Talk:Organ Sonatas (Bach)

Audio files

As far as I can tell, lilypond files only exist for BWV 528 and BWV 529 (they are on mutopia). Audio files have been created using non-free software on the Walter Icking archive (linked on IMSLP), but do not have usable source files and the midi files have the wrong Creative Commons license for wikipedia ("non-commercial"). They also do not sound like an organ rendition in any way at all. Starting with the existing lilypond files, I will add ornamentation and phrasing to create ogg files with baroque organ soundfonts. Usually registrations depends on the individual organ, but in the world of synthesised music, Jeux d'orgues has a very diverse collection of baroque soundfonts. I can therefore follow what my preferred organists do for these works. Most of all I like Isoir, but there are all the others like M-C Alain, Walcha, Koopman, Johannson and Foccroule. There are also all the English organists, especially the late John Scott. But the sound will be that of a baroque organ (like the reconstructed Bach organs of Daniel Kern, which I'm used to), not an English organ. This might take some time. Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Progress report

I am evidently busy editing ths article. That is evident with the empty sections waiting to be filled. Until I have created that [reliminary content, could other editors stay away? It will take roughly two weeks to create the article. If you see an empty section, that is an indication that the preliminary editing is not complete. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "... could other editors stay away? It will take roughly two weeks ..." – As I suggested elsewhere, maybe take this extended updating to your user space, instead of claiming two weeks of ownership of a mainspace article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am creating the article. Use a little bit of common sense. Your comments are ofl little or no help at this stage. Please wait until I have created the content. You cannot help me at this stage of the creation. Sorry about that. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, take the creating over such extended period of time to your user space, in the mean while we can have the naming discussion, which normally should be settled by the time the extended update is ready. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is normally how I create articles. I am sorry if this upsets Francis Schonken. Considering the attention he has given them, he should be perfectly aware how my articles on organ music have been written. It is hard to predict how this one will develop as each sonata is different. I am not sure about material on the reception of these sonatas or to what extent they were performed in the late 18th and early 19th century. I imagine the list of sources will mushroom. I do not intend to use CD liners to produce content. At present I will try to find sources for "reception". All this takes time. There is no hurry. After 15 years without an article on wikipedia, there is no need to feel any pressure at all. The preparation of the lilypond files for BWV 525, 526, 527 and 530 might be a little time-consuming, particularly checking for errors. But much easier than for a choral work with orchestra. No transposition is required, which is where errors can creep in. Mathsci (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There are at least two books on Reception, both by Stinson and published by Oxford University Press. Samuel Wesley arranged the trio sonatas for three hands so presumably there is some history there possibly related to Hanover Square Rooms (another article that I wrote directly in main space related to baroque music). Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Just in case there was any doubt, for each of the eighteen movements where will be a section analysing the structure. Prinicpally it will paraphrase Williams, but there are other sources for indivual movements. My plan is to group by sonata, which is how the article has been structured. I am not sure how many images from the original manuscript are relevant; and BWV 530 is somehwat special. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus is abundant for renaming this page; however, controversy lies in whether or not "sonatas" is a proper noun in this case. I see no consensus for one way or the other, so we have to go with the cited naming convention guideline and reliable sources. The nom's assertion in the last post: ...scholarly sources are in unison afaics: they all capitalise "Sonatas" when talking about this set of compositions..., is correct. The random sources I checked all treated "Sonatas" as a proper noun. (non-admin closure)  Paine  ^u/c 12:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 → Organ Sonatas (Bach) – Same structure of the article title as Cello Suites (Bach). See also preliminary discussion at Talk:List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Sonatas: content of list page, and spin-off article, and guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), in particular WP:NCM#Capitalization of generic names, "Fixed set" principle. Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. — JFG ^talk 13:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support Organ sonatas (Bach) (but oppose Organ Sonatas (Bach)). Similar to Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel) and Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach). I see no reason to change it. Numerous redirects were made when the article was created. Francis Schonken attempted to modify them all. User:Graham87 thanked me for creating this article. In private organists call these pieces Trio sonatas. The content of the article, rather than arbitrary title, is what is important. And I am busy creating that. For a huge number of years there has been content about this on wikipedia beyond lists. (I mentioned it in Clavichord#Pedal clavichord a number of years ago, and fleetingly in articles on sacred organ works). Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC) I've already stated that I have no objection to the title without capitalisation, so this makes it clearer.Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see preliminary discussion at Talk:List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Sonatas: content of list page, and spin-off article:

