Talk:Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis

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 articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Schmieder numbers

Difficult to find (the remark I saw was in a letter in the magazine Musical Times of London) but will look for evidence elsewhere – I believe Schmieder explicitly did not want his name used (no S or Schmieder numbers) in place of, as a shorthand for, the BWV prefix. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely read that somewhere - I've only ever seen S. prefixes used from recordings in the 1950s or around that time, when people were clearly just getting used to the BWV. Clavecin 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American Public Radio program Pipedreams seems to use S. notation. For example, see this play list. I've written to ask them if they have some reason for this.

John Y (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish someone would correct the mistranslation of "Anhang" as "annex" when it should be "appendix." An annex is part of a building; an appendix is part of a book, e.g. the BWV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.85.89 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be true about Schmieder's desire to not use "S" numbers, but at the very least this article could mention that if you do see an S number, it's the same system as BWV. I had to look all over the Internet to confirm this. Why isn't it here on the main Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:64B9:C474:12CD:E76B (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for creation of articles on individual Bach compositions

Every Bach composition should have its own article, though it is sensible to begin with that collections go in one article - e.g. French suites, English suites, well-tempered clavier, clavier-ubung 3, and so on. Every cantata should have its own article.

The title format for each article should be its name followed by BWV number in most cases - e.g. Prelude and Fugue in C major, BWV 531 - this makes it clear it is by Bach and also exactly which composition it refers to, in the commonly denoted way. In multiple-title names, it should be e.g. Partitas, BWV 825-830 - properly with a long-dash in the middle. For very well-known titles, such as 'well-tempered clavier' (and when Bach is clearly the only one to have written a piece with the title), the BWV numbers can be omitted. I've used (J. S. Bach) as a modifier for 'harpsichord concertos' because they are not continuous in BWV numbers and are not a unified set - so these naming rules can be modified where it is sensible to do so.

In each case, the BWV number should also be made as a redirect to the article in question: e.g. BWV 531 would redirect to Prelude and Fugue in C major, BWV 531. This makes linking to Bach compositions extremely easy - just use the BWV number - when otherwise confusion might arise about what the exact title was. It also makes it easier to find the article direct through a search.

In the case of multiple articles, each BWV number should be linked in a similar way to the title - so for Brandenburg Concertos, I've linked BWV 1046 and BWV 1047 and so on up to BWV 1051, all to the article. Only when the multiple articles get too long should there be an article about each piece in a unified set - and we are nowhere near this stage yet on any of the collections.

In writing articles on individual compositions, the use of pictures of musical examples, especially of themes, etc., should ideally be included - see Sonata on the 94th Psalm for an example of how I've done this. As the music is public domain in most editions, this can be easy to capture with picture editing software or a camera. A good source of imformation for writing articles on the cantatas will be http://www.bach-cantatas.com/ Clavecin 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bach is not the only one to have written a book by that name, though he was the first. Another came soon thereafter, trying to ride off of its popularity, if my memory serves me correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.188.26 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thematical?

Hi everyone! Could it be possible that the article confuses "thematically" with "ordered by genre"? It is true that the BWV is a thematical catalogue, but this refers to the fact that all compositions have a musical incipit, meaning the first couple of bars of each composition are given in musical notation. So, saying that the BWV is a thematical catalogue is not the same thing as saying it is ordered by genre, which it is of course. The BWV is definitly not ordered "thematically." This would mean that the compositions were ordered by some kind of musical qualities of the themes, i.e. all themes that start with repeated notes come first, then all themes that start with leaps of fourths etc... Could somebody clearify this situation, please? Matthias Röder 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate ambiguity with the multiple meanings of thematic[[1]]. Here it refers to its first definition: topical (unfortunate, too, that this word has another strictly musical meaning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.185.32 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article title

The use of article titles which are abbreviations is disfavored; I believe the title here should be the full name of the catalog (in German) with BWV as a redirect. Tb (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Making this request via db-move. Paradoxian (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogues of other composers

I don't think this section is necessary at all. The hyperlink to other cataloguing sytems should be preserved elswhere in the article and the rest of this section should be deleted. 128.138.185.32 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 565 as an example of a spurious work

I see someone added BWV 565 as an example of a spurious work that didn't have its BWV number revoked. I'm aware of the scholarship around it not being by J.S. Bach, however it's far from conclusive. I think a better example could be used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Etler (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

The article was moved from Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis to Bach Werke Verzeichnis, on the grounds of the last printed edition. Does that mean the styling on the header? It looks not like correct German, and the author would not have used such a styling. Can we at least mention that? Or move it back? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "the styling on the header?" – not sure what you mean by header. I refer to the title as it is on the cover of BWV^2a (e.g. [2]), which is, afaik, the first edition partially in English. Not concerned with whether it looks right in German. It should look right in English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

I've added an introduction to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach explaining the abbreviations used on that page. Is there still anything on this page that merits salvaging, or is it just possible to redirect it to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV? That section has now more coverage on the BWV than this page, while the "other" catalogues (in fact out of scope for this page) have a more appropriate coverage there too, in separate sections, and with better sourcing (note the long-term "add refs" tag on this page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or split again?

See preliminary discussion at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Page length — please continue discussion on split here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BWV munbering

I don't get the internal numbering of the system in each genre. Let's say the cantatas are #1 to #215, what is the reason of number 1 to be 1 and why BWV2 is after BWV1 and before BWV3? I'll be happy to get an answer for it, Brian (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 1 is No. 1 in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis while that was the first cantata published in the Bach Gesellschaft Ausgabe, in 1851 (a century before the BWV's first edition), see [3] Similar, BWV 2 = second cantata published in BGA volume I, etc. - for a more general treatment (beyond cantatas etc.) see List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Listing Bach's compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Brian (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BWV numbering (again)

I have another question about the internal numbering within a genre in BWV. The sequence BWV 439-507 is a set of Sacred Songs and Arias from the Musikalisches Gesangbuch of G.C. Schemelli. The internal ordering appears to be alphabetical by text. However (in the list on this page) BWV 498 ("Selig ...") appears before BWV 499 ("Sei ..."), which appears to be an anomaly. Is this a copying error here, or an anomaly within BWV? 82.18.247.12 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach#Chorale harmonisations in various collections has a short paragraph on the numbering of the songs and arias from Schemellis Gesangbuch in the BWV catalogue. Another is at List of songs and arias by Johann Sebastian Bach#Sacred songs and arias from Schemellis Songbook (BWV 439–507). They are alphabetically: "Selig ..." ended up before "Sei ..." probably because the latter one was originally written as "Sey ...", see alphabetical index of Schemellis Gesangbuch. Note that the latest edition of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (1998) collates BWV 499 *before* BWV 498, because it collates alphabetically according to modern spelling for this section of the catalogue (p. 308). At List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV Chapter 6 you'll find the same collation order, while the collation in that table is according to that edition of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, and only becomes strictly numerical if clicking the sort button of the first column. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier

Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier is a hymn with a melody by Bach, a rare thing. How could it be linked? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier#BWV? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BMV

I often see BMV instead of BWV, what's that all about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:984a:f200::8ea (talk • contribs)

not about the BWV, but likely about BMV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's in relation to Bach. Make a web search with bach and BMV and you'll see. 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it isn't simply a mistake? Sawtoothcoriander (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]