Talk:Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin (Bach)

Initial comments

I've been doing some heavy editing to this article, and I've added a lot of links to it from other articles. This is one of my favorite pieces of music, so I'd really like to see this page develop some more. There is lots of interesting information about the sonatas and partitas, but I'm not schooled enough in music to contribute as much as I'd like. I do think that the page on the 2nd partita should be merged with this one, though. Alcuin 05:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I think this article is a good idea. Whether we merge the 2nd partita article to this one would depend mainly on if there is a potential to expand on the other works as well in sperate articles. That being said I am all for having an article that address features of the group in general.

One thing I had in mind, but requires further research, is the involvement of Joseph Joachim in this work. From reading Leopold Auer's book it seemed to suggest that Joachim was instrumental in highlighting this work. Some websites seem to support that, but others claim that the repretoire was quite popular from the beginning on and was never at threat of being lost (using the fact that Bach's own autograph of the pieces survive to this day).

If there are some decent sources pretaining to Joachim's involvement with this work, I think it would be worth adding. Also, I believe his 1903 recording of Tempo Di Borea (which I believe is one of only five surviving record by him), might be the very oldest of any piece in this repretoire.

It might be worth adding that Yehudi Menuhin was the first to record the entire work. --Karmish 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I added some links, I hope they help. I like your ideas, Karmish, be bold and add them to the page. Also, I now do agree that there should be separate articles for each sonata and partita (perhaps discussing the music, while the main page focuses on history and significance), though I think this page should be beefed up much more first. Alcuin 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC

BWV numbers in page titles

Is it really necessary to include the opus numbers in the titles of classical music pages? We now have a title 52 characters long, when 'Sonatas and partitas' (20 chars) would still uniquely identify this work. Alcuin 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sonatas and partitas for solo violin" at least, I think.--Quadalpha 05:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Question

"The third partita is probably the best known of the six suites." Is there a source for this quote?

Is the rest of the quote really necessary (unless the following suggestion is made).

Should this be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_Violin_Partita_No._2_%28Bach%29 I don't understand why that set deserves its own article while the others do not (aside from the awesome ciaconna, which can have descriptions on this article). --CheeZe 01:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Partita No. 3 was also transcribed for lute and the Prelude as the Sinfonia to Cantata No. 29. It is also featured in many movies. The Gavotte en Rondeau was featured on the TV series Cosmos by Carl Sagan. I would agree that it is the most well known of these works, probably by a large factor.

Partita No. 2 is notable because of the Chaconne movement, however, which is famous in its own right. If the 2nd Partita doesn't deserve its own page, perhaps the Chaconne might since it is likely to be searched on and is the subject of much literature.

--Rdnzl 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Being featured doesn't make it "best known". You could say "among the more well known pieces" or something.

As for the ciaconna, I understand that it is a monumental work, I can't see it deserving its own page if this page exists. For comparison, individual movements of a concerto are not given their own page for being awesome because it's part of a set. In this case, the 2nd partita is part of the sonatas and partitas for solo violin set. --65.30.35.19 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand behind my comments. Being featured in many places is exactly what makes a piece of music well known. The Preludio from the 3rd Partita is one of the most recognizeable pieces of all of Bach's music.

An article for the Chaconne certainly makes sense, in my opinon. Entire books have been written about this one movement. It has been transcribed for symphony orchestra, string quartets, and many other solo instruments. There are individual articles for single songs from Motley Crue albums. If any single movement from a particular Bach work deserves its own article, it's the Chaconne. --Rdnzl 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see editors have already discussed the question, but the consensus hasn't been reached. I see absolutely no point to have separate articles for any of the sonatas or partitas, whereas the chaconne obviously deserves a separate article. Unless anyone has any objections, I suggest we merge the two partita articles into this article.

I have been asked to offer my opinions on this issue, and so I do. In short, I think the current contents of the article on Partita #2 can be merged with the parent article without loss of significance. My reasons are as follows

1. There is not any non-trivial information contained in the article for Partita #2 that justifies its separate existence. The information can be incorporated into the current article with no loss in significance.
2. The only non-trivial information that warrant segregation of the article in question would be (a) musical structure analysis and (b) stylistic interpretation. Both are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, as they tend to contain original research and POVs. Such discussion is best left to the musicologists and violinsts.