• Articles on compositions by Bach (e.g. Cello Suites (Bach)), Vivaldi (e.g. Twelve Violin Sonatas, Op. 2 (Vivaldi)), Telemann (e.g. 12 Fantasias for Solo Violin (Telemann)) and others all stay closer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) than some of the articles on Handel's compositions.
• Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel) is irrelevant as comparison, as "concerti grossi" is an Italian expression
• Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) is a redirect to Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin (Bach)
• Better to avoid number ranges in article titles if there's no particular reason to use them (because of the ndash)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• (OP) Support proposed renaming. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. The above argument by Mathsci doesn't make sense to me. It seems to be an attempt at some kind of WP:CONSISTENCY argument, but isn't one, since "Organ sonatas (Bach)" is more consistent with the "(Bach)" and "(Handel)" cases Mathsci uses as examples. Who thanked whom for creating an article is totally off-topic; this is about the title, not whether the article should exist (that's what WP:AFD is for) or who should be credited for creating it (that's what page history is for), or whether it should be mentioned (under what name(s)) in other articles (that's what redirects and piped links are for).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not a binary choice as the RfC seems to suggest. The main issue I have is in the capitalisation of the word sonatas. There is no capitalisation in Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) or any of the articles on concertos or concerti grossi of Handel. (Note that we always say Concerti grossi but not piano concerti, a peculiar use of Italian in music.) There is an arbitrariness in published performing scores; CDs usually have the title "Trio sonatas for organ". Possible titles are Organ sonatas (Bach) (an equally good first choice for me), Trio sonatas for organ (Bach), Organ Sonatas, BWV 525–530, Six organ sonatas (Bach), etc, some of which are redirects. BWV numbers are used for the preludes and fugues, for the cantatas and to identify these individual works when they appear in concert programmes. If you type BWV 528 or BWV 529, it redirects to the corresponding section of the article (I created those redirects). Here—Saturday 23 January 2016—is an example of a fairly recent concert by members of the Collegium Vocale from Ghent in Bruges.[1] As I say, my issue is with the capitalisation of sonata. We do not usually capitalise these things on wikipedia. For example Partita in A minor for solo flute (Bach), Partitas for keyboard (Bach), Harpsichord concertos (Bach) (redirect) and Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach (the article). In general we don't capitalise and in general these trio sonatas are referred to by their BWV numbers, not by Bach's numbering (1 to 6). We have Cello suites (Britten). I created the redirect Suites for unaccompanied cello (Bach). There seems to be no consistency, even if some would like to claim there is. But why are we having this discussion when the article is not even written? Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Re. "There seems to be no consistency" – that's where Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), in particular WP:NCM#Capitalization of generic names comes in, i.e. to make article titling more consistent.

Re. "It is not a binary choice", then propose what you think it should be, and try to find consensus for it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "CDs usually have the title "Trio sonatas for organ"" – gratuitous assertion, contradicted by evidence – here are some actual CDs: Bach: The Trio Sonatas – Bach Organ Works: Six Sonatas – Bach: The Six Trio Sonatas – The Trio Sonatas of Johann Sebastian Bach ... Thus far I haven't found a single one that doesn't capitalise Sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – per the five WP:CRITERIA:
  1. Recognizability: "(Bach)" has a higher recognisability than "BWV 525–530"
  2. Naturalness: here also the "BWV" acronym is less natural than the last name of the composer
  3. Precision: all choices are equally precise
  4. Conciseness: Organ Sonatas (Bach) is more concise than Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530
  5. Consistency: again, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), in particular WP:NCM#Capitalization of generic names was designed to work towards greater consistency in these matters. So, that guidance is what it is, and if you want it differently (consistency to another format, less consistency,...) then try to find consensus for a rewrite of that guidance or whatever, For now the guidance should be applied "as is", thus "Organ Sonatas" not "Organ sonatas", it can always be changed back to the other capitalisation if and when the guidance is changed.

For the moment there is a 66% majority in favour of the renaming proposal, that majority being based on current guidance and current real-world practice, only one editor opposing for WP:IDONTLIKE and a selection of off-topic reasons and incorrect assertions. More community input would be appreciated. If not, I'd simply apply the guidance (which would be: implementing the renaming proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Only one person has replied so nothing will be done. There is no consensus at all. You were sanctioned for filling talk pages with endless messages. As I have said I don't think of this as a binary choice. I don't like capitalisation in the title. Most people looking for this article will look for "Trio sonatas for organ" because that is the term used on CD labels. I created various redirects for that reason. I notice that characteristically you do not refer to what can be found in printed editions or academic books. Whether you like t or not, there is no uniformity. If I apply your "logic" about titles to BWV 39 or any of the others cantatas, your arguments seem to fall apart. Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39 is hardly a concise title, is it? Those capital letters in German make it quite tricky. Mathsci (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. academic books: sure, e.g. Williams, p. 12 capitalises "Sonatas" for this set. So do Jones, p. 262, The Cambridge Companion, p. 242, Harvey Grace, p. 177, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39 is hardly a concise title" – yet it is as conforming to WP:AT and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) as Organ Sonatas (Bach) would be: BWV 39 has zero recognisability to most readers; Using (Bach) as a parenthetical disambiguator for cantata articles would often fail the precision criterion, etc. So three criteria (Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in the list above) had more weight than the fourth criterion (conciseness) when the consensus on the article titles of the Bach cantata series was formed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Or Organ sonatas (Bach) would be fine, but the current disambiguator is unrecognisable to many, (Bach) is far preferable. Andrewa (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Organ sonatas (Bach). "(Bach)" is clearly a more useful disambiguator, full stop. As for capitalization, the recommendations at NCMUSIC are confusing. I don't see why there should be differing capitalization between "fixed sets" and non-fixed sets of music. Moreover, according to the broader NCCAPS guideline and the WP:TITLEFORMAT policy, we avoid unnecessary disambiguation and generally don't capitalize titles that aren't proper names. As such, lower case would seem to be preferable here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Tx for the comment, however your reasoning on the capitalisation issue is flawed. For example:
    • Piano Concerto (John Ireland) ("Piano Concerto" is a proper name)

  For sets, one among overwhelming collections of examples:

  • String Quartets, Op. 18 (Beethoven) ("String Quartets, Op. 18" is, as far as I can tell, perceived as a proper name)

  For Bach's Organ Sonatas, examples:

  • Titles on recording sleeves: Bach: The Trio Sonatas – Bach Organ Works: Six Sonatas – Bach: The Six Trio Sonatas – The Trio Sonatas of Johann Sebastian Bach ... as said above: thus far I haven't found a single one that doesn't capitalise Sonatas.
  • In relevant scholarly literature (see above): Williams, p. 12 – Jones, p. 262 – The Cambridge Companion, p. 242 – Harvey Grace, p. 177, etc.

  As far as I can tell a capitalised "Sonatas" is seen to be (a part of) the proper name for this set.

  By contrast:

  • Schubert's last sonatas ("last sonatas" not a proper name – these sonatas are not usually published as a set under that name, so: descriptive title, not capitalised)

  The fixed set rule of WP:NCM tries to draw the line between article titles for sets of compositions that are a (capitalised) "proper name", and those that are a (non-capitalised) "descriptive name". Of course, based on the WP:AT policy, that invites to take a look at how things are done in reliable sources, which in this case would be (among others) the top experts in the field (e.g. Williams, and the other scholarly sources quoted above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  PS: also score publications capitalise as far as I can see, e.g. Dover: Six Trio Sonatas (ISBN 0486223590). Also Kalmus, Vol. IV of Bach's Complete Organ Works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Any discussion here is premature. The article has not even been created. It is a bare list. It might possibly be appropriate to have a discussion in a month or two's time, when a preliminary version of the article has been written. But at the moment this barely a list. Francis Schonken is well aware of that. He is disrupting the process of creation of the article with this premature RfC. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Re. "The article has not even been created" – on the contrary: it is in mainspace, thus the article has been created. This naming survey does not prevent content creation: those who prefer content creation over article titling deliberations can do so without interruption or even looking at this discussion. The editing community can decide on this without content creators spending their time in this discussion if they not wish to do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you need an administrator to explain to you what the process of creation involves? Mathsci (talk)
      • Unrelated to the article titling, off-topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency of OP

The main article on the Bach violin sonatas is entitled Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1014–1019. Francis Schonken has been editing that article on and off. He edited it on 4 September 2016. It is very little more than a bare list. I think it is appallingly written. Francis Schonken created the redirect Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord (Bach). Please could Francis Schonken briefly explain why he adopted that solution there and has suggested the opposite here? I cannot see any rationale at all. Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I already explained that briefly elsewhere: "...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)" (emphasis added). See List of chamber music works by Johann Sebastian Bach#Other works for accompanied violin (BWV 1020–1026), although the violin & harpsichord sonatas in that range have been moved to Anh. II (i.e. doubtful works) in later editions of the BWV catalogue.

Re. creation of redirect: the redlink had been posted as part of a school project here – later I did some cleanup on several pages involved in that project (e.g. here), also in some instances creating redirects. The cleanup I performed for these dozens of pages was minimal in most cases, although there were a few I got a bit more involved in (La tempesta di mare (flute concerto) comes to mind). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, re-redirected now (the list of chamber music works didn't exist yet in 2015 when I created the redirect). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, this is just inconsistent. Most of your arguments lack any rationale. The other article on violin sonatas is hopeless: poorly written, poorly sourced, full of failed attempts at scholarship similar to what is being attempted here. We cannot write content on wikipedia based on primary sources, such as the Bach Archive or similar lists. Without proper sources, all wikipedia readers get is a raw list prepared from CD liners and primary sources. And almost certainly gross errors. Above you make inferences about the violin works based on your own reading of the list. But Bach scholarship does not take place on lists. It is recorded in books and journals. Christoph Wolff writes, "The sonatas for violin and harpsichord may well, in part, have originated in Cothen; however, the completion of the set and also the composition of the most mature pieces (such as the B minor Sonata) most certainly occurred in Leipzig. The two E minor continuo Sonatas BWV1023 and 1034 also seem to belong to the early Leipzig years although there is no source evidence to corroborate this." The same dating c 1722–1725 occurs in Jones' 2013 book and there are two pages on BWV 1021. You used the liner notes from Brilliant Classics to write the content. You also thought that the publication history could be explained by citing the page numbers on the Breitkopf & Härtel edition. What was written about the first edition was obviously false, since the sonatas were performed in England before then (by Wesley and his circle). The Bach revival started in 1808-1810 in England and Samuel Wesley and Burney had the sonatas BWV 1014–1019 in 1809 when they were all performed in Chelsea and later the Hanover Square Rooms (with the violinist Salomon to large crowds). But you wrote: "The sonatas were published in the early 19th century before the Bach Revival." Even the wikilink in Bach Revival goes to "Early Music", not any general material about the reception of Bach. If you don't know the chronology, please don't add your own ill-informed commentary to wikipedia. There are countless books and articles about the reception of Bach. Wesley bought his printed copy for 18 shillings at Escher's music shop. The work was published by Nägeli in Zurich in 1800 (source Ollesen, 2000). No trace of that fact in your sentence. Just disinformation. Belgian waffle.

As stated in the latest (posthumous) book of Williams (Bach: A musical biography, CUP 2016), these violin sonatas were gathered together in around 1726 shortly before the organ sonatas. These errors would not occur if published secondary texts were used as sources, instead of original research and synthesis based on lists. No musicologists group the violin & harpsichord sonatas with the earlier solo works, so that is a red herrring. Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And off we are again on a tangent irrelevant to the discussion on this talk page. Most of the work produced by the school project mentioned above, including the content of the Violin and Harpsichord Sonatas article, needed a lot of cleanup. I did some of that (I think more than anyone else thus far). But that is not the point here: this is not about article content of an other article. If you want to expound on that, do so at the talk page of that article, where that discussion belongs – or better still: improve the article.

This discussion is about the article title of the article on Bach's six Organ Sonatas. About that discussion scholarly sources are in unison afaics: they all capitalise "Sonatas" when talking about this set of compositions (Williams, p. 12 – Jones, p. 262 – The Cambridge Companion, p. 242 – Harvey Grace, p. 177) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kibbie links

Currently the article contains 19 external links to James Kibbie's website, which seems some kind of overkill to me. However much I appreciate the organist and his downloadable recordings (see e.g. Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Kibbie), we're not his PR office.

I propose this entry in the External links section:

• Pages at James Kibbie's Bach Organ Works website containing free downloads of recordings on various 18th-century organs in AAC and MP3 format: BWV 525 • BWV 526 • BWV 527 • BWV 528 • BWV 529 • BWV 530

(which is still seven links to the organist's website, and has the advantage of pointing out that also higher quality Advanced Audio Coding formatted recordings are available instead of limiting this to MP3 links) – and remove all other links to Kibbies website, although I wouldn't oppose mentioning Kibbies recordings in the Discography section (with a ref linking to his site). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Graham87 thanked me for those edits. They assist the reader and have an educational purpose. There will also be ogg files (as mentioned above). Thank you, however, for giving your personal opinions. You seem to be more of a hindrance than a help at this stage. Why not find something better to do while I am creating the article? It will take a while and I'd prefer not to be interrupted. Indeed your comments at this very early stage in the creation of this article are premature. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

There is quite a lot of material here, which I will briefly summarise for my own benefit. In Germany the narrative starts with Bach's sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Philipp Emanuel (the Berlin Bach). Both composed organ sonatas themselves, some of those by CPEB were intended for Princess Amalia who played the organ. She had an organ installed in her palace in Berlin; but could not play the pedals or difficult passages. CPEB's sonatas have been published with a preface by David Yearley and Annette Richards. Princess Amalia's library contained a version of BWV 525–530 for two keyboards which was copied and taken to Vienna by the ambassador van Swieten (Engaging Bach, Matthew Dirst). The England the trio sonatas were published separately in 1809 and 1810 by Samuel Wesley using the copy Karl Friedrich Horn had obtained. Kollmann had previously published BWV 525 in his academic treatise on composition, which would not have been seen by a broad public. Horn and Wesley published the sonatas prior to publishing their edition of the WTC, which was does in four stages by subscription. Their aim was to convert the Handelian English public into Bachists, the essence of the English Bach awakening; as well as making sure that their publishing projects were properly financed and did not make a loss. The publication of the trio sonatas marked the beginning of the Bach awakening. The sonatas were performed as duets by Wesley with Vincent Novello and Benjamin Jacob. The performances took place at Wesley's long benefit concerts in the Hanover Square Rooms as well as the Surrey Chapel, Southwark. Organs with pedals were rare in England at that time, which is why the sonatas were played as duets on the manual keyboards (possibly three of them). Pedalboards started to appear in the 1820s, but Wesley and other organists concentrated on the sacred works: as Stinson comments, the organ sonatas on the whole were much harder. Stinson also describes how Widor championed the sonatas in France. The reconstruction of the original trio sonatas happened in the late 20th century when Bach's music was increasingly played and recorded on original instruments (e.g. the 2016 concerts of the Concerto Vocale in Ghent and elsewhere). I am not quite sure to what extent the secularity and difficulty of the sonatas affected their performance in the nineteenth century in England. At present I am still gathering sources. There is also material on Forkel and Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. Much of the narrative is parallel to that for Clavier-Übung III, but there are significant differences. Mathsci (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also the Belgian organist Lemmens, student of Adolf Hesse in Germany, who could play the trio sonatas from memory. He insisted that his students—they included Widor and Guillemont—also learn the trio sonatas by heart *on a weekly basis) and be able to transpose them if requested. His contemporary Franck's organ classes/exams in Paris are discussed by Stinson. There are also the performances by Alkan, Franck's pupil, of movements from the trio sonatas on his pedal piano in his Petits Concerts at the Salle Erard, Widor prepared an edition of the trio sonatas with Schweitzer. Yearsely's prize-winning 2012 book "Bach's Feet" contains a lot of material on the organ pedal, some of which is related to the trio sonatas. Stinson also has material in his Royal Instrument book.Mathsci (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict

To editor Mathsci: Okay, I give up. I won't battle with you. Ruin the article if you must. What a cryin' shame.  Paine  ^u/c 14:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Explained on your talk page. This article is still under construction as explained above. Did you not notice that? Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

After I moved the page, I noticed the problems I fixed. The construction notice was not up at that time. I sincerely hope that you will consider the improvements I made, especially the ones that fixed the cause of invalid HTML5 and accessibility issues. Extreme apologies if I have overstepped!  Paine  ^u/c 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PS. Page movers are required to make improvements following the renaming of a page. Please see our closing instructions. PS left by  Paine  ^u/c

Just as a matter of interest, could you please tell me about your own experience in editing articles on baroque music? Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've done my fair share of editing all kinds of articles on Wikipedia. So apparently unlike some editors we know, I know what causes invalid HTML and I know just a bit about accessibility issues. I also know that the bold lead-offs in article leads should be synchronized with the article titles. Don't you think it's a bit silly to edit war and ask irrelevant questions like this all because of an uppercase "S" disagreement? You've been around for more than ten years, so you tell me why we both should waste our time with this instead of getting back to improving articles, making page-move decisions and generally helping our readers?  Paine  ^u/c 15:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. As for my current editing, please look at my last 150 edits to a companion article. [2] I have also been adding content to Differential forms on a Riemann surface and Giulio Cesare. I'm still working on Planar Riemann surface. I've never edited Mozart piano concertos. Mathsci (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't get no respect, no respect at all. I asked my doctor how I could stop aging – he gave me a gun!... no respect at all. :>)  Paine  ^u/c 02:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Content to be merged from List of organ compositions

See prior discussion at Talk:List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Sonatas: content of list page, and spin-off article. Some of that content still awaits to be integrated here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That content is poorly sourced and unacceptable here. The same problems with your self-concocted content mentioned at WP:RSN apply in this case.

So I am sorry that content is unacceptable.

The discussion of sources in Dirksen is good and I am going to write that myself without your help.

If you want something to do that does not involve you following me around and making frivolous reports at WP:RSN, why not work on Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach)? It has far more sources now, but has much text which is unsourced. I have my own version of Wollny's 2001 Bärenreiter preface. It can found out there on the web and is one of the best of sources I've found so far. If you wish to use it, I can tell you where to find a copy.

Works for solo violin are slightest outside my interests, although I play many of the transcriptions and arrangements for organ, harpsichord and piano left hand (sinfonia from BWV 29, the Chaconne [multiple versions for organ, Brahms, Busoni], etc). The discography there is non-existent. Nathan Milstein and Arthur Grumiaux are amongst the obvious violinists to add first. Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's use of the title "Trio Sonatas" in the list article, etc

I have restored the material there to a bare list. What FS wrote there was original research, an improper use of sources, quite indecipherable and of no use to any reader. It was not a list but just FS's own attempt to write some form of forked article. FS should ask at wikiproject music if anybody else thinks such a personal, unreadable and improperly sourced essay is appropriate anywhere on wikipedia. It is useless for the reader. I know the source material and FS missed several major sources.

He also seems to have completely missed the basic point—the explanation of the "why", "what", "when" and "how" of the sonatas—that various sources make in long paragraphs of text which cannot possibly be encoded in a list.

Unlike FS, I have acquired and read the lengthy 1999 Bach-Handbuch article by Werner Breig which gives a detailed account of the evolution of the sonatas. It's a rather complicated thing to explain, but done very successfully in Breig by telling the fairly lengthy narrative in a carefully chosen order. The key is to create a set of paragraphs of content in a certain order which permits various aspects of the evolution of the sonatas to be explained: the history of Bach and his family; the purpose of the collection and its intended scope and universality; the history of the French trio sonata; Bach's (lost) instrumental works; when he might have composed them; Scheibe's notion of the Sonaten auf Concertenart; the strict form of the organ sonatas as trio sonatas; their division into two sets of three, etc. It takes a lot of thought as to how that can be done. Slow calm thought. FS did not find a solution. It seems FS did not even understand what the problem was.

FS's binary true/false presentation, patched together from outdated sources and lists, missed all of this subtlety. His indecipherable content was remote from the musical sublimeness and perfection of the sonatas. The aim of an article is to help the reader understand the music on various levels, particularly on a purely musical level so they can have a better appreciation and understanding of this music. Bach spent some time perfecting these sonatas. Why present them as a mess? Many of Bach's organ works have a tangled history before they reached a final form but that is not pursued in the list.

But the real question I would like to ask is why FS created the title "Trio Sonatas" there (modified from my title Organ sonatas) and then made such a song and dance about a completely different title here. How can FS have sources there which FS claims are reliable and led him to the title "Trio Sonatas" there and yet led him to a completely different title here. And here FS claimed the sources he had used there pointed to a capital letter. I understand this music well, I have seen the sources (apart from one 1988 source which is hard to locate), I can play the sonatas. None of this makes any sense to me. It seems very disruptive. Perhaps FS can explain himself. This is not the first time has done this kind of thing.

The bottom line is that what he created, which was not explained in any way at all, was of no help to any reader. Quite the contrary. Mathsci (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Further progress report

I am now starting to add more content. I will hop around various sections in a somewhat haphazard way. Just as an explanation to other users, I have been in a hypertensive emergency state for some time now which I am trying to control. (I was in A&E and then CCU a month ago.) My BP has just shot up to 194/107 so I have to take to take a break from editing. If Francis Schonken has plans to create extra stress for me, could he please put them on hold? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hope you get better and better, sincerely, Mathsci. You're both good editors, and between the two of you and your mutual, um, competitions, these music articles can only get better, too.  Paine  ^u/c 13:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Content on "Sara Levy's Bach cult in Berlin", like articles of Wolff and Wollny and the book of Wollny, was added to provided context for Bach reception. Question not asked in good faith. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bold textThe section on reception and legacy has a paragraph about the Itzig family, and their relations to W. F. and C. P. E. Bach, etc.: how does this content relate to the topic of this article, i.e. J. S. Bach's six organ sonatas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed content written by Francis Schonken as he has started to make personal attacks on me, accusing me of writing the content on Bach reception in Berlin as a WP:COATRACK. Since it seemed to be another personal attack, seemingly malicious, I removed it. The reception of Bach's music in Berlin has been written about copiously by Bach scholars. This article describes that context. In this and other articles, I simply transcribe what I find in the literature. It is all sourced. But Francis Schonken must surely have read some of the articles on Sara Levy and her circle. He speaks Dutch, so he could read the 2010 book (in German) by Wollny on Sara Levy and the Bach cult in Berlin. If he wants to make a personal stand against that part of Bach reception, I suggest he does it somewhere else. Here, it just seems to be at the level of disruptive trolling, designed to waste my time. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Re. "The reception of Bach's music in Berlin has been written about copiously by Bach scholars" – true, but thus far I've never seen a focus on organ music, leave alone Bach's Organ Sonatas, in the scholarly literature on the Itzig/Levy circle. So the question remains: where does this part of the reception of Bach's music fit in the reception of the Organ Sonatas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Christoph Wolff, in his recent book on Mozart and previous articles about Sara's sister Fanny von Arnstein and the Bach sons, refers to hand copies in the Itzig household of the two-harpsichord arrangement of the organ sonatas, probably made by one of the elder sons of Bach. Wolff describes the Itzig milieu in Berlin at great length. In particular their relations with the Bach family and circle. Wolff is cited in the references of this wikipedia article; the material is tied in with the content on Mozart and his string trios. Christoph Wolff is a recognised Bach scholar writing about Bach reception. That seems rather clear. I borrowed his recent book from the library to write the content. I therefore don't understand any of your comments. They seem to be just further examples of disruptive trolling. Is there something I'm missing? Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Re. "...hand copies in the Itzig household of the two-harpsichord arrangement of the organ sonatas..." – tx, that seems to be a valid link. Can that be explicited in mainspace? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It is already in the article. The word "explicited" does not exist in the English language. You have made a series of unfounded objections concerning the article, which stem from your misreading of both the article and its references. Now you are wasting my time. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about verbing an adjective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no word "verbing" in English. Mathsci (talk)

Wolff may have intended A-Wn Mus. Hs. 5008, a hand copy of the two-harpsichord version at one point owned by Fanny (at least this one is mentioned in that context in Wollny 2010, p. 97); Sara seems to have owned a hand copy of the organ version (D-B N. Mus. ms. 10486, mentioned in Wollny 2010, p. 69). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no conjecture here. Wolff is quite clear about the sources. An image of the manuscript is in the article. Originally I included the cover page because it bears the family imprint. Why am I being subjected to all your original research? What happens in real life is that scholars like Wolff, based on documents and established historical events, can construct a narrative concerning the reception of Bach. They use their expertise and considerable knowledge. They publish those narratives in articles and books. You're trying to comment as if you were Christoph Wolff yourself. But before you do that, please have your ideas published in print by an academic publishing house. Then we can discuss them on wikipedia. Until then they read like pretentious amateurish drivel. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Still leaves the reader wondering why so much focus is given to Sara in the Itzig family paragraph. A few words would suffise to make a clearer narrative in Wikipedia. PS: Sara's hand copy of the Organ Sonatas is not part of the Sing-Akademie collection conserved in the Berlin State Library (the last sentence of the Itzig family paragraph may give a wrong impression there). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The section on reception is not completed. It obviously stopped in midstream, since it does not contain any 19th century material (Brahms, Lemmens). I have removed the passage copy-pasted into the Sara Levy subarticle because it had no context and as such was unhelpful to the reader. It was an example of WP:POINT—more disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)