Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:53, 4 January 2011 editTony1 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,742 edits →Give me a break ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:43, 5 January 2011 edit undo218.102.79.162 (talk) →Well-known[REDACTED] critic Edward G. Nilges is not a troll by definition, and he is the one putting the boot in Next edit →
Line 242:		Line 242:
	:First of all, you have not provided any reliable sources that support your assertions. That's what it's all about. Remember, winning an argument on this site is useless, because truth is not a criterium for[REDACTED] articles (I know this can be frustrating, as it is for me sometimes). Only the concensus view (in this case of musicologists and historians) matters. It doesn't matter if you consider them clowns or mistaken.		:First of all, you have not provided any reliable sources that support your assertions. That's what it's all about. Remember, winning an argument on this site is useless, because truth is not a criterium for[REDACTED] articles (I know this can be frustrating, as it is for me sometimes). Only the concensus view (in this case of musicologists and historians) matters. It doesn't matter if you consider them clowns or mistaken.
	:(1) The 'Standard German' may have been only one of the many dialects spoken at the time, still it is very recognizable as German and cannot be classified as anything but German. Whatever Bach wrote in his mothertongue can be readily understood by any German speaking person today. See e.g. his letter to his schoolfriend Georg Erdmann: or this title page of one of his Clavier-Ubung ]		:(1) The 'Standard German' may have been only one of the many dialects spoken at the time, still it is very recognizable as German and cannot be classified as anything but German. Whatever Bach wrote in his mothertongue can be readily understood by any German speaking person today. See e.g. his letter to his schoolfriend Georg Erdmann: or this title page of one of his Clavier-Ubung ]

			::Untrue in fact. You're ignoring most Germans to whom Bach's "German" is as incomprehensible as Shakespeare's Early Modern English is incomprehensible to most real Americans.

			::

	:Seeing that Bach was born in what is now Germany, lived there his whole life, spoke a language indistinguishable from German, had a German name, German ancestors, used German lyrics for most of his works, I simply fail to see the problem with calling Bach a 'German composer'.		:Seeing that Bach was born in what is now Germany, lived there his whole life, spoke a language indistinguishable from German, had a German name, German ancestors, used German lyrics for most of his works, I simply fail to see the problem with calling Bach a 'German composer'.

			::I do. For one thing, the Holocaust should have resulted in a renaming of all things "German" as a serious break with the past. For another, there has been one "German" nation only for a remarkably short period of time: 1871-1945, and 1989 to the present. For another, the Allies should have repatriated the Jews as opposed to betraying the Muslims, creating a state that would formally recognize (on the South African model) the equality and dignity of the "Germans" and the Ashkenazi Jews who, after 1871, created so much of that which was worthwhile in "German" culture.

			::It is little known that they made some progress to this end during the occupation, for example by destroying "Prussia" and proposing the Morgenthau plan to make Germany once again a confederation of rural states.

			::Bach was a European composer.

			::Use your head. Was Handel a German composer when Handel created the British tradition of lightness and wit in music, one picked up by Gilbert and Sullivan, and worked in London? Mozart and Haydn would have been shocked (as would Bach) to be called "German" composers, since Mozart and Haydn were subjects of the emperor of Austria.

			::Half-educated people look at the map and its congeries of current countries, and find the birthplace of an artist, and pigeonhole said artist. The results as above are absurd, in that the artists become like soccer team members, used by barbarians to trumpet the superiority of their Kultur and as a pretext, in what is now Germany, to beat up Turks.

			::Even if we use the strength of nationhood at the time the artist lived, and consider Shakespeare let's say "British" for this reason, that fails to take into account how the nation changed, here, after Shakespeare's death (specifically the act of union of 1707).

			::Ideally, culture would be one world and no cultural worker would seriously use the artist's origins to classify the artist. Was TS Eliot a British or American poet? Was Joseph Conrad an English writer or a writer in English?

			::Sure, you have to classify and package. But convenience store clerks, bitter, twisted and prematurely aged graduate students and the sort of people who use "politically correct" are singularly unqualified to do so because they are either completely without either formal or informal education, or, in the case of the BTPA grad students, overspecialized.

			::The result? Encyclopedias that are used by pub bores, children, and other creeps to trumpet the superiority of their nation, their Volk, their Germanness.

	:(2) - This article is about Johann Sebastian Bach, not about the 'revival of Bach's reputation'		:(2) - This article is about Johann Sebastian Bach, not about the 'revival of Bach's reputation'
			: - That something offends people is not in itself a valid reason to remove it, Misplaced Pages is not
⚫	: - That something offends people is not in itself a valid reason to remove it, Misplaced Pages is not censored. And why would humanists be excluded from enjoying Bach's music by acknowledging that Bach was a Christian? If the mere mention of sacredness or religion offends people, it is only because they are hypersensitive to these things. In the same way I can enjoy J.R.R Tolkien's books even though he, unlike me, was Catholic and even used religious symbolism in many of his works. Acknowledging that he was a devout Catholic does not prevent me from loving his books.

