Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 7 September 2008

	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 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 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.

JS Bach recording

Copied from User talk:Graham87.

Hi Graham. I can't say I think much of that recording. The harpsichord sounds very muffled and the acoustics are nothing to write home about. The interpretation has a few good points, but it flits over what is usually regarded as a grander opening. At break-neck speed, it could be handled better than she does. Are you willing to consider moving this to the appropriate section down the bottom? PS the info-page is inadequate: year, details? TONY (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the acoustics and the rushed nature of the recording ... I added it because it was a piece mentioned in the text and there happened to be a free version available. There's no information about the recording besides the Readme file from Pandora Music - it's obviously a live recording (as found in the subdirectory) and it's performed on an electro-acoustic harpsichord. Perhaps the prelude to English Suite No. 1 or another movement from English Suite No. 1 would be a more suitable recording to use as a sample as it was performed on an acoustic harpsichord. My favourite free Bach recordings performed on historical instruments are the Italian Concerto and Flute sonata in B minor harpsichord recordings, but they of course belong in a later part of the article. I've removed the recording and mention of the excerpt for now; all Bach recordings are now at Gallery of works by Johann Sebastian Bach. Graham87 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I could still organise the required letter of permission from the owner of a very good modern recording of that movement: the one that was taken down by the copyright police a few years ago. But it's such a lot of bother. TONY (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Even then, I'm unsure whether just a single recording in the body of the article would be appropriate. TONY (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Name?

I don't know how, or if you can edit titles, but Bach's name is misspelled. "Sebastien" is spelled with an e, NOT an a, as it is spelled here. It should be Johann Sebastien Bach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.135.96 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rrrright... - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Jean Sebastien Ruisseau? Eusebeus (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the proper German spelling that's with an e, the Americanization is probably with an a, but either way, it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.135.96 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You think, but are sure it's wrong? - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Point to a single authorititave English-language or German-language source - one will do - that spells it "Sebastien" and I'll be prepared to engage in debate with you about this. Otherwise, your claim is without foundation. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

References please? Gary King (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In Civilization II

See . Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Legatissimo supremo. Baroque music is supposed to be crisp and dance-like, not porridge! TONY (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed in Weimar section.

Please correct a mistake in the Weimar section, namely the paragraph which mentions the 48 preludes and fugues. It states that they are paired in major and relative minor keys - this is incorrect - they are simply paired as major and minor keys. This can be verified by looking at any score of the preludes and fugues. For example, prelude and fugue 1 is in C major, where as no.2 is in C minor - if it were the relative minor, it would be in A minor. If still not convinced, please consult any well-informed musician.Jamespelham1978 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Each fugue is paired with a prelude in the same key, but there are no other explicit pairings. I agree that introducing the concept of relative minor makes it appear that the pairing scheme or the order is other than it really is: it's just one in each set for each major and minor key. I wonder if the discussion of the '48' should be moved out of the Weimar section: the heading is "Weimar (1708-17)", but the 48 were apparently collected in 1722 and 1744. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth revisited

I removed the "OS" and "NS" tags from his dates because I knew of no evidence to support them. I now see this issue has been raised before.

Reviving that discussion here, it seems to me eminently sensible:

• not only to make it absolutely clear whether "21 March 1685" is a Julian or a Gregorian date,
• but also to show the corresponding date in the other calendar.

We do this with lots of other biographies, via use of the {{OldStyleDate|LATER DATE|YEAR|EARLIER DATE}} template.

This would show up as:

• Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March  1685 – 28 July 1750) ....

I appreciate this will raise some hackles. Music lovers are used to seeing the date "21 March 1685" and only that date, as Bach’s birthday, and quoting a different date seems like sacrilege. However, we're not here to placate ourselves but to tell it like it was. We do a similar thing for William Shakespeare, via a footnote saying that his widely-known death date 23 April 1616 (OS) is equivalent to 3 May 1616 (NS).

One of my concerns about mixing NS and OS dates in a lead para is that it's unsound in principle - it's mixing apples and oranges. Also, we stand to mislead some people about the true span of his life. He actually lived 10 days less than deducting "21 March 1685" from "28 July 1750" would lead one to believe. Use the same calendar for both dates, and only then will the calculation come out correctly. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've raised a similar issue with Handel - see here. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good idea about the O.S.—anything to avoid that ugly clutter right at the start. I wonder whether you could do the same thing for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky? But why did you relink the dates? MOSNUM no longer encourages this, and the other date fragments in the main text are not linked. It's better to allow the high-value links to breathe, don't you think? TONY (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tchaikovsky has been in this format for a long time, as have many other Russians who lived between 1582 and 1918. I'm not too familiar with MOSNUM, so thanks for the reminder. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes much more sense using the same calendar to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBoothby (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. We seem to have a consensus so I've made the change to the article. I must say it really hits one in the eye, particularly one who's only ever seen the 21 March date in the literature. But I'm sure we'll get used to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And how interesting that this edit happened on the anniversary of his death. (I notice stuff like that). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No tag needed

"...and brought it to its ultimate maturity" is not controverial. No "citation needed" tag required. — J M Rice (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've added a NPOV tag to the lead for reasons I suspect the current editors of this page were already aware of. Example: the article refers to his "unrivalled control of harmonic and motivic organisation in composition..." Prove he was unrivaled. The lead is full of statements like this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Unrivalled" is not a good word, I agree; but in the lead for a widely accepted iconic artist, some license is permissable, as long as supported in the body of the text by (referenced) details. You would do well to raise the issue here before slapping an unexplained NPOV tag.

You may wish to list here any other epithets or statements, as specifically as possible, that might require scrutiny in this light. Tony (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that your concerns might be discussed in a collaborative manner, rather than the combative frame you appear to be pursuing. Tony (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the instructions in the POV template: "Place POV-section at the top of the disputed section, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page." I put up the tag and then went to describe why in the talk page. You reverted it before I could finish.

Where is his status as unrivaled supported in the body?

Also, actually read the tag. Tell me, what does it say after "please"? "Do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." lol and you're calling me combative. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're rude and combative: best not to laugh at other editors, especially those who've been here for a long time. No wonder you've been blocked for edit warring at least once, and warned on other occasions. Taking issue with a single word in the article does not warrant a NPOV tag. I think you'd better present your entire case for NPOV, in detail, here, forthwith. Otherwise, I'll be bringing others in to resolve this.

Go ahead, then ... Tony (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

67% of your messages have included a personal attack and you're calling me rude, lol. I don't see what my two month old block has to do with editting this article. Looks like you've been warned for civility, but that's beside the point. Here are my issues:

• "...drew together the strands of the Baroque period and brought it to its ultimate maturity."
• "...he enriched the prevailing German style with a robust contrapuntal technique..."
• "...an unrivalled control of harmonic and motivic organisation..."
• "Revered for their intellectual depth and technical and artistic beauty..."
• "...he is now widely considered to be one of the greatest composers in the Western tradition."

Note that the last two are verifiable, just lacking sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am removing this tag. Not to mince words: calling his article NPOV is asinine. These are style and peacock points, not PoV issues. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling the lead POV. "The neutrality of this section is disputed." Each point issue I raised came with a POV: that Bach was awesome. You could call each individual point a violation of some specific policy, but the underlying theme is a POV push. I'll ask you not to remove tags while a dispute is active. If you truely believe that these are all peacock terms, why didn't you replace the NPOV tag with a peacock tag? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't post a peacock tag because it's quite unnecessary. The right way to do this is to collaboratively work out ways in which such wording might be altered, here. However, Fury, you've put paid to the idea of collaborative interactions with your aggressive behaviour. Tony (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you've chosen to delete the tag without even commenting on the issues I've raised. I'm restoring it since it was deleted without reason. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The tag wouldn't be a problem if it were seen by editors only, since we're the ones who work out disputes. Unfortunately, readers outnumber editors by hundreds, if not thousands, to one, as evident here -- that's August only. Placing this huge and disruptive tag in the reader's face is a disservice to our readers -- and we must always think of them first.

If you want the mail truck to stop in front of your house, you can throw a hand grenade at it. That will work. The truck will stop. However there may be a more elegant solution, such as lifting the little flag on the mailbox.

Discussing the issues with the wording on which you disagree, in a friendly and collegial manner, may be a better way to call attention to your idea than putting a giant "POV" tag on the article.

Looking at your bulleted list above, the five items are not controversial in any way, and each can be documented and cited in the article. I also don't see why we can't change specific wordings that you find objectionable. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is nice to read a civil response with constructive points, my thanks to you, Antadrus. You made an interesting point about tags in general, but that would imply that we should never use tags. Tags are introduced for the benefit of the reader. They are warnings about possible issues that the readers may follow up on by reading the talk page. We let them make their own decisions, rather than implying through silence that every statement has the consensus of the community.

I am not tagging the entire article, the tag says "this section." It is unfortunate that it is the lead, but there's nothing I can do about that.

You say that the disputed statements are uncontroversial and can be cited. Do so. Prove me wrong. That's all I ask. So for not even the slightest effort has been made to address my points besides calling me combative and saying that the matters aren't controversial. If I wanted to be a real dick, I would've deleted the statements outright, so give me a little credit here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see a 3RRR report: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#AzureFury at JS Bach. Tony (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I echo Antandrus' point above and have thus removed this needlessly disruptive tag again. Three longstanding editors (if I can place myself in the august company of Antandrus and Tony) have now weighed in and rejected the claims of NPOV. Eusebeus (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the statements cited above are quite bold. I don't know whether this is a NPOV issue or a style issue, but I can understand why someone would be suspicious of them (particularly if the person is not familiar with classical music but is familiar with Misplaced Pages policies). In this particular case it is very easy to add a couple of citations - from, say, New Grove and Wolff's book - to avoid conflicts of such kind in the future. I would add a citation from Grove Online myself, but given the current situation I'm worried if I am going to get the same treatment AzureFury is getting.

A tag is a perfectly legitimate way of expressing concerns and I can't understand all the fighting. Furthermore, I believe that, all things considered, the article requires a couple more tags - for instance, a "provide references" one (or whatever it is called - I forget). Because for 75 kilobytes of text we only have 25 citations, half of them are websites, and NONE of the standard monographs on Bach (Wolff, Williams..) are used. Even the bibliography section is a mess (with links to.. Amazon.com? Isn't this advertising, isn't this forbidden on Misplaced Pages?) So I can't say I'm surprised to see a citation problem. --Jashiin (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• B-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles