Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:37, 18 May 2016

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

Classical music: Compositions This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music This article is supported by Compositions task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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 Low‑importance Orgelbüchlein 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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

Comments

The old text (most of which is commented in the source) featured misguided information and titles in French… don't understand that, since the collection is written in German by a German composer. Furthermore, the former text compared the Orgelbüchlein with cyclical works such as the St. Matthew Passion… this is not the case; the Orgelbüchlein is simply a collection of chorale preludes. The reason it seems that they are composed in four cycles is that the preludes span the church year. The collection was not designed to be performed all at once, as were the truly cyclical works. I'll add more to this article shortly, but currently it is more accurate than it was before. Cor anglais 16 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bach wrote many sets of Chorale preludes of organ; including the Achtzehn, Einzelne and Kirnberger chorale works.

Orgelbüchlein consists of 4 cycles, or larger movements. The use of cycles are quite common in Bach's secular (religious, as oppose to instrumental) works, for example the St Matthew Passion (Bach) consists of 2 parts. The first cycle is the 'Cycle de Noël' and consists of 19 preludes, the second 'Cycle de Pâques' and consists of the subsequent 13 preludes, the third 'Cycle de Pentecôte' consists of 3 preludes, and the final cycle 'Glaubensleider' consists of the final 10 preludes. Each prelude is given a name (Eg: The first prelude in the 'Cycle of Noël' is 'Viens, maintenant, Sauveur des païens' or 'Come now, Saviour of the heathen'), probably synonymous with Bach's own faith in the Lutherian (Martin Luther) church.

This is the old text referred to above. I have removed it from the source and placed it here. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 03:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Week/Lent

I changed the heading for the Lenten chorales from

Seven for each day of the Holy Week

to

Seven for Lent

because Bach did not intend to write only seven Lenten chorale preludes, one for each day of Holy Week. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not complete planned chorale preludes for Lenten chorales such as "O Traurigkeit," "Herzliebster Jesu," and four others. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach too, then. Jashiin 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Editions"

Okay, so, there's a title for a section which might be quite interesting (I would outline the differences between the presentation of the buchlein in the three major editions: i.e. Novello prints each one preceded by it's Chorale harmonised in the style of Bach , Barenreiter publishes the tunes at the front, in the hymnbook style, and the prelude style, and God knows what Peters does).

BUT

No one's written anything!iPhil 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Title Page

In my opinion, "dem Nächsten" is better translated as "to neighbor", rather than "to the next one", which seems a little awkward. Any objections? —EvanCortens (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Reading Peter Williams' book on organ works now and he translates it as "neighbor". --Jashiin (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious POV

I think the article as it stands suffers from a religious POV. The Orgelbüchlein is unquestionably a showcase of how organ preludes can be construed, and Bach states as much on the title page. That it is also a religious statement is pure speculation, not substantiated by any evidence in the article or sources outside it. The analyses of the individual pieces do give some hints as to religious meaning of some aspects of the compositions, but this is also quite subjective. I think the analyses are very useful, but perhaps better split off into separate articles. I don't think the full lyrics are justified in the context of this article, but they might be if the analyses are given in separate articles. Finally, there is an overload of images relating to the content of the hymns used in the organ preludes; I think the relation to the Orgelbüchlein is too tenuous here. Since the article has not been attended to in a while, I took the liberty of removing the religious bias in the text and the choice of images. Zwart (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

All the works are written to religious text and a traditional hymn. Each chorale was headed by Bach with the first line of the hymn and, according to almost all commentators, the musical form of the work reflects the text in various ways. That can be found in the main sources (Williams and Stinson). The images are relevant to the texts of the chorales, which largely are devoted to a given period of the liturgical year. The word "liturgical" refers to religious practices, Lutheran for the monst part. The chorale presludes are not like the WTC as they echo the text and contain the chorale line, in the ways described in the sources. Please read the sources, even if you disagree with them. It is WP:OR to present a point of view of this body of Bach's sacred organ music which does not accord with sources. The analyses of the individual pieces are drawn form the sources. They are not subjective; they are just summaries from the two main books. There are 46 chorale preludes and I only had time in early 2012 to finish a fraction of them. I don't see how it's possible the article without reference to the sources: that's all I use. I cannot see any justification for writing 46 separate articles. With the exception of the 2 manual and pedal preludes, these are short works and mostly interrelated. The start section on the history is still largely unwritten, because I'm occupied with other matters at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. But the chorale preludes are not written to religious texts, they are built on the melody of a church hymn. While it is entirely possible that Bach was inspired by the lyrics of the hymns, it is not evident that this was more significant than the inspiration he might have gotten from the melodies themselves. We just don't know. The liturgical origin of the cycle need not reflect any particular religious motivation: the practical motivation (the need to create material for the service) suffices. As for sources, I checked Geck's analysis (pp. 502ff of the English edition of Bach: Leben und Werk) before editing, to be on the safe side regarding OR. My problem with the images is that they deflect the attention from the choral preludes as musical compositions, which is what the article should be about first and foremost. Of course the images would be fine in articles about the hymns themselves. As for writing separate articles on the individual choral preludes, I think there is no other option if you want to describe each one of them as thoroughly as the first couple. It's not unusual to have separate articles for individual opus numbers (BWV numbers in this case). The alternative would be an unwieldy article. Zwart (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW I have not yet written the analysis of BWV622, one of the most complex of chorale preludes. Almost all commentators agree that the eight chorale lines reflect the hymn text fairly closely. The chromaticism in the last line possibly reflecting the dragging of the cross. That is the sources say, some more guardedly than othere, and that is what the article will say. But please don't edit war over an article an article that you don't intend to contribute to. Your statements here are WP:OR/personal opinion: they are not based on sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no problem with quoting analyses that see a particular religious significance in a musical motif, although it should be done cautiously, as such an analysis is by definition subjective. I take issue with your assessment of my contributions as OR. I'm not expressing any personal opinion, I'm just demanding that statements made in an article be backed up by evidence or references. I do not intend to wage an edit war, but I will exercise the right of any Wikipedian to improve articles according to Misplaced Pages standards. Articles are not owned by anyone. Zwart (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, I think you are out of line reverting before this discussion is over. Please address my point that the music has no lyrics and that therefore the connection with the images is indirect at best. Also stop framing my contribution as vandalizing. Zwart (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately that is not what the sources say. So if you don't wish to respect the sources, how can you possibly discuss edits to the article? Both Williams and Stinson refer to the texts as do most other prior commentators. I'm sorry I cannot help if you don't like that. There is no religious POV behind the article: I have just carefully followed the sources. Why contradict the sources with your own WP:OR, which just seems like personal opinion. There is nothing controversial in there being a significant religious aspect to the pieces. The dedication even makes that clear, according to the sources; it is just one of several aspects as the commentators point out. Splitting was already discussed for Clavier-Übung III and ruled out. There is no need to go through that discussion again. There is no natural way of splitting this article. I can't see any point in a standalone article about a three minute prelude, with no reference to anything: that is just barmy. But your arguments fail for the same reason that they fail for cantatas. The sacred cantatas are religious works, where the text has obvious relevant. It would make no sense to break up the cantatas into separate movements. That is the equivalent of what you are suggesting here. Just as a matter of interest do you have any previous experience of writing detailed wikipedia articles on baroque music, instrumental, orchestral or choral?

I think the removal of the images, a help to the reader and something very particular to wikipedia, is not helpful and you should wait until the article is finished, before further discussion. The images took a huge amount of time to locate and download. Many have been transferred to commons.

You're being very defensive. First, what you should do is modify the text about the Orgelbüchlein being a religious statement by at least adding a reference, but preferably by some hedging. After all we are not talking about an established fact here. Second, there is a difference between music reflecting some religious theme (like the coming of Christ) and music making a religious statement. There is also a difference between writing a composition in the mood of a particular liturgical setting and making a religious statement. So give me the evidence that there is any religious statement being made and then the text can stay. Third, while I appreciate the effort you put in trying to embellish the article, you have to keep in mind that a Misplaced Pages article is not a comprehensive web site: it's just an encyclopedia article. That means that the images have to make sense in the context of the article. The pictures are beautiful and should find a place in Misplaced Pages articles, but not here. There is a lot to say about a choral prelude like "Christ lag in Todesbanden" but it would have to be about the musical composition and not about Christ. About your question: no, in fact, I have never written anything about baroque music in Misplaced Pages articles. Why do you ask? Zwart (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Geck's Life of Bach has almost nothing on the Orgelbüchlein, although it is sometimes useful for historical details. There are specialist books on the complete Bach Organ Music (Williams) and on just the Orgelbüchlein (all aspects, Stinson). You are not discussing usable sources at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You would think that if the Orgelbüchlein made a religious statement, Geck would find a place for mentioning this in the 10 or so pages on the subject. But he only talks about the music, as should this article. Zwart (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the Orgelbüchlein makes a "religious statement", so I am not quite sure why you are writing that. The sources do examine the possible reasons for writing the collection, which was not published during Bach's lifetime. If Stinson and Williams make reference to the religious aspect, for example the original use of some of the chorale preludes during actual masses, then the article mentions that and it is not censored. Geck goes into detail about Schweitzer and Bach. I read on page 18 of Johann Sebastian Bach, that Widor and Scwheitzer, "find common ground in discussing the pictorial richness and symbolism of this music" (Page 18). There seems to be hardly any detail in Geck on the OB, compared with the sources devoted to an encyclopedic discussions of his organ music. I do not see Geck as a principal source, because of the lack of detail: it mostly contains titbits relating to the history and reception. In writing a wikipedia article, the main sources are usually located at the outset: these are followed in writing the article. The are 90 pages in Williams and over 200 pages in Stinson. No reasonable explanation has been given for not following those sources: censoring them would be perverse, to put it mildly. Here is part of what Stinson writes about BWV 622 (I presume yuu have Stinson and both editions of Williams at hand): "This Passiontide chorale, which Bach set in the OB as an ornamental chorale,, is probably the most beloved piece in the collection—and one of Bahc's most acclaimed organ chorales altogether. Widor is said to have found it 'the finest piece of instrumental musica written.' O Mensch deserves its exalted status, first of all, to bach's vivid depictionpf the melancholy chorale text , as one can see in the appogiutura "sigh' figures in measures 12 and 21 and, expecially, in the chromaticism in measures 18-19 and 22-24. Most striking is the C flat major chord at the end of the penultimate measure. As Williams (1981) points outs, Bach used the same chord at the very same juncture in his setting of O Mensch in the 1725 version of the St John Passion (Bach later recycled the noverment in the St Matthew Passion.) Bach accompanies this chord with an adagissimo marking, slowing the tempo from adagio assai. The marking conincides with the word lange ('long upon the cross') in the first stanza, and, since the notes become 'longer' must refer specifically to it. We almost expect this of Bach, given his penchant for deicting 'long' words suach as lang ('long'), Verlangen ('longing'), and ewig ('eternal') with long notes. But rarely in OB does Bach prtray a specific word, as he does here. The passage is, to quote Spitta, 'full of imagination and powerful feeling.' " He continues, but already has several pages prior to this analysing the actual composing score (reproduced in the wikipedia article). Here is part of what Williams writes: "In view of the great legth of the original hymn (and considering the Whit associations of the melody), it is reasonable to see the chorale i n partocular relation to verse 1 of the text. Althogh such key words as bewein, Sünde, Toten, Krankheit, geopfert, schwere Bürd, Kreuze and even lange are bound to be suggestive, it is misleading to seek specific references to such words just at the relevant moments in the melody. Nothing in the music specifially suggests Toten or schwere Bürd, though a fully systematic 'musical sign-language' could have supllied them. Gegopfert (bb 19-20) is preceded, not accompanied, by the chromatic bass; even Kreuze precedes and does not coincide with the well-known C flat chord. Nevertheless the reference to lange does seem clear " There are undoubtedly other shcolarly articles on this chorale prelude. In writing the article, texts such as those above are briefly summarised, possibly using other scholarly sources, such as journal articles. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for censorship. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not questioning any of the scholarship you mention, and I think it should be included in the description of the individual choral preludes. My edit had to do with the Orgelbüchlein making "a religious statement" according to the article. My problem with that is not that I don't like it, but that it is not properly referenced. Don't you agree that if no reference can be given for the Orgelbüchlein making a religious statement, as you seem to admit, the phrase should not be in the article? Zwart (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Excessive primary sources

Repeating the OP above: "I don't think the full lyrics are justified in the context of this article, but they might be if the analyses are given in separate articles. Finally, there is an overload of images relating to the content of the hymns used in the organ preludes; I think the relation to the Orgelbüchlein is too tenuous here."

An applicable policy is WP:PRIMARY: "be cautious about basing large passages on ".

Primary sources with a tenuous relation to the Orgelbüchlein should of course be completely avoided, e.g. a hymn that is in no way about the burial of Christ should not be illustrated by a painting about that theme. If no reliable secundary source links the fourth stanza of "Christ lag in Todesbanden" to BWV 625 the text of that stanza should not be used to "illustrate" the organ prelude. etc.

For the hymns that have a separate Misplaced Pages article the solution is simple (at least for text and translation of these hymns): move the primary source material to the article on the hymn. Probably there are other compositions based on that hymn: why should extensive primary source material on the hymn be given in any of these articles?

It can be condoned to have some primary source material related to such hymns in this article as long as there is no separate article on the hymn, but after that a link to the article on the hymn has to suffise: instead this article should give a description of the composition (which voice has the cantus firmus etc.), based on secondary sources, not this excess of primary source material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no POV at all.

The article is unfinished and I have resumed editing it following your blanking. I said I would do so here.

The two main texts used for the commentary on individual chorale preludes (there are 54 of them if I remember rightly) are Williams (Cambridge University Press) and Stinson (Oxford University Press). The commentary is a precis of what they write and that frequently makes reference to individual words in the text, which the cantus firmus follows. A particularly good example of that is BWV 622. Williams writes carefully about the word painting for the final adagissimo. All commentators comment on the two sets of chromatically rising scales in the pedal which they point out is not uncommon in Bach's musical iconography. The texts were chosen by carefully looking at what Williams and Stinson quoted themselves. So blame them, not me.

A major part of the creation of this article involved the musical quotations, written in lilypond, and the audio files in midi that could be created from the lilypond files. I had to add all the ornamentation by hand—all the notes of each trill—for the audio files (e.g. in BWV 622) and find a means to produce tempo changes and pauses (as marked in the scores).

Clavier-Übung III provides a clearer idea of what the finished article should look like. It has a different structure, but nevertheless there will be longer sections about the different types of Chorale Preludes before the detailed analysis; and sections on the reception of OB from Bach's time to the present. Although Stinson has a chapter on that, it is discussed in numerous other sources, many of which I already used for Clvbng III.

From what you write, you haven't looked at either of the sources. Please do so. Then we can continue this discussion. And please wait until I add the commentary on BWv 625 before blanking parts of the article again. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Sorry for disturbing you by replacing a deadlink by a working link. It was not my intention to disturb you with an edit to a section that had no {{in use}} template.
2. The section with an {{in use}} template hasn't been edited for several hours now, so per the template instructions I'll replace it with an {{under construction}} template.
3. Re. "blanking parts of the article": I did no such thing.
4. In your above reply you missed what I said, and replied to things I didn't say.
5. The entombement image is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove it again.
6. The text of stanzas 1 and 4 of Luther's hymn is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove them again. They are contained in the "Christ lag in Todesbanden" article.
7. The explanation of BWV 625 in the article on the hymn is inappropriate in that article, at least it is better in its place in the article on BWV 625. I'll transfer that explanation to here.

In fact it's simple: instead of having the text of the hymn in the article on the organ piece, and the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the hymn, we have the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the organ piece, and the text of the hymn in the article on the hymn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: what is the particular relevance of showing the score of the end of BWV 625? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

After being discharged from Papworth Hospital after an unforeseen health emergency at midnight on 11 May, I am resuming editing the article from the state in which I left it when I added the "in use" tag. Francis Schonken's questions here show that he has not mastered the relevant parts of Williams' book and might indeed have difficulty in reading musical scores.

• My text quotations are the same as in Williams (I have opted for complete verses throughout the article).
• My musical quotation is the same as in Williams (his explanation of how the accompanying motif is derived from the original chorale melody).

Unreasonable questions, but obvious answers. Mathsci (talk)

Vandalism by Francis Schonken

I am not quite sure why Francis Schonken is vandalising this article. He removed the musical quote from the beginning of BWV 625. Presumably he did that because he didn't like it. He also broke the established format for each of the 45 chorale preludes. He presumbably did that because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He refuses to use the main sources. He arbitrarily copy=pstes content I have added elsewhere back into this article, without attribution. Williams quotes verses 1 and 4, yet Schonken decides to paste i verses 3 and 4. Presumably because Francis Schoinken doesn't need to use sources. I have reverted these changes. I will be adding extra commentary and while that happens he shpuld stay away. Removing the musical quotation from the beginning of BWV 625 was pure vandalism. How can somebody edit in such an obnoxious way? He is a talentless editor and is acting like a bully. Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject Classical music compositions task force articles
• WikiProject Classical music articles
• Start-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• Start-Class Lutheranism articles
• Low-importance Lutheranism articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• WikiProject Lutheranism articles