			:: Actually, it is all the time, as when a person posts the f-word. And do recall the issue of "Virgin Killers". The real rule at Misplaced Pages is that material may not offend Protestants, Americans and Jews, but may offend Catholics and Muslims.

			censored. And why would humanists be excluded from enjoying Bach's music by acknowledging that Bach was a Christian? If the mere mention of sacredness or religion offends people, it is only because

			:: We have, in fact, no way of knowing specifically who was a Christian at the time of Bach. Here is why. Church attendances was required by either strongly-enforced custom or by law. Written material was censored (Spinoza got in a lot of trouble for seeming to question Christian doctrine).

			:: Therefore as in the case of Shakespeare (who was able to leave more evidence as a poet, but whose belief is undetermined) we do not know whether Bach was a "Christian", or, if he was, what type of "Christian". He certainly wrote Catholic material if the money was good, including the B Minor Mass.


		⚫	they are hypersensitive to these things. In the same way I can enjoy J.R.R Tolkien's books even though he, unlike me, was Catholic and even used religious symbolism in many of his works. Acknowledging that he was a devout Catholic does not prevent me from loving his books.

			:: Certainly not in conversation. However, in an encyclopedia, words like "devout" in reference to a secular subject are usually inappropriate. Bach is a secular subject.


	: - It is not NNPOV to state the facts. The facts are that Bach was religious, much of his music is religious and intended for worship. If I may quote Bach himself:		: - It is not NNPOV to state the facts. The facts are that Bach was religious, much of his music is religious and intended for worship. If I may quote Bach himself:
	:''"Und soll wie aller Musik also auch des Generalbasses Finis und Endursache anders nicht als nur zu Gottes Ehre und Recreation des Gemütes sein. Wo dieses nicht in acht genommen wird, ists keine eigentliche Musik, sondern ein Teuflisches Geplerr und Geleier."''		:''"Und soll wie aller Musik also auch des Generalbasses Finis und Endursache anders nicht als nur zu Gottes Ehre und Recreation des Gemütes sein. Wo dieses nicht in acht genommen wird, ists keine eigentliche Musik, sondern ein Teuflisches Geplerr und Geleier."''
	:Translation: ''"Like all music, the figured bass should have no other end and aim than the glory of God and the recreation of the soul; where this is not kept in mind there is no true music, but only an infernal clamour and ranting."''		:Translation: ''"Like all music, the figured bass should have no other end and aim than the glory of God and the recreation of the soul; where this is not kept in mind there is no true music, but only an infernal clamour and ranting."''

			::This passage could have been written by a nonreligious believer in god and a soul, like Einstein or Beethoven, a person more spiritual than religious.

	:That Bach's wanted all of his music to glorify God may be highly offensive to you, but that is of no concern to this encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is not intended to rewrite history to please people or to be politically correct.		:That Bach's wanted all of his music to glorify God may be highly offensive to you, but that is of no concern to this encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is not intended to rewrite history to please people or to be politically correct.

			::Sigh. "We're not gonna be politically correct heah boy" means, of course, that "we're gonna shove a white, Protestant/Jewish, American view of things down yo' throat, boy". Cat's out of the bag.


	:(3) I am in no way an expert on this subject, so you may well be right, but the only way to verify this is for you to provide ]. If your own arguments lead you to this position, then this is considered ] and this is not allowed on wikipedia. Only published sources are acceptable so you'll need to provide those. ] (]) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)		:(3) I am in no way an expert on this subject, so you may well be right, but the only way to verify this is for you to provide ]. If your own arguments lead you to this position, then this is considered ] and this is not allowed on wikipedia. Only published sources are acceptable so you'll need to provide those. ] (]) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

			::This is Dark Ages shit.

			::People who don't read because of their brutalization down at the convenience store are here monks who have in fact no appreciation at all for the range of sources that exist, and tend for this reason to prefer the first source that comes along, uncritically. Wikipedians are untrained almost by definition in critical evaluation of sources and apt, owing to systematic brutalization at their day jobs, to think critically.
⚫	~~:Honestly I think you're just a troll, but even if you're completely serious, I cannot in good faith consider someone who insults everyone for no reason. Not to mention the whole "Steak and Shake"~~ thing (which I imagine 90% of those who come to this page won't even have heard of, considering it's a regional chain in the East part of the US). But I'll just say one thing -- saying 'Sacred' is somehow offensive to ANYONE is up there in the 'most ridiculous things I've heard of'. I'm not Christian and it's hardly offensive to me. And it's pretty much the standard way of describing such music, for any composer, and any of thousands of reliable sources would agree. ] (]) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

			::And, I gave you sources. The critical evaluation of the "religious" misinterpretation of Bach is as I said found in Adorno, and the critical evaluation of his "Baroque"ness is found in Edward Said.



			:Honestly I think you're just a troll, but even if you're completely serious, I cannot in good faith

			::A troll is by definition anonymous but I am Edward G. Nilges. I guess I was trolling earlier. But now I am not.

			consider someone who insults everyone for no reason. Not to mention the whole "Steak and Shake"

			::No, I only insult the majority. The minority, especially non-Protestant, non-White, and non-Zionist, are viciously insulted here on[REDACTED] and nobody gives a fuck.

		⚫	thing (which I imagine 90% of those who come to this page won't even have heard of, considering it's a regional chain in the East part of the US). But I'll just say one thing -- saying 'Sacred' is somehow offensive to ANYONE is up there in the 'most ridiculous things I've heard of'. I'm not Christian and it's hardly offensive to me. And it's pretty much the standard way of describing such music, for any composer, and any of thousands of reliable sources would agree. ] (]) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
	::Agree with Melodia. ] ] 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)		::Agree with Melodia. ] ] 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

			::Sacred if used by people neither religious nor educated is indeed offensive.

			::Misplaced Pages is a cultural disaster, and it was not created by Jimbo to save mankind. His very philosophy (Rand) forbids him to engage in what he now claims to be a "charity". He divorced his first wife because she wanted to serve people as a nurse.

			::Misplaced Pages was created by a man with the typically spoiled and sheltered upbringing of whites in the south in the 1960s and 1970s, who was unable to manage employees properly without abusing them, or their taking advantage of him. Wales discovered a way to obtain virtual slave labour.

			::The barbarism of this and countless other articles is the result.

			::I hope to see Wales in jail for tax fraud. Misplaced Pages is a money-making venture masquerading as a charity.

			Edward G. Nilges

Revision as of 03:43, 5 January 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johann Sebastian Bach article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Template:VA

Johann Sebastian Bach was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 23, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 30, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 29, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 25, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Musicians / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany Top‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pipe organ (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe organ, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pipe organWikipedia:WikiProject Pipe organTemplate:WikiProject Pipe organPipe organ

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Saints Mid‑importance

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Lutheranism High‑importance

	Johann Sebastian Bach is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Lutheranism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Music theory

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 3 December 2009. Further details are available here.

error in Distance

Hello--

This page states that Weimar is 180km from Arnstadt. In reality it is merely 40km.

Jason Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeter55 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Educational assignment

This article is about to be edited as part of an educational assignment by Union University (of Jackson, Tennessee). This is being discussed here. --Klein zach 07:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not abuse WP for such purposes! 88.77.156.134 (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If it makes the page better, I'm all for it. I appreciate scholarly input. A brief perusal of Misplaced Pages will show that this is the minority opinion. Gingermint (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

...Amen! HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Errors in Johann Sebastian Bach article

Please change

"Bach's copy of a two volume Bible commentary by the orthodox Lutheran theologian, Abraham Calov, was discovered in the 1950s in a barn in Minnesota in the US, purchased apparently in Germany as part of a "job lot" of old books and brought to America by an immigrant. Its provenance was verified and it was subsequently deposited in the rare book holdings of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. It contains his markings of texts for his cantatas and notes. It is only rarely displayed to the public. A study of the so-called Bach Bible was prepared by Robin Leaver, titled J.S. Bach and Scripture: Glosses from the Calov Bible Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985)."

"Bach's signature in a copy of a three volume Bible commentary by the orthodox Lutheran theologian, Abraham Calov, was discovered in 1934 in a house in Frankenmuth, Michigan in the US. It is not known how the bible came to America, but is was purchased in a used book store in Philadelphia in the 1830s or 1840s by an immigrant and taken to Michigan. Its provenance was verified and it was subsequently deposited in the rare book holdings of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. It contains Bach's markings of texts for his cantatas and notes. It is only rarely displayed to the public. A study of the so-called Bach Bible was prepared by Robin Leaver, titled J.S. Bach and Scripture: Glosses from the Calov Bible Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985)."

All of these corrections are documented in Robin Leaver's book that is cited here, pp. 16-21, so I hope they are incorporated into the article soon! Note that the bible itself wasn't "discovered" in 1934, that is just when someone first noticed Bach's monogram in it.

Thanks for looking into this.

Mark Knoll

Done: thanks for bringing it to our attention. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article states that Bach has no living desendants. Although this is possible, in the book The Cello Suites says that Bach's seventh generation daughter reported to have "lost a chest containing many family treasures". In addition, it is very unlikely that of Bach's 10 children that survived infancy, none or very little of them had children.Yuan Lin (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Check this: http://michele-gabriel.chez-alice.fr/pge77-14.html

--Frania W. (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate?

