Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

Eugen Cicero needs to be added to the 20th century Bach/jazz section

Please someone add this hyperlink after the Jacques Loussier hyperlink:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Cicero

Cicero is a genius, and equal to Loussier in this Bach/jazz category. 2001:569:5043:9800:8553:75D8:5C53:5F08 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Unlike Loussier's article, which talks about his extensive Bach work, the only mention of Bach in Cicero's article is the bare listing of one work in the Discography section. If Cicero's Bach work was truly as significant as you say, then his article should reflect it and there should be a reliable source for it. Until then, there's no reason to include it in this article. Indyguy (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the current image of Bach preferred to the higher resolution one?

What is the rationale behind using the current image over this much higher resolution one? Dipthong01 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably because the "higher resolution one" is a png file instead of a jpeg, and takes up over 3 Mb vs. 130k. Also, the current one appears to have been cleaned up and color-adjusted. Indyguy (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!! Learning so much about this website :~) Dipthong01 (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Indyguy, I don't think that's a good rationale. The current picture looks overbrightened and oversaturated and the higher resolution pic looks better in terms of color. But the high res pic also have a ton of wrinkles and bad contrast which couldn't be easily fixed by software. Should we call in a professional image restorer to do the job for us? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane, it looks like there has been some back and forth as the current image was revised over time. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Johann_Sebastian_Bach.jpg for the details. Are any of the versions shown there better? Indyguy (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It should be "Sebastian Bach"

With "Johann Sebastian Bach" in the opening paragraph. Just like it's "Joseph Haydn" and then "Franz Joseph Haydn" in the paragraph. Nobody called him Johann. He was Sebastian. Borges123xyz (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The majority of secondary reliable sources call him Johann Sebastian Bach, so Wikipedia does too. Aza24 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The preeminent biography of Bach, Christoph Wolff's JS Bach, the learned musician, calls him "Sebastian". Tony (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Wife/children

Johann Christian Bach was Bach's eighteenth child/11th son? 207.225.17.172 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the most influential

Aza24 does a statement like "Bach is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential composers in the history of Western music" really need to be cited? I would have thought it was a sky-blue kind of statement. It seems to me to be better suited to the lead than "Since the 19th-century Bach revival he has been generally regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music" and less awkward. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That he has been seen as influential may be blue-sky, but this proposed statement IMO goes well beyond that - it would indeed benefit from citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The proposed statement is "Bach is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential composers in the history of Western music". I personally can't see how that is in any way controversial. In any case I don't think it would be difficult to find sources for it. Assuming it was sourced, do you have an opinion on which of the sentences is better? Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It would depend on the sourcing, but in general the existing sentence seems more precise. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Bach's influence is complex. No, it is certainly not as clear cut as Beethoven (or to a slightly lesser extent, Mozart) who have always been hugely influential since their lifetimes and beyond. The tendency to see the three composers as a trio whose greatness surpasses all others is a modern invention, which is fair enough, but to equate greatness to influence is simply incorrect. Bach's central importance sprouted in the mid-19th century, a hundred years after his death. Could his influence from then on be comparable to Beethoven? Maybe. Could it not? Maybe. Either way, the lead is not the place for a blanket/decisive statement for such a nuanced subject. Aza24 (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

First Sunday of Advent 1714

Bach did not attend the service at the St. Thomas Church on the first Sunday of Advent in 1714. According to Bach Digital, Bach's note in the autograph score of BWV 61 about the order of service in Leipzig was added for a re-performance after 1730. 85.76.112.148 (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Bach Digital page here? The Spitta ref gives us a cross-reference to his Vol. I, which itself has a footnote which reads:

"The note is given in the preface to the cantata; it is by this alone that we know of Bach's journey to Leipzig. It is evident that it was not inserted later, when Bach was cantor at Leipzig, because he entered on his office there in the spring of 1723, and by Advent of that year could certainly no longer have needed to make any note as to the order or service." (Spitta 1899a p519)

I'm not sure how convincing that is, but it's clearly something he's considered.

The Bach Digital page reads "...subsequent performance after 1730 (autograph addition to the order of service in partially autographed score P 45)" - I wonder if it's indicating that Bach wrote the order of service in 1714, and then added to that after 1730? i.e. autograph addition to the order of service, not autograph addition of the order of service. Ligaturama (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The same order of service is found in the autograph score of BWV 62, performed on Advent I in 1724. Curiously, "u. Credo intoniret" is crossed out in both of them. Anonymous7002 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)