Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::Until this morning the '']'' article had no reception history section. Details about the reception history of that composition should go in that article (I created a section for it). --] (]) 17:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Until this morning the '']'' article had no reception history section. Details about the reception history of that composition should go in that article (I created a section for it). --] (]) 17:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Talk pages give a chance for discussion, hoping for consensus or at least a majority opinion. It seems to me that one out of three opinions is not enough. The opinions of others beyond the three of us could be helpful. ] (]) 22:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Talk pages give a chance for discussion, hoping for consensus or at least a majority opinion. It seems to me that one out of three opinions is not enough. The opinions of others beyond the three of us could be helpful. ] (]) 22:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
==RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article==
{{rfc|bio|media|soc}}
A recent large number of edits have been dropping material from the biography and legacy section of the Bach article at Misplaced Pages making it unrealistic concerning Bach's legacy. The apparent desire of the recent editors is to present a prettified and Disneyland version of the biography of Bach which deletes the rough times of Bach's legacy immediately after his death and the irreparable losses of huge parts of his manuscripts and compositions. This material was present in the Bach article earlier this year as edited by User:Buxtehude from 27 March 2015 all the way up to the recent forced deletion of the material by two recent editors in preference for the prettified and Disneyland version of Bach's legacy in an idealized version of the Bach article in its current form. The material by Buxtehude should be restored to the article in the realist version of the article which accurately represents the rough times which Bach's legacy faced in its previous Misplaced Pages form given as:
:'''Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach, including over 100 cantatas and his '']'', of which no copies are known to survive. At one point, the diary of one family member records the selling of the high quality parchment used for the hand-written transcriptions to be used for their stock value as packing paper at a local butcher shop due to harsh financial necessity''', from Buxtehude on 27 March 2015.
The question for this RfC is: Whether to SUPPORT the restoration of the deleted material of the realistic representation of Bach's legacy from the time of his death 1750 to 1829, which was the year of the Mendelssohn revival of Bach's reputation as a composer? ] (]) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
===Support-Oppose section===
* '''Support''', as originating this RfC. The material in the 27 March 2015 edit shown above should be restored to the Bach article. The representation of the realistic version of Bach's legacy accurately is more important than the desire of some editors to present a prettified and inaccurate version of Bach's legacy after his death. Over 100 cantatas were lost or discarded after Bach's death out of 300 cantatas, and 3 out of 5 of Bach's Passions have been lost or discarded including the lost St Mark's Passion. ] (]) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
view·edit Frequently asked questions
Why does this article say Bach's birthday was March 31, when many other sources say it was March 21?
Due to the change from the Julian calendar ("Old Style") to the Gregorian calendar ("New Style"), both dates are valid: March 21 in Old Style dates, March 31 in New Style. Misplaced Pages uses New Style dates, but also includes the Old Style in small print – hence the "(OS 21 March)" notation. See Old Style and New Style dates for more details.
Johann Sebastian Bach was one of the Music 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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
{{Infobox person
| name = Johann Sebastian Bach
| image = Johann Sebastian Bach.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = Portrait of Bach, aged 61, by ], 1748
| alt =
| birth_date = 21 March 1685 ]
| birth_place = ], ]
| birth_name =
| death_date = {{death date and age|1750|7|28|1685|3|31|df=y}} <!-- 31 March, new style date -->
| death_place = ], Holy Roman Empire
| works = ]
| signature = Johann Sebastian Bach signature.svg
| signature_size = 300px
}}
An editor seemingly unaware of infobox disagreements made this suggestion, which was promptly reverted. Last time we discussed was 2013, and a different box. This one follows examples Handel and Beethoven, and I support having it. We can still discuss parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I've been up to lately: sorting through media (images and audio) to capture the best ones for this article. This led me to some category sorting at commons, and while doing all this I realised that for a famous composer we should have some signature pieces in the lead, which for me is a much more stimulating idea than boring infobox discussions. Now there is a special format for the {{listen}} template to include it in an infobox, but the layout of that one isn't equal in all browsers, so I'm not sure we should use it, or rather should have a normal "Listen" template below the lead image.
Apart from the layout issue it's about the choice of the pieces that are most emblematic for the composer. For me that would be, for example, the air from the third suite (preferably not the "on the G string" version), the toccata BWV 565, and "O Haupt ..." (St. Matthew Passion version). Then I got side-tracked by BWV 565 for its possibly-not-by-Bach status, and am currently in the process of overhauling that article (whether or not I'd propose BWV 565 as audio example here is still very much in the balance, suppose I'll be only clear on that once the overhaul of the article on the composition is completed & acceptable).
Key pieces will probably be different for every reader, while a prominent neutral link to the compositions is less obvious in the lead, nor are the life data (formerly persondata) together in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Re. "will probably be different for every reader", true, but that's not the point. It's about the one that would be generally the most recognisable (auditively). Which Bach composition is 14 times (!) on one record? BWV 565 – don't know anything that comes near by comparison. Which is Bach's best picture is the same: "will probably be different for every reader", but we end up making a choice and put it in the lead. Which is the most recognisable article title? may be different depending on reader, but if we don't agree we conduct a WP:RM or whatever and in the end we make a choice.
Images, like audio files, also depend on resolution/quality of the available files, sometimes disappointing for the copyright-free ones, so true: a lot of factors need to be taken into account, that's why I had preferred not to speak about this until I was sure I could propose a coherent choice regarding this composer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Picture: easy, we have only two on the commons, one is debated. Therefore all cantata infoboxes (example) do not have an image of Bach, who when he looked like pictured here composed the Mass in B minor and the Art of Fugue, - he was around 25 years younger at his peak of productivity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Really, why is it always so difficult to have a simple reasonable conversation with you? I spoke about lead images (on composer pages or whatever) in general. For Chopin it wasn't all that easy. We came to a solution. that's all I wanted to illustrate as a comparison with audio files: for audio files it isn't always easy either I suppose. We can come to a conclusion there too, that's what I'm sure of and wanted to illustrate. End of example. End of comparison. I give examples to explain something, please don't run of on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I tried to explain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Given the vast number of people with whom Gerda has perfectly simple and reasonable conversations, that's an unwarranted personal attack. As to why you seem unable to have a simple reasonable conversation with Gerda; that's left as an exercise for the reader. As for "running off at tangent"... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose infobox, specifically the somewhat farfetched (i.e. correct but farfetched) "Holy Roman Empire" references; the signature that became too small; the caption of the image which I like better the way it is currently under the lead image (including the links in that caption, which indeed would be rather confusing in the infobox). For these reasons I'd like to keep the lead image as it is now, and not the infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Besides, the OP of the infobox had blundered on Bach's death date (I corrected it), which shows what kind of a liability these boxes are, if even the proposors of them can't get the facts right? It's just a lot of work to keep checking infoboxes' content in addition to getting the article and its intro right. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
HRE can be replaced (see above). A date is no more likely to be incorrect in an infobox than in prose; in fact your "fix" made things worse. The signature can be any size we want (see above). Captions in infoboxes may also have links. Your remaining objection appears to be "IDONTLIKEIT". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(but that's again far-fetched, Thuringia wasn't a state at the time, just an indication of a region), or, more recognisable (if region without being exactly a state at the time is OK):
(states/regions maybe not so relevant for the infobox, there's little "music" in it, and for me Bach is about the music.) As for his title at death: "Royal-Polish and Prince-electoral Saxonian court composer" (see Bach's Nekrolog, caption of lead image), the "Royal-Polish" may have been as important to Bach as the "Prince-Electoral Saxonian", but infoboxes are not suitable for such nuances I suppose – so I'd keep it with the last solution I proposed above, i.e.: avoid naming states/regions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"German" in this context is just an ethnonym; where he lived was not a political entity called "Germany" at that time. We can call him "German" but saying he was born and died in "Germany" is historically incorrect. Using "(birth) Eisenach" and "(death) Leipzig" is probably sufficient. If not, "(birth) Eisenach, Saxony" and "(death) Leipzig, Saxony" should be enough. While "(birth) Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach" and "(death) Leipzig, Saxony" could theoretically be used, there seems to be no point ("Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach" is redundant, and there seems no benefit to giving "Electorate of Saxony" vs. just "Saxony". Adding in the "Dutchy of" and "Electorate of" stuff is unnecessary verbiage in an infobox. "Thuringia" would be unhelpful, like writing "Seattle, Pacific Northwest". — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support infobox in general, the simple design up there as of right now (see timestamp) looks good to me, the simple link to "list of compositions" seems to be a good way to address the concern about bloat. Let's all keep the discussion on track about this infobox for this article and not bring the past or personalities into it. WP:AFG, WP:NPA. Montanabw14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I was very opposed to the bloated and highly problematic box proposed 2 years ago, but this simple unbloated version is fine and an asset to the article. For one thing, the lead sentence doesn't even mention his place of birth or death—standard encyclopedic information. That could be remedied, although given the MOS injunction about adding places of birth and death after the dates, the phrasing would end up rather convoluted. However, even if they were added somewhere in the lede, it is convenient to the reader to have it summarised clearly and simply in the box. I'd even go so far to say add the Known for parameter filled with "Composer and musician". Believe it or not, a lot of people don't know who he was or have only a vague idea. I'd be very against using Occupation for that, though. It's horribly anachronistic and unencyclopedic to apply it to people of that era. Voceditenore (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The reason my 13:55 comment, above, appears odd, and wrongly formatted, is that Francis Schonken insists on inserting his comments out-of-sequence, and has moved one of his, to which mine was a reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Support a simple infobox. I also agree with Voceditenore above, that this should include a "Known for" line, though I'm not honestly sure how to complete it (perhaps "musician" rather than "composer"). Imaginatorium (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Both; a |known_for= (or, for modern figures, |occupation=) can contain more than one item: |known_for=], ] (or maybe something more specific). A problem that needs to be resolve is that this isn't the purpose the {{Infobox person|known_for}} parameter was intended, and it's wording doesn't grammatically work well this way. We probably need to add a |notable_as= parameter, and use that in {{Infobox composer}}, instead, since "Known for: Composer" borders on gibberish. I'll go and propose |notable_as= right now at Template talk:Infobox person. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 08:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Francis Schonken, but a short infobox, if it can be kept that way, is better than a long one. I see the discussions as to "states" have already begun. Given the section above, who can doubt that the "nationality" question will be far behind? Johnbod (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the endless talk page arguments over a word or two that so many Misplaced Pages "editors" seem to prefer over substantive improvements to articles are indeed awful. Let's not feed the fires. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I personally have never understood what manner of encyclopedic value or context is added by placing the signature so prominently in the infobox (or for that matter, in the article at all), but otherwise the infobox in question seems to present only basic and salient details. I personally wouldn't be opposed a version with up to twice as many parameters, provided they were all relevant details. But as an expedient to avoiding the grueling debates that always arise in composer-related articles with regard to infoboxes because of the polarized opinion, this simplified version will do in a pinch, given the broad support. Snow03:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Support a typical biographical infobox, including the list of major works since people seem to want that included. Also agree with Voceditenore's objection to "occupation" as anachronistic, and with Francis Schonken's objection to "Holy Roman Empire" as silly (akin to using "Delhi, British Empire" for someone born there in the early 20th century). I agree with critics that huge autographs in infoboxes are pointless, but doing away with them is a matter for discussion at the bio infobox template's talk page (and I think that would be a lively discussion, because we appear to have nowhere else to put them except as stand-alone images in the article, which I think many would object to). The fact of the matter is that mobile users generally depend heavily on infoboxes to give them a concise précis, whether all of us like the way they appear or not (largely a matter of CSS; propose changes at WT:INFOBOX). At some point the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against infoboxes that WP:CLASSICAL has been advancing for so long (I seem to recall ArbCom ruling that one wikiproject can't push this unilaterally, since any topic is within the scope of multiple projects, e.g. geographical as well as topical ones) has to give way to the practical needs of users, since this is an encyclopedia written for its readers, after all, not for its camps of editors. The overall, WP-wide consensus appears to be that biographical articles above the stub stage should have infoboxes, and most of them do in fact have infoboxes. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Until a few days ago the article, Reception, 18th Cent., 3d para., said "Bach's successors in Leipzig were rather counterproductive in preserving his legacy." I seem to have found that at least one successor as Cantor, Doles,
was productive in the sense of introducing motets to Mozart and performing Passions in 1780. What more can be said about successor Cantors? Marlindale (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we'd better go back to the "...rather counterproductive...". The first few successors were no fan of Bach's music, there's no secret there. Performing a piece of Bach's music when asked, or every now and then performing less than one percent of Bach's output of church music isn't really actively participating in the dissemination of that music. At least, that's what Bach's biographers say, as a general consideration, leaving apart a few exceptions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The correct wording is significant here, in that Bach's successors as well as his family were not effective (ineffective) in promoting his legacy and preserving it. 'Counterproductive' may to the incorrect form of expression to indicate their lack of effectiveness. I am returning the 1829 Mendelssohn date to the lead section because this is already covered in the body of the article as centrally important. Other than occasional "incidents" of his music being performed sporadically after his death, Bach's limited impact was measured for the 79 years up to Mendelssohn by the usefulness of his well-tempered clavier book which at least sustained his reputation, partially, as a keyboard virtuoso. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
1829: nah, it was important but recent scholarship is quite in agreement it was something in a movement that had already started (see amount of publications of Bach music between 1800 and 1829) and was not defined exclusively by the 1829 performance of the St Matthew Passion (e.g. in the 19th-century UK the Revival of music of the first half of the 18th century was not really seen from that perspective). In 1829 the movement gained momentum, and Mendelssohn's efforts were instrumental to that, but that was far from the only thing happening, nor were all further developments of the Revival dependent from that momentum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That is not quite the case, not nearly. The recovery of the Matthew Passion was only because a member of Mendelssohn's family purchased it (salvaged it) from a butcher shop that was using it as wrapping paper. This is well-documented, however, your statement is undocumented here and contradicted by various sources. Your comment appears to refer to Haydn's very sparing UK influence for Bach which you do not document when you state: "(e.g. in the 19th-century UK the Revival of music of the first half of the 18th century was not really seen from that perspective)." Your material is Undocumented and anecdotal. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I put most of the references covering all that in the article (see references – most of it is available on-line), e.g. the UK Revival perspective in the McKay article.
Talk pages give a chance for discussion, hoping for consensus or at least a majority opinion. It seems to me that one out of three opinions is not enough. The opinions of others beyond the three of us could be helpful. Marlindale (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
A recent large number of edits have been dropping material from the biography and legacy section of the Bach article at Misplaced Pages making it unrealistic concerning Bach's legacy. The apparent desire of the recent editors is to present a prettified and Disneyland version of the biography of Bach which deletes the rough times of Bach's legacy immediately after his death and the irreparable losses of huge parts of his manuscripts and compositions. This material was present in the Bach article earlier this year as edited by User:Buxtehude from 27 March 2015 all the way up to the recent forced deletion of the material by two recent editors in preference for the prettified and Disneyland version of Bach's legacy in an idealized version of the Bach article in its current form. The material by Buxtehude should be restored to the article in the realist version of the article which accurately represents the rough times which Bach's legacy faced in its previous Misplaced Pages form given as:
Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach, including over 100 cantatas and his St Mark Passion, of which no copies are known to survive. At one point, the diary of one family member records the selling of the high quality parchment used for the hand-written transcriptions to be used for their stock value as packing paper at a local butcher shop due to harsh financial necessity, from Buxtehude on 27 March 2015.
The question for this RfC is: Whether to SUPPORT the restoration of the deleted material of the realistic representation of Bach's legacy from the time of his death 1750 to 1829, which was the year of the Mendelssohn revival of Bach's reputation as a composer? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Support-Oppose section
Support, as originating this RfC. The material in the 27 March 2015 edit shown above should be restored to the Bach article. The representation of the realistic version of Bach's legacy accurately is more important than the desire of some editors to present a prettified and inaccurate version of Bach's legacy after his death. Over 100 cantatas were lost or discarded after Bach's death out of 300 cantatas, and 3 out of 5 of Bach's Passions have been lost or discarded including the lost St Mark's Passion. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Why does this article say Bach's birthday was March 31, when many other sources say it was March 21?
Due to the change from the Julian calendar ("Old Style") to the Gregorian calendar ("New Style"), both dates are valid: March 21 in Old Style dates, March 31 in New Style. Misplaced Pages uses New Style dates, but also includes the Old Style in small print – hence the "(OS 21 March)" notation. See Old Style and New Style dates for more details.