Wasn't Bach born on 21 March, not 31 March?

Mharries (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

He was, and so we celebrate. But some calendar change happened in between. I personally don't care and prepared two DYK for Sunday 21 March. Erschallet, ihr Lieder --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 6#Date of birth revisited, and then Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 1#Bach's date of birth. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect birthdate for J. S. Bach

Bach was born on March 21, not March 31. Should I go grab the link and put it in here? 68.109.88.195 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, anonymous you, you should read the preceding paragraph first that explains it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keyboard

The introduction of this article lists many instruments that Bach played, but there is no mention of keyboard (I am thinking specifically of Harpsichord, Clavier etc, which the terms encompasses) despite it being one of the most fundamental instruments to Bach, that he probably played more than any other and worked out/improvised most of his compositions on.

Might I suggest following the German articles example by slotting in 'virtuoso keyboardist' after 'Organist.' Or even just 'Harpsichordist.' I really think there should be a mention.

Hugo.

Done. - But organ has a keyboard also, and he was not a performer on the harpsichord to my knowledge - but also not on the violin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Soli Deo Gloria

I apologize if I missed it while looking through the archives, but I was not able to find any discussion on the exclusion of Bach's signature, SDG. It seems like the paragraphs on his theology in the section on his musical style could be expanded to include the mention of his theology, seeing as he is a major contributor to the Lutheran, Reformed and even greater liturgical hymnodies, and the fact that he signed all of his works with Soli Deo Gloria may help show how his faith affected his life and works. Somedaypilot (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bach's descendants

Regarding footnote 40, it was thought for a long time that J. S. Bach had no living descendants, but this has now been shown to be untrue. See the article by Hans-Joachim Schulze, "Descendants of Johann Friedemann Bach in the United States," in Bach Perspectives 5 (2003), pp. 123 ff.

Jaywebber (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Childhood - supplement to the last sentence

{{edit semi-protected}} In 1702 the 17-year-old Bach applied for the position of the organist at St. Jacobi in Sangerhausen. He was elected by the town council, but through intervention of the Duke of Saxe-Weißenfels Johann Augustin Kobelius (1674 - 1731) was appointed. Kobelius was practically rediscovered only in 2010 footnote.

Footnote: Concerning the first performance in our time of the only extant work of Kobelius in 2010 see http://www.gerald-drebes.de . Dieter1119 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The content requires a reliable source and may be too small a detail to include in that section. The footnote advertising a modern performance of a work by Kobelius is a non-starter. I think. Celestra (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. The story of Bach and Kobelius is well-known in music history, see Christoph Wolff, Bach - the learned musician, p. 67 http://books.google.de/books?id=ronZdkhQouMC&pg=PA67&dq=johann+augustin+kobelius&hl=de&ei=I2aiTNC9Hs6J4QaZ-dSEAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=14&ved=0CF8Q6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=johann%20augustin%20kobelius&f=false . This was the only unsuccessful job application in Bach's life! I think the FIRST (nonprofit!) performance in our time of the ONLY extant work of Kobelius in 2010 is worth a mention in this encyclopedia! Thanks in advance to any editor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter1119 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe Kobelius himself does indeed need a mention, but the information on that 2010 performance shouldn't be included here. The article is currently far too big and it requires far too much cleanup for us to add small details like this. I think I'll try to create Johann Augustin Kobelius later and add the information there. --Jashiin (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No audio?

Why is it that I can not listen to any Bach from this article? Why are the discussions and points not illustrated with audio excerpts? Surely Bach no longer has a copyright which would get in Wikipedias way! --96.241.156.174 (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course Bach's compositions are out of copyright, so anyone can freely print, distribute or perform his musical works. However, every performance in itself is considered a work of art and has its own copyright. So recordings of Bach's music are usually protected by copyright. In fact there are very few recordings of anything in existence for which the copyright has expired. However, there are certain recordings by Bach that were released under a free license and these may be used in this article. Some of these are found on Bach's Wikimedia Commons page. All effort to help improve this article is appreciated, but if you want to contribute to this page, please create an account, because this article is semi-protected (against new or anonymous users). Lindert (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities for Bach's status as one of the greatest composers of all time.

The rather modest statement that Bach is considered one of the greatest composers of all time is currently graced by a single footnote and by a "Who?" tag. Could I suggest going further? I think it would be not unreasonable to provide some authorities for the view that Bach is not merely one of the greatest of all composers, but that he is pretty widely regarded as the greatest composer of all time. Now, do I say this just because I happen to believe that it's true? Well, as it happens I do think that Bach was the greatest composer ever. But that's not why I'd like to work it into this article. Misplaced Pages has to be informative for people who may know absolutely nothing about the subject. There may well be very uneducated people in the West, as well as perfectly well educated people who are unfamiliar with Western classical music, for whom the knowledge that Bach is widely reputed to be the supreme exponent of the art would be genuinely useful.

Indeed, it is peculiarly useful in the case of music because it is, I think, the one art form for which it can really be said that one person was it's greatest exponent of all time. In painting, the view that Michelangelo was the greatest painter even of the Renaissance is controversial, indeed, one could not even say absolutely that he was the greatest Italian Renaissance painter. In literature, the case has been made for Shakespeare, but I have also read that the most one could say is that he is one of three writers for whom the case could be made (the others being Homer and Dante).

Of course, this view is not unchallenged. The case has been argued for Beethoven, who in turn declared Handel the greatest composer who ever lived (he said he would uncover his head and kneel on his grave!). But I suspect it is fair to say that among people who have an opinion of the subject by far the greatest number would argue for Bach. Even in the last week or so I saw a TV documentary about Vaughan Williams in which his supreme admiration for Bach was highlighted at length, and I heard Anne-Sophie Mutter on Radio 4 saying that if she could play the work of just one composer it would be Bach as his music is like prayer.

As I say, the purpose is not just to indulge in saying how wonderful Bach is, but to inform the reader, who may know nothing about Western classical music, that Bach is in general reputed to have been the greatest of all composers.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to try to find reliable sources to support the claim, although I strongly doubt that any competent researcher would ever suggest any composer as "the best ever." Out of curiosity I looked in a few places and was unable to find anything of the sort in the New Grove article on Bach, Wolff's "The Learned Musician" (the standard book on Bach's life), or Williams's "A Life in Music" (another well-known biographical volume). Western classical music has a very long history, spanning some 800 years at least; how can one adequately compare Bach with, say, Machaut or Stockhausen? The only way to support your claim seems to me to find a source that gathers a large amount of data on the public's opinions—perhaps someone collected poll results from the past 50 years or so—and then we could add that to support the "among people who have an opinion of the subject by far the greatest number would argue for Bach" thing. Personally, though, I'd be against that, because the entire notion of suggesting a single individual as "the best" in a field that spans centuries of different traditions, schools of thought, etc. seems quite absurd to me. --Jashiin (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a credible scholarly position to make claims for "best ever." Noting that he is among the most widely-performed, recorded, admired, etc... is a more substantive way of noting his place in the pantheon of greats. Eusebeus (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

THE best would not be a proper statement. HOWEVER, for at least a century, if not more, the vast majority of musical authorities, not to mention what is taught in universities, etc., have it that Bach and Beethoven are the two greatest composers in the Classical realm. Of course, Mozart, Handel, Brahms and Haydn may be just one level below, and so on and so forth. How this would be worded for the article I leave to you all. BTW, huge chunks of this article are uncited (as stated) - this really demands being worked on. This is Bach, not some article on, say, Ginastera. (I like G.)68.19.0.207 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

In the lead it seems petty to require a citation for that statement. Who were you thinking of to usurp him as one of the ...? Willy Walton? Tony (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, anyone who would claim that Mozart is usually put into 'second tier' doesn't really seem to be right. From all *I've* seen, Bach is hardly universally described at 'the greatest' (now, 'most influential, THAT may be). I've seen, among others, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, Josquin, Wagner, and even Haydn all put on that pedestal. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC) ---- your words, not mine - I said one level below - a fractional measure - Mozart, Brahms, Handel and Haydn were all geniuses - it's just that in magnitude, it's been stated commonly in the musical world that Bach and Beethoven just had more. Certainly Beethoven, being deaf during his greatest period of composition, seems to have accomplished something truly astounding.98.67.182.128 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Lutheran hymnody

Is the collapsible banner at the bottom sufficiently relevant in that level of detail? Should it not be placed in a more specific article? Tony (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Some of the English text claims to be a quote of a German court secretary.

On November 6, , the quondam concertmaster and organist Bach was confined to the County Judge's place of detention for too stubbornly forcing the issue of his dismissal and finally on December 2 was freed from arrest with notice of his unfavourable discharge.

The German court secretary would have spoken German so it can't be a quote. At best, it must be a translation of a quote. The reference didn't work for me and the German article says merely:

Als er dies nachholen wollte, erhielt er seine Demission nicht, sondern wurde am 6. November wegen seiner „Halßstarrigen Bezeugung“ in der Landrichterstube in Haft genommen. Am 2. Dezember wurde er aus Haft und Dienstverhältnis in Ungnade entlassen.

Can anyone produce the German quote? Lightmouse (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break

"Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March 1685 – 28 July 1750) was a German composer, organist, harpsichordist, violist, and violinist whose sacred and secular works for choir, orchestra, and solo instruments drew together the strands of the Baroque period and brought it to its ultimate maturity."

1. There was no "Germany" in Bach's time, nor even a single, mutually understandable, German language

2. "Sacred and secular" is a poor way of classifying Bach's work since indications are that he was an absolute musician who wrote "sacred" music for the money, and preferred secular and absolute music.

3. Any more than Shakespeare was a Renaissance, Elizabethan, or Jacobean playwright can Bach be said to be Baroque. His birth and death dates coincide save for fifteen years with the first half of the eighteenth century and his style was wrongly said to be "old-fashioned" (Baroque) merely as a result of the popularity of Gluck and the Galante. Listen to the St Anne prelude as orchestrated by Schoenberg. This is proto-Romantic music.

What the hell do you clowns think Richard Strauss was writing when Strauss wrote Four Last Songs in 1948? Chronologically, it is 20th century music, yet it is as tonal as Mahler. First rate composers cannot be pigeon holed.

All contributors to this article need to quit working at Steak 'n Shake, get a proper education, and read Adorno's essay "Bach Rescued From His Devotees", and Edward Said's book "On Late Style".

An interest in and skill in writing polyphony doesn't make a Baroque composer. Palestrina wasn't a Baroque composer. Furthermore, polyphonic music of the Bach style doesn't exclude Gluck's and Mozart's interest in harmony and melody save in the mind of the convenience store clerk, who cannot admit that Bach mastered everything, and his interest in polyphony was as a setting for harmony and melody.

There is after all no polyphony without just in time harmony, and no fugue without a catchy melody. Gluck, Mozart and Haydn downsized European music, but then retrieved it, because later 18th century princes like Esterhaz were "modern" men relative to the town authorities and aristocrats for whom Bach work,"modern" in the real sense, in that they were, as the century wore on, increasingly arrogant sons of bitches who demanded that composers not force them to listen (rather like modern bourgeois booing Schoenberg).

Gluck had to play to the princely mob, and, being second-rate, did so.

Haydn fought Esterhaz continually until he escaped to the early free market of London.

Handel was able in that free market to write in a simplified polyphonic style with simple harmony and street melodies that whores could whistle: is Handel Baroque or a uniquely British composer, the precursor of the Beatles in that he reconciles the Serious and the Popular, as did the Beatles in Sergeant Pepper. Handel and Purcell realized that the British bourgeois were humble enough to sit still for "classical" music, but needed shorter operas (Purcell's Dido fits on one CD) and child-friendly oratorios as opposed to Handel's earlier soft core porn.

Mozart's tragedy is well known. Fortunately, the French Revolution came along, which got the princes out of Beethoven's ass, only to have them return, the result being the relatively feeble return to melody and harmony under Schumann. Beethoven was bringing counterpoint back. Owing to the restoration of the Bourbons and the failed revolutons of 1830 and 1848, rhythm disappeared, and the stasis of Wagner arrived in the nick of time to put us all to sleep.

Polyphony is the artist's favorite art because it involves the sum of all art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.219.232.8 (talk • contribs)

So what are your sources for all this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1 There certainly was a region known as Germany, even though the modern country did not exist. There was certainly one German language (of course with dialects etc) as can be seen even from Luther's Bible translation from 1545, which is widely used and understood to this very day. Geographically, culturally and linguistically, Bach was fully 'German' even in the modern sense.

2 'Sacred' is simply used to designate music intended for religious use. It does not imply anything regarding Bach's motives for writing his music, although he clearly was a deeply religious man, and he signed his music with 'Soli Deo Gloria'. 'Absolute music' is, I think a very vague term and certainly not objective and therefore not fit for wikipedia.

3 'Baroque' mostly denotes the period in which the composer lived. It is always difficult to classify music into a certain categorie or style. It is therefore more objective and easier to refer to the musical period in which Bach wrote. Furthermore, many reliable sources name Bach as a 'Baroque' composer. Like Melodia stated, you need references for your claims and if you provide those, then your contributions for improving this article are welcome. Lindert (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Points in response, then.

(1) Luther's "German" was a written subset of German written at a time, the 16th century, when "German" flunked the scientific and linguistic test for being a single language, rather than an Unholy and Unroman Empire of languages comparable to the languages of modern China: the mutual comprehension of all speakers of "German" in the regions that became Germany only in 1871.

The barbaric written subset of Luther was either not understood or misconstrued, most infamously i the way it generated the blood libel against the Jews, the tradition of the anti-Semitic Passion Play, and the Holocaust.

