it look as if you found this material yourself, which was not the case.

In Williams' book, BWV 529/2 is listed as being associated with two sets of preludes and fugues. You only mention one.

Looking at the list, a reader would ask why there is this level of detail only for these 18 pieces. They might think it was undue. A list is a list not an article. Why do only these pieces have links to the Bach archive? This might be useful for an article but not for here. You talk about the movements, but how is a reader supposed to know about the movements? How would they know what form these works take? How would they know about motifs? I find this level of detail completely inappropriate here; I can see in its correct context how it might be mentioned in an article. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied (in part) on the user's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Split suggestion

Re. "Looking at the list, a reader would ask why there is this level of detail only for these 18 pieces." – WP:SOFIXIT, more detail can be added to the other pieces and/or WP:Summary style can be applied to the Organ Sonatas on this page once Organ Sonatas (Bach) is started. Note that, for instance, List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Orgelbüchlein (Little Organ Book, BWV 599–644) has a fair amount of detail too (although could do with some more references). Generally speaking I suppose lists such as this one could be given slightly more detail than what is already mentioned at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, which is a long-term plan, but for instance List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach has a higher level of detail than List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV Chapter 2, the same way this separate list on the organ compositions can have a higher level of detail than List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV Chapter 7. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The section on BWV 525–530 is unhelpful to readers at the moment in the context of this list. The section on Orgelbüchlein links to each individual chorale prelude. These are lists not articles. Articles are what keep wikipedia alive. I can't see any reason for adding anything to this particular list. Apart from the links to articles or parts of articles, it serves very little purpose beyond a template or navbox. It is like the contents of a book on Bach's organ music. If that analogy is continued, it would be a book with a huge number of pages missing. Mathsci (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Start of new article on Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530

This exists now with wikilinks. The content on the list page on earlier versions and borrowings will be incorporated in a table in the borrowings section; and in very brief form in the history and purpose section. I will do that myself. I will also prepare audio ogg files with baroque organ configurations. This content has not been on wikipedia for many, many years, so creation will be slow. Francis Schonken is welcome to create or help create a table for the section Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530#Earlier compositions and borrowings. The material in this list is too technical for the history section. Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that the new article has been started, I have cleaned up the list content with direct links by BWV number to the relevant sections of the article, which will be written gradually. Francis Schonken's contributions are saved in the history of the page and, as stated above, can be incorporated within the appropriate context in the article. All of the autograph manuscript can be downloaded either as jpg files (~ 1 MB) or as ultra high resolution png reconstitutions of zoomification tiles (~ 90 MB). The jpg files seem adequate for wikipedia purposes. There will be no religious images in the article, but there will be musical instruments: I had already written related content on the pedal clavichord 6 years ago (I vaguely recall that there is one in Bach House (Eisenach)). Mathsci (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Links in section titles

Can we avoid links in section titles? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

When you created this page by copy-pasting from List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach, you copied the wikilinks in the titles.[4] They have remained there ever since. We will follow the conventions adopted by the wikipedia editors who created that other list. We will not adopt arbitrary new rules that you decide on at 14:46, 3 September 2016: rules that you did not apply to yourself but now want to apply to others. You seem to blaming me for things others did or things you did yourself. I think the wikilinks are fine and helpful to the reader. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Current guidance is at WP:LINKSTYLE: "Section headings should not themselves contain links; instead, a {{main article}} or {{see also}} template should be placed immediately after the heading" – something being suboptimal for a long time, does not prevent its improvement over time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you ever read what other editors write? It was you who put the wikilinks in the section titles when you created this article.[5] You made those "suboptimal edits" yourself. Click on the link and see. You must have spent quite a lot time creating those links in the section titles. There are a huge number of them. And all put there by you. I think that was a fine thing for you to do. It was a great help to the reader. Perhaps you even deserve some kind of medal. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "It was you who put the wikilinks in the section titles when you created this article" – yes, my answer to that is: "something being suboptimal for a long time, does not prevent its improvement over time". You see, I didn't blame anyone for anything, I focus on improvements whatever the prior history. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)