I believe, though my discussion is specific to Partita #2, the same opinion also stands for all other Sonatas and Partitas covered in this article. Even if the decision is for it to remain a separate article, there is nothing which stops us from incorporating the information therein.

--Bart weisser (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

butcher paper?

I removed this from the opening paragraph, because (a) it's not referenced (b) it's sort of a piece of trivia at best. If you have a reference for it, please put it back in the article, but not in the lead.--24.86.252.26 07:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They were nearly destroyed when they were discovered to be used as butcher paper.

Although I've heard the story before, I couldn't find a single mention of it in any reliable source. New Grove doesn't mention it, Lester's 1999 book on Bach's solo violin works doesn't mention it, searching Google Books/Scholar for "bach paper", "bach violin paper", "bach butcher paper", etc. does not produce anything other than really general books on music. My guess is that its an anecdote from some outdated biography, i.e. Forkel's or Spitta's, which has since been proven wrong. Unless someone finds a source, I suggest we remove the claim from the article altogether. --Jashiin (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true. It was mentioned by Dorffel, who acquired the original MS from Polschau (who found it). It wasn't butcher paper, but rather wrapping paper (which, no doubt, might include meat products). I got this from the book on violin and viola by Menuhin and Primrose. My only other guess, was that Polschau might have "exaggerated" the claim. --Bart weisser (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You should add a cite from the Menuhin/Primorse book, then? --Jashiin (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

list of recordings?

Can someone please justify why we need a list of recordings? If there is a particularly noteworthy one, please mention that, but please put a reference that justifies it as important. Indiscriminate lists are rubbish.--24.86.252.26 07:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While I think a list of notable recordings can be useful, I agree that an indiscriminate list is not helpful. After glancing at this list, I think a good half or more of it could be eliminated. --Kyoko 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its time to clean up the list again. Its getting really long and includes red-link-ed performers as well. DavidRF (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove the list, and alternatives?

In my opinion, so long as the list exists, people will gladly add their favorite renditions into the fold, no matter how obscure. We will have to clean this up over and over again.

One way to "prevent" a list from happening, is possibly to replace the "list" with a section on "musical and stylistic interpretation", and cite prominent works that represent a certain style. For instance, Syreng's to-the-tee-faithfulness to the MS; Milstein and Heifetz, and their "chop chop" school of playing; Helene Schmidt(??? maybe not her) with the first true Baroque interpretation; and Viktoria Mulova's union between the two supposedly opposing styles.

I would also do the same thing for the "transcription" section. Anyone who play an instrument other than the violin would have come across some sort of transcription of the Bach solo sonatas.

--Bart weisser (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate section like the one you describe would indeed solve the problem. The only problem I see is that it looks like it would be difficult to cite - are there any good and recent books/articles that discuss the matter? Otherwise we'd be reduced to having to use reviews I guess.. --Jashiin (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we might have to resort to using program notes from recordings. There should be plenty of information in terms of interpretation. One who has listened to enough recordings of the pieces should at least be able to distinguish the very major stylistic approaches. Maybe we can begin with that, and worry about the details (e.g., citations) once we have a solid section. --Bart weisser (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. But actually, I just remembered there was a decent book on these works which had some details about the earliest recordings and probably a few things on more recent ones: Lester's "Bach's works for solo violin". --Jashiin (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just browsed through sections of it. Is it really what we want from an interpretation section? But the introductory stuff would definitely be useful for the purpose of completeing this article (the bass movement and all that other stuff might be a little over-the-head for the general readership).--Bart weisser (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, would you mind weighing in on the issue of merging (i.e. Merge/Question above, last paragraphs)? It really kind of bothers me to see these separate articles which don't have too much content... --Jashiin (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jash. I assume it is the issue with Partita #2? My short answer is to keep everything in one place (i.e., merge). Please see my detailed response in the "merging/section" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart weisser (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very sad that the whim of one or a few Wikinazis can undo the work of many people spanning many years. --Rdnzl (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your objection? Removing the list? The other edits? Provide your input. The page history preserves everything.DavidRF (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Too many recordings

Most of the post 1980's recordings strike me as insignificant and possibly self-promotion. I'm not sure whether there should be any list, but at least there's a case to be made by listing perhaps the 20 by the most acclaimed violinists. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I added Joseph Szigeti's 1931 recording to the list - that's the only one on the list which has been selected for the NARAS Hall of Fame, so I'd say that's significant. PatConolly (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Lilypond on Wikipedia

Is it possible, or do I have to create the graphic files for the musical passages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart weisser (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to create the PNG files using your own copy of Lilypond. Then I usually include the Lilypond code in the comments for the PNG file.DavidRF (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging articles

I am going to go through other the Bach Sonatas/Partitas articles and merge them here. We will just leave the articles the way they are. I doubt there will be future (major) editions on these stub-ish articles.--Bart weisser (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I think we should create sections here (i.e. not simply titles in bold the way it is now) and move the content. In the meantime, I tightened up the lead and the first section. --Jashiin (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Following generation?

I'm not sure how Bartok and Hindemith are from the generation 'following' Bach's... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.168.141 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Plural of Partia is Partien

That is how it appears in the books of David Ledbetter and Richard D. Jones and numerous other Bach sources. Partia is not an English word. In this context it is a German/Austrian borrowing from Italian. The plural of Partia in German is Partien. That is the plural form used by Richard D. Jones (Creative Development of J.S. Bach, vol II, Oxford University Press, page 171)[1] and by Ledbetter (Unaccompanied Bach, Yale University Press, Page 111).[2] It is a German/Austrian word in the context used by Jones and by Ledbetter. The word Partias appears in neither book. "Partias" seems to be a creation of wikipedians. Ledbetter's book is given as the source but he uses the plural Partien. I might check with some other sources. Mathsci (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing content

Looking at this article, I notice various problems. One concerns self-borrowings. Is it really that hard to explain that the material from the first movement of BWV 1006 was reused by Bach in the sinfonia for cantata BWV 29 where it was scored obbligato organ, strings and trumpets? Some movements of the sonatas and partitas also exist in keyboard arrangements by the pupils of Bach: these are in print. I have no idea why there is no section on reception. These works have been arranged and transcribed many times. The Chaconne exists for piano in several piano versions; Busoni, Brahms (for left hand), etc; there are multiple organ arrangements. Amongst the missing references are the recent Bärenreiter editions: the 2001 edition of BWV 1001–1006; and the 2014 NBArev edition of Bach's chamber music for violin. The critical commentaries are fairly definitive. At this stage, having uploaded the BWV 1001/i onto commons, I am simply going to add images of the title page and the first page of BWV 1006/i from the autograph score. The corresponding image of the organ part of BWV 29/i, also uploaded by me, is in the infobox of that article. Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And why no discography? I was expecting to see some mention of the recordings of Nathan Milstein or Arthur Grumiaux, etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The Chaconne deserves its own broken out article, to be honest, as inspiring as it was of other works of art, and its massive structure deserves to be analyzed in these pages somewhere.

The Sonatas all are barely described, and I'm surprised none have their own articles yet, just the Partitas. I think there is room for expansion on several fronts including new linked articles, especially for one of the most celebrated set of violin pieces of all time. Deliusfan (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 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. The vote is just barely in favor of doing this. It would be desirable for issues like this to be decided centrally, for example at WP:Naming conventions (music). I don't see any clear guidance for this case one way or the other. There was one other recent move discussion at Talk:Organ Sonatas (Bach)#Requested move 8 September 2016 which led to Sonatas being upper cased, and I suppose that is a precedent. Some of the arguments in this discussion aren't very convincing, for example quoting the title as capitalized in the French Wikipedia. French titles follow very different capitalization rules. Looking at how the sonatas are titled in various manuscripts and printed editions is not decisive for Wikipedia, because we have our own house style. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) → Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin (Bach) – (See also preliminary indirect discussions at Talk:List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Sonatas: content of list page, and spin-off article, and Talk:Organ Sonatas (Bach)#Requested move 8 September 2016). Rationale for the proposed article title change: "fixed set" principle at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization of generic names, the same way it is applied to Bach's Cello Suites, his Organ Sonatas and his Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord. However,

1. in the last related WP:RM (Talk:Organ Sonatas (Bach)#Requested move 8 September 2016) reliable sources seemed to have a clear preference for the capitalised version: in the present case capitalised and non-capitalised versions of the name seem to occur both in equal measure for the last 50 years or so (see ngram)
2. this isn't a set of six compositions of the same type: three are sonatas and three are partitas – nonetheless they are a clear set of six, see e.g. Bach's title of the set: "Sei Solo" (translated as "Six Solos", but that last name is not by far the current common name, nor a really recognisable name according to current standards)
3. the name has been stable at the current non-capitalised version of the title for a considerable amount of time – although in the past the page has been moved around a few times, and merged from other versions of the name

The main reasons for moving to the capitalised version of the name nonetheless are thus consistency, and application of the guideline that strives for that consistency. Also, the three current child articles of this article (Partita for Violin No. 1, Partita for Violin No. 2 and Partita for Violin No. 3) all three capitalise "Violin", so I don't know why the parent article wouldn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 18 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 per detailed reasoning contained within the nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Completely neutral It is not a binary choice; and this is an arbitrary change of very little value, where there are many possibilities. I am going to insist that an administrator close this discussion: I am going to ask User:Bishonen. So I insist on an administrative close and possibly an editing restriction on Francis Schonken for disruption.

• Lower case is used in all other language wikipedias (French, Italian, Spanish) except the German wikipedia: all nouns are upper case in German. Even in Francis Schonken's native tongue (Flemish/Dutch) lower case is used: Sonates en partita's voor onbegeleide viool (J.S. Bach). Perhaps Francis Schonken can explain that.

• On the basis of Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1014–1019, it could be argued that this title should take the same form. I think Francis Schonken chose that title. He is frequently inconsistent.

• On the other hand the Bärenreiter 2014 NBArev edition, the most recent definitive publication of the Bach-Gesellschaft, chose the Italian title "'Sei Solo â Violino senza Basso accompagnato" It was chosen by a committee of the most eminent living Bach scholars. The pdf file has been supplied in the article today. Part of contents and preface made publicly available Interested readers can look at this title as written by Bach on the medium resolution image I added today at the top of the article. The other images of the sonata 1 and partia 3 are much higher resolution: please use the zoom button to choose your favoured resolution.

• The 2001 Bärenreiter edition of the BWV 1001–1006 alone, like the NBArev edited by Peter Wollny, has the English title: "Three Sonatas and three Partitas for Solo Violin, BWV 1001–1006." In German the title is Drei Sonaten und drei Partiten für Violine solo, BWV 1001–1006.

As a general comment, when I found this article today it was devoid of proper references before I added them. I added three high quality images and corrected inaccurate content. That sad situation reflects on those who curated the article, among whom Francis Schonken must be numbered. Today I suggested he work on improving the content. His reaction was to open this RfC. It seems to be one of his many ways of creating disruption and wasting other people's time. That is why his editing was restricted, but he continues, presumably trying to wear other people down. I have used a copy of the 2001 Bärenreiter scholarly edition of BWV 1001–1006 to edit. It gives a glimpse of how real-life scholars discuss these matters: it is in sharp contrast to what can happen on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin (Bach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530225837/http://www.stringsmagazine.com:80/article/145/145,3865,Feature-1.asp to http://www.stringsmagazine.com/article/145/145,3865,Feature-1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221225656/http://www.tononirecords.com:80/jsbach2.cfm to http://www.tononirecords.com/jsbach2.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301041908/http://www.gotomidori.com:80/english/musicnote-200302/musicnote-49bach.html to http://www.gotomidori.com/english/musicnote-200302/musicnote-49bach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)