(2) It is NNPOV for Misplaced Pages to be in essence hosting a Come to Jesus, God-walloping camp meetin', inappropriately using NNPOV theological language, about Bach, especially in view of the fact that

The revival of Bach's reputation had nothing to do with religion as far as the humanist Beethoven or the Jewish Mendelssohn were concerned

Such language is offensive and exclusionary to humanists and non-Christian people who love Bach

Misplaced Pages games NPOV with an American, Southern and Protestant-Jewish agenda that is offensive to Catholics, humanists and non-Christians. For example, its editors have removed the honorific "Saint" from the titles of articles about at least two Catholic philosophers (St. Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine) while pointing out that Charles I Stuart is a "saint" in the "Anglican" church despite the fact that there is no acceptance, amongst the broader Anglican and Episcopal community, of the Catholic concept of the worship of "saints"! This is playing games with an agenda, as is God-walloping in the article about Bach. It would have no place in a real encyclopedia.

(3) As to the snark about "Music 101". Apart from the usual convenience store clerks and clinically retarded who constitute so many contributors to Misplaced Pages, there are American college graduates who misused the Advanced Placement system to avoid having to take survey classes. Since this reprehensible practice has been going on since the 1970s we now find academics and professional people without a framework to rationally discuss issues bordering on, but outside of, their ricebowl.

There are certainly doctors and lawyers, and more than one English professor, who will confuse Phillip Marlowe with Christopher Marlowe, and there are musicians and even musicologists who consider Palestrina "Baroque". The latter will not realize, because of their barbaric overspecialization, the roots of the term not in music but in art. These clowns will call Bach "Baroque" despite the fact that Bach avoided Biber's use of scordatura, replacing it with chromaticism tending towards harmony in an anti-Baroque fashion and the ability to write in any key with a classic, as opposed to Baroque, precision.

To these creatures, I will be, I have long realized, a patronizing SOB, since I am old enough, and was curious enough, to become a cultivated person in a way that is today almost ex-tinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.4.133 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you have not provided any reliable sources that support your assertions. That's what it's all about. Remember, winning an argument on this site is useless, because truth is not a criterium for[REDACTED] articles (I know this can be frustrating, as it is for me sometimes). Only the concensus view (in this case of musicologists and historians) matters. It doesn't matter if you consider them clowns or mistaken.

(1) The 'Standard German' may have been only one of the many dialects spoken at the time, still it is very recognizable as German and cannot be classified as anything but German. Whatever Bach wrote in his mothertongue can be readily understood by any German speaking person today. See e.g. his letter to his schoolfriend Georg Erdmann: or this title page of one of his Clavier-Ubung

Untrue in fact. You're ignoring most Germans to whom Bach's "German" is as incomprehensible as Shakespeare's Early Modern English is incomprehensible to most real Americans.

Seeing that Bach was born in what is now Germany, lived there his whole life, spoke a language indistinguishable from German, had a German name, German ancestors, used German lyrics for most of his works, I simply fail to see the problem with calling Bach a 'German composer'.

I do. For one thing, the Holocaust should have resulted in a renaming of all things "German" as a serious break with the past. For another, there has been one "German" nation only for a remarkably short period of time: 1871-1945, and 1989 to the present. For another, the Allies should have repatriated the Jews as opposed to betraying the Muslims, creating a state that would formally recognize (on the South African model) the equality and dignity of the "Germans" and the Ashkenazi Jews who, after 1871, created so much of that which was worthwhile in "German" culture.

It is little known that they made some progress to this end during the occupation, for example by destroying "Prussia" and proposing the Morgenthau plan to make Germany once again a confederation of rural states.

Bach was a European composer.

Use your head. Was Handel a German composer when Handel created the British tradition of lightness and wit in music, one picked up by Gilbert and Sullivan, and worked in London? Mozart and Haydn would have been shocked (as would Bach) to be called "German" composers, since Mozart and Haydn were subjects of the emperor of Austria.

Half-educated people look at the map and its congeries of current countries, and find the birthplace of an artist, and pigeonhole said artist. The results as above are absurd, in that the artists become like soccer team members, used by barbarians to trumpet the superiority of their Kultur and as a pretext, in what is now Germany, to beat up Turks.

Even if we use the strength of nationhood at the time the artist lived, and consider Shakespeare let's say "British" for this reason, that fails to take into account how the nation changed, here, after Shakespeare's death (specifically the act of union of 1707).

Ideally, culture would be one world and no cultural worker would seriously use the artist's origins to classify the artist. Was TS Eliot a British or American poet? Was Joseph Conrad an English writer or a writer in English?

Sure, you have to classify and package. But convenience store clerks, bitter, twisted and prematurely aged graduate students and the sort of people who use "politically correct" are singularly unqualified to do so because they are either completely without either formal or informal education, or, in the case of the BTPA grad students, overspecialized.

The result? Encyclopedias that are used by pub bores, children, and other creeps to trumpet the superiority of their nation, their Volk, their Germanness.

(2) - This article is about Johann Sebastian Bach, not about the 'revival of Bach's reputation'

- That something offends people is not in itself a valid reason to remove it, Misplaced Pages is not

Actually, it is all the time, as when a person posts the f-word. And do recall the issue of "Virgin Killers". The real rule at Misplaced Pages is that material may not offend Protestants, Americans and Jews, but may offend Catholics and Muslims.

censored. And why would humanists be excluded from enjoying Bach's music by acknowledging that Bach was a Christian? If the mere mention of sacredness or religion offends people, it is only because

We have, in fact, no way of knowing specifically who was a Christian at the time of Bach. Here is why. Church attendances was required by either strongly-enforced custom or by law. Written material was censored (Spinoza got in a lot of trouble for seeming to question Christian doctrine).

Therefore as in the case of Shakespeare (who was able to leave more evidence as a poet, but whose belief is undetermined) we do not know whether Bach was a "Christian", or, if he was, what type of "Christian". He certainly wrote Catholic material if the money was good, including the B Minor Mass.

they are hypersensitive to these things. In the same way I can enjoy J.R.R Tolkien's books even though he, unlike me, was Catholic and even used religious symbolism in many of his works. Acknowledging that he was a devout Catholic does not prevent me from loving his books.

Certainly not in conversation. However, in an encyclopedia, words like "devout" in reference to a secular subject are usually inappropriate. Bach is a secular subject.

- It is not NNPOV to state the facts. The facts are that Bach was religious, much of his music is religious and intended for worship. If I may quote Bach himself:

"Und soll wie aller Musik also auch des Generalbasses Finis und Endursache anders nicht als nur zu Gottes Ehre und Recreation des Gemütes sein. Wo dieses nicht in acht genommen wird, ists keine eigentliche Musik, sondern ein Teuflisches Geplerr und Geleier."

Translation: "Like all music, the figured bass should have no other end and aim than the glory of God and the recreation of the soul; where this is not kept in mind there is no true music, but only an infernal clamour and ranting."

This passage could have been written by a nonreligious believer in god and a soul, like Einstein or Beethoven, a person more spiritual than religious.

That Bach's wanted all of his music to glorify God may be highly offensive to you, but that is of no concern to this encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is not intended to rewrite history to please people or to be politically correct.

Sigh. "We're not gonna be politically correct heah boy" means, of course, that "we're gonna shove a white, Protestant/Jewish, American view of things down yo' throat, boy". Cat's out of the bag.

(3) I am in no way an expert on this subject, so you may well be right, but the only way to verify this is for you to provide reliable sources. If your own arguments lead you to this position, then this is considered original research and this is not allowed on wikipedia. Only published sources are acceptable so you'll need to provide those. Lindert (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is Dark Ages shit.

People who don't read because of their brutalization down at the convenience store are here monks who have in fact no appreciation at all for the range of sources that exist, and tend for this reason to prefer the first source that comes along, uncritically. Wikipedians are untrained almost by definition in critical evaluation of sources and apt, owing to systematic brutalization at their day jobs, to think critically.

And, I gave you sources. The critical evaluation of the "religious" misinterpretation of Bach is as I said found in Adorno, and the critical evaluation of his "Baroque"ness is found in Edward Said.

Honestly I think you're just a troll, but even if you're completely serious, I cannot in good faith

A troll is by definition anonymous but I am Edward G. Nilges. I guess I was trolling earlier. But now I am not.

consider someone who insults everyone for no reason. Not to mention the whole "Steak and Shake"

No, I only insult the majority. The minority, especially non-Protestant, non-White, and non-Zionist, are viciously insulted here on[REDACTED] and nobody gives a fuck.

thing (which I imagine 90% of those who come to this page won't even have heard of, considering it's a regional chain in the East part of the US). But I'll just say one thing -- saying 'Sacred' is somehow offensive to ANYONE is up there in the 'most ridiculous things I've heard of'. I'm not Christian and it's hardly offensive to me. And it's pretty much the standard way of describing such music, for any composer, and any of thousands of reliable sources would agree. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Melodia. Tony (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sacred if used by people neither religious nor educated is indeed offensive.

Misplaced Pages is a cultural disaster, and it was not created by Jimbo to save mankind. His very philosophy (Rand) forbids him to engage in what he now claims to be a "charity". He divorced his first wife because she wanted to serve people as a nurse.

Misplaced Pages was created by a man with the typically spoiled and sheltered upbringing of whites in the south in the 1960s and 1970s, who was unable to manage employees properly without abusing them, or their taking advantage of him. Wales discovered a way to obtain virtual slave labour.

The barbarism of this and countless other articles is the result.

I hope to see Wales in jail for tax fraud. Misplaced Pages is a money-making venture masquerading as a charity.

Edward G. Nilges

Categories: