Jump to content

Talk:Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Composition for 2 harpsichords in the Art of Fugue?

[edit]

Under "Concerto in C Major, BWV 1061" the article states: "The only time Bach returned to the two-harpsichord combination was in the Art of Fugue which he wrote near the end of his life.", without citation. Where in Art of Fugue is 2 harpsichords indicated? I am under the impression that intended instrumentation is not explicit for Art of Fugue. Perhaps the author of this article meant the Musical Offering, which has pieces that are sometimes played with multiple harpsichords (Gustav Leonhardt used 2 harpsichords for the Canon a 4), although I am still under the impression that in general instrumentation is not explicit for the Musical Offering. Matt1685 (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone rewrite this section?

[edit]

"The middle movement has the four harpsichords playing differently-articulated arpeggios in a very unusual tonal blend, while Bach provided some additional virtuosity and tension in the other movements."

The fregment in question is note-for-note copying of Vivaldi with none whatsoever intervention by J.S.Bach, as great a composer as he was. From the wording in the article ther eader has impression that it was Bach who invebted those arpeggios, which he did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.223.59 (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 1044 sourcing

[edit]

Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bach's Triple Concerto. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section has been archived. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 1044

[edit]

I am in process of sourcing and improving this section. I have completely rewritten the content—I have not quite finished the first draft. It was a problem that no content existed on BWV 894, but I coped with that as best I could. The section is quite short (it is better sourced than others) and in its entirety is designed to help the reader and blend in with the remainder of the article. I will continue with my edits. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article

[edit]

This is not an article about unaccompanied keyboard works such as Bach's arrangements for organ of concertos by other composers. It is obviously an article about actual concertos with orchestral accompaniment. If someone wants to write an article about that subject (if it actually makes any sense), they should try do so in a different article. It was faintly ridiculous to list the Italian concerto as something to be included here. It is listing gone crazy. There are plenty of books written on classes of compositions by Bach (such as the recent Das Bach Handbuch by Laaber)—keyboard music, organ music, chamber music, orchestral music, concertos—and no Bach commentators attempt to make the bizarre groupings which Francis Schonken is trying to do at the moment. It is original research and synthesis gone crazy. There doesn't seem to be any justification at all. I have therefore reverted his edits (just a raw list of inappropriate compositions). He can try to explain himself on this page, but what he did just seems like pure silliness. None of the pieces he chose, quite arbitrarily I think, fit into this article: they are incompatible. That is why the 450 page volume of Laaber's "Orchestermusik" is disjoint from Francis Schonken's crazy list. Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Francis Schonken's strange additions were the "B" in WP:BRD. My edits on the article and here are the remaining letters. His idea of adding this content seems completely disruptive. Could he please explain his logic here, starting with the Italian concerto? Was he just idly playing with words and forgetting the musical compositions? I am certainly quite curious as to what he thought he was doing. I would imagine it would totally confuse the reader. This article is obviously not a list, if that is what he was thinking. If it were a list it would contain the word "list" in the title. That is what happens on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken insists on adding his own personal viewpoint to this article. It does not match any sources (the musical scores are obviously not sources, except to prepare musical excerpts or audio files). As such the material he has added is completely misleading for the reader. Indeed it harms wikipedia when Francis Schonken attempts to make these outlandish changes, which refkect his own individual take on these compositions. That disruptive content has therefore been removed. Unless Francis Schonken can provide sources that back up his individual point of view, this content will continue to be removed. All of this is original research by Francis Schonken, unsupported by any Bach scholars. I have no idea why Francis Schonken is attempting to degrade the content of wikipedia in this disruptive way. But it happens fairly frequently. He was bold in making the edit; I have reverted it and he should now follow wikipedia policy and explain himself on this page, per WP:BRD. I cannot see any rationale to his edits at all, beyond disruption. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bach's keyboard concertos are usually understood as BWV 1052–1065. Outside that range there are BWV 1044 and 1050 (orchestral concertos with a significant solo part for the harpsichord), and some two dozen concertos for one or two keyboard instruments without orchestral accompaniment (see List of solo keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach). I suppose the "solo keyboard" concertos list page should at least be linked from this page on Bach's "keyboard" concertos. IMHO at least a WP:walled garden effect should be avoided here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article will be listed for deletion. The classification was invented by Francis Schonken and is not supported by any recent literature on Bach. The creation of that list seems to be yet another attempt of his to waste pople's time. The easiest way around this is list the article for deletion. His recent editing shows he has no access to specialistic articles on these topics. That has resulted in him having huge gaps in his understand9ng of the subject. The encyclopedic treatise published by Laaber contradicts Francis Schonken's original research. Presumably he has created these irrational lists as another disruptive ploy. But he can explain himself at the AfD's rather than here. Mathsci (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated narrative of Bach's keyboard concertos

[edit]

Both Scheibe and Spitta indicate the Italian Concerto (BWV 971) as a "Clavierconcert" (keyboard concerto). More importantly, Spitta's narrative of Bach's keyboard concertos (pp.616 –632 in Vol. II of the German edition) encompasses the concertos for one or more keyboards and orchestra, the Weimar arrangements (for solo keyboard), the concertos for three instruments and orchestra, and the Italian Concerto. So, apart from merely linking to the list of solo keyboard concertos, proposed in the previous subsection, I suppose a more integrated treatment of Bach's keyboard concertos (...Bach developing keyboard-centred concertos from earlier Italian and Italianate models...) would be beneficial for the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are historic 18th and 19th century historic documents, both of which count as primary sources. They cannot be used for presenting arguments on this talk page. Francis Schonken is unqualified to interpret directly anything that these authors write, particularly if it rests on just one word in German. He has adopted a view at odds with modern textbooks and journal articles, the usual reliable sources for creating content on wikipedia. Certainly the recent encyclopedic volumes on chamber music, orchestral music, keyboard music, etc, published by Laaber contradict his idiosyncratic and perverse classification. Given that his views are not backed up by any modern musicological literature, these postings just seem to be disruptive. Without being sourced in modern bach literature, his statements about Spitta and Schiebe have no more value on wikipedia than a string of random letters. Mathsci (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the complete version of Williams' musical biography of Bach. Francis Schonken's very bizarre point of view was at odds with the book. It discussed keyboard works such as the Italian Concerto and French Overture as related works, conceived as keyboard works. The harpsichord concertos were discussed without any reference to these works (or the organ arrangements). So the present state of this article is fine. My worry is that people spend their time discussing lists, trying to tie other people in knots, while articles like Italian Concerto remain little more than sub-stubs. That piece is described in great detail in the literature, but there is no trace of that material in the article. Given the content-free state of that article why are we even discussing whether it be "included" or "mentioned" here. A priority should be to transfer the copious content about it in sources onto wikipedia, so readers can find that information on wikipedia. Until Italian Concerto is improved I cannot see any point in discussing it here. Francis Schonken's priorities on wikipedia seem to be misplaced. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Williams' narrative, pp. 361–71, includes the Italian Concerto, the Weimar transcriptions and the concertos for keyboard(s) and orchestra. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, compare what I wrote above ("...Bach developing keyboard-centred concertos from earlier Italian and Italianate models...") with Williams p. 367 "... It seems that the idea of a 'solo keyboard concerto' had been gradually maturing over time and was certainly accomplished by the 1730s. ...", and with Williams writing about how Bach's keyboard concertos relate to Italian and Italianate models, e.g. on pages 361–2 and 369. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolff's view on the original version of BWV 1052

[edit]

I get the impression that Christoph Wolff's 2008 contribution to Bach Perspectives 7 about the original version of BWV 1052 is not properly represented in the article yet. Maybe something in this sense could be added at the end of the paragraph discussing the early model for the concerto (i.e. the paragraph now ending on "...the authenticity of the violin concerto has been widely accepted."): "Wolff (2008) questions whether the ample evidence in favor of a violin concerto original is conclusive, and mentions the "imitatio violinistica" ("violin style" figuration), an earlier keyboard practice, as an alternative way to explain the idiomatic violin figuration in the solo part of the concerto." --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles, the latest in 2016. There are comments by Williams in 2016, who attended the various conferences. I find his non-committal approach perfect. There are also comments by Butler, in Bach the Cobbler. Williams comments on both Wolff and Butler. Jones also comments: many technical details on the violinistic style of writing in the text are taken from his 2013 book. There is nothing definitive about "organ concertos"; the only certain thing is a 1725 Hamburg newspaper article on a concert in Dresden. I don't believe that you have read either of the Wolff articles in their entirety. The introduction—summarising Williams and others—explains that deciding on the prehistory of these concertos is purely conjectural and rests on plausibility: nothing is conclusive. Some people propose reconstructions; some actually make them, and some are deemed more successful that others, depending on the listener, the player, etc. Rampe 2013 also discusses Wolff's hypothesis in detail. But you seem not aware of anything beyond Wolff's Sicilianos article, parts of which you apparently read on google books. It applies equally well to BWV 1053.
You seemed perfectly happy with the unsourced original research written in the article before. You raised no objections, no criticisms, nothing at all.
This just seems to be part of your morning routine on wikipedia. It seems to be as follows (just conjecture and hypothetical reconstruction): get up early, the earlier the better; look at what Mathsci has written; think of some abstruse commentary on it; add it to wikipedia; try to continue a dialogue on it for a long time—a month is ideal—diverting the discussion to other points if errors are noticed; waste Mathsci's time with meaningless trivia; give him the feeling that someone is breathing down his neck; feel rewarded if he shows irritation at your comments. In the end, it's just disruptive editing.
Nothing you have written indicates that you are trying to help the reader. As I say just disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... nothing is conclusive." (original emphasis) – precisely: since that isn't clear when reading the abovementioned paragraph I proposed a short addition to it, including: "... questions whether the ample evidence in favor of a violin concerto original is conclusive ..." (or something in that vein). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently had the opportunity to read the entire 2016 article by Wolff. Wolff's approach is not rendered properly in the current version of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit in the article was changed on 18 January 2018 by User:Brozhnik.[1] That radically changed the content in that form and it clearly reflects WP:consensus: indeed I changed my view there. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Let's get down to business then. I'd like a more chronological approach in the "... history ..." section, and don't know why that section should be called anything else than "History". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have seen the edits of User:Brozhnik. They were very well written and, from their contributions, they seemed to show expertise. So I completely agreed with the edit of User:Brozhnik, which was made in the usual cumulative way. If you are proposing to reject other editors' contributions, like those of User:Brozhnik, it is on your onus to explain why you have decided to overturn WP:consensus. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The material still needs to be integrated (e.g. the narrative elsewhere in the article contradicts Brozhnik's updates to the last paragraph of the "History" section). The "History" section is incomplete (e.g. doesn't place BWV 1044 anywhere) and unbalanced (very detailed on some aspects but failing to show the over-all history of Bach's keyboard concertos by not adhering to some sort of chronological approach). Then there's the {{More footnotes}} aspect, not handled in the last seven years, etc. So I'll be going through the entire article paragraph by paragraph, adding new paragraphs where needed, coordinating footnotes etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has been in a fairly stable for 2 years. Several edits made by a variety of users were made in that period. User:Brozhnik was an example of such a user, and the edits were made in the usual cumulative way. Those had WP:CONSENSUS. When a huge change has been made, which is not supported by consensus, the onus is on that user to explain why they have decided not to adopt consensus. Multiple users have modified and improved the article, in the usual cumulative way. Francis Schonken appears not to have liked the edits of those other users including those of User:Brozhnik, so is essentially attempting to change matters unilaterally. That is not how consensus works. He should explain what he is trying to do far more carefully: He has not does so at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, if you happen to disagree with the non-consensus changes that Francis is making, then you need to revert. Or at the very least note on this talkpage the specific changes you object to. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: the WP:tag team guidance invites me to "keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team" – only, I fail to see, as yet, a reasoning in your contributions to this page and its talk page. Here, that is, on this talk page, we discuss the content of the article: mentioned "specific changes" need to be accompanied with a reasoning why you think each of these changes should be supported or not: just listing them without reasoning does not suffice. I've given my reasoning w.r.t. the changes I discussed on this talk page: since you haven't given any valid reason why they should be supported or not your comments on this talk page have, thus far, been negligible, and indeed, rather indicative of tag teaming. Please address that situation ASAP if you have views on the development of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have made mass changes to an article which had been stable for several years. Per WP:BRD, since your mass changes were both objected to and reverted, you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS here on the talk page before reinstating your mass non-consensus changes. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... stable for several years ..." – see my reasoning above (to which you didn't reply). BRD: no, just resulted from tag-teaming, which is a circumvention of the normal process of consensus. Most strikingly though, you have apparently no opinion on the content of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow WP:TPG (WP:REDACT section) when redacting a talk page comment that has already been replied to. This was not OK: I addressed the BRD claim in particular in my reply that followed that comment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of BRD is still there. I merely removed an inadvertent and confusing repetition of that word at the beginning which I had forgotten to delete as I was composing the post. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not an excuse not to follow WP:TPG: if you'ld not be prepared to follow WP:TPG on this talk page, you'ld probably better stay away here, no, especially as you were WP:CANVASSed in? On content, why did you yesterday revert the obvious error "... Bach left Weimar in 2017" back in, twice ([2] – [3])? Moreover, between those two reverts I had drawn attention to the point in my intermediate edit summary. A revert should save valid content as much as possible (the version you reverted from contained the same sentence without the error), you seem not prepared to do that if I'm not erring? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC); updated 06:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Concertos for two, three and four harpsichords, BWV 1060–1065

[edit]

Duplicates a lot of content. The Keyboard Concertos overview article already contains headings for each single work, and the material can easily be found there. Classical geographer (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed splits

[edit]
FYI
 – See WP:Summary style for technique & rationale of the proposed splits

Proposed split of BWV 1052

[edit]

I propose to split the detailed discussion of BWV 1052 to a separate article (in which case the current article will retain a summary of the description of the concerto): there's certainly enough material for a separate article, and may help to keep the size of the current article to readable proportions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the changes are justified at the moment. At the moment there has been no WP:consensus for any such change. The onus would be on the particular user to explain why that was necessary. At the moment I see no difference between BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055 and BWV 1044. I might be worth going to the edit history of the article and the archive of WP:ANI from 2016 to see what edits have been made. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be proposing more splits shortly, and will add a general discussion area (maybe indeed these splits can be better discussed together). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of BWV 1053

[edit]

Same rationale as for BWV 1052 above, and general rationale in #Discussion of proposed splits below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This will not happen. There is no consensus at all. Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, there is enough support to proceed with this. Blanking the entire article as you did (again) is pure vandalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of BWV 1055

[edit]

See above split proposals, and #Discussion of proposed splits below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:consensus does not support your wholesale changes as user:Softlavender has explained on multiple occasions. In addition you have been edit-warring with three consecutive reverts in 24 hours. Normally that would result in a report at WP:AN3 and that might well be what happens. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to my question seems to be "no". For clarity (while there was in fact no answer to my actual question): Mathsci, would you be prepared to extract the Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Concerto No. 4 in A major, BWV 1055 section to Harpsichord Concerto in A major, BWV 1055, per my proposed scheme in the #Discussion of proposed splits section below? I'm of course not going to continue repeating this question, but I'm hoping for a clear answer this time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Francis Schonken, none of your "initiatives" are of any interest here and are wholly against WP:consensus. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that as a "no" to my question ... moving on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the edit-warring in which you periodically engage (cf your edit-warring on 25 March with 3 consecutive reverts). They seem like edit-wars planned to game the system. user:Softlavender has mentioned your misunderstanding of WP:consensus on multiple occasions. Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Softlavender has dissussed in great detail how WP:consensus works. In January 2017, you were involved in a huge amount of disruptive editing. Other editors reverted all your edits at that stage and changed them to [[WP:REDIRECT}}S. You have resumed that same pattern of editing. You have targeted edits which were exclusively created by me which appears to be WP:HARASS. You started edit-warring on 25 March, with 3 consecutive reverts. That same WP:TE seems to be resuming. Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your collaboration with Softlavender has been dismantled as a WP:tag team (see above #Wolff's view on the original version of BWV 1052): it was a perversion of WP:CONSENSUS, for clarity, quite the opposite of a consensus. There was no opinion by Softlavender based on content, and even less on content policy, and no opinion at all on what has been discussed in this section. This was WP:FORUMSHOPping 1.0, another perversion of WP:CONSENSUS.
The content guidance and policies in this matter, including WP:Summary style, WP:Page size and WP:BALASPS, as explained below, are quite clearly indicating a split here, and that option has currently support of 66% of the participants in this debate (see below). On content, you have no argument countering that apparent consensus, and your disruptive attitude (tag teaming, forum shopping, etc) further undermines the validity of your support for the option that goes against consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See [4]. In edits unconnected with you, you wrote, "So, please cut the self-aggrandising." Please see WP:HOUND. User:Softlavender is an experience editor and has cautioned you on several occasions about circumventing WP:consensus. You have ignored that, see WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, and instead used the term "tag-teaming". But that is not what is happening: you are persistently attempting to circumvent consensus. It is disruptive editing. Part of that has involved edit-warring: on 25 March you reverted three times. Tagging me in the dark in Easter Morning was fairly typical. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: you're just being disruptive (see WP:POINT guidance): you've not given a single valid reason why guidance and policies (WP:Summary style, WP:Page size, WP:BALASPS, etc) should be ignored. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits involve fiding something that I have written, that you have not edited. You tehen follow me adound to those article, see WP:HOUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsci (talk • contribs)

I assume all you edits will be changed to redirects as happened in WP:ANI in January 2017 (see the archives).

Please see WP:consensus. You have confused that with tag-teaming: please don,t confuse that with consensus. I am opposed to all the edits you have made where you picked content only be me. I am absolutely against all your so-called "initiatives" as mentioned on WT:WikiProject Classical Music. Mathsci (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next step is condensing the BWV 1055 material (over 25 paragraphs currently!) in the Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of BWV 1065

[edit]

See above split proposals, and #Discussion of proposed splits below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of BWV 1044

[edit]

See above split proposals, and #Discussion of proposed splits below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of proposed splits

[edit]

Rationale:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the justification for creating four articles at the same time, so I have removed all four proposals per WP:BRD. The onus is on the user here to justify breaking consensus. Other edits of this kind are easy to locate on the archives of WP:ANI and provide the context of this proposal: the archives indicate that Francis Schonken has some form of agenda. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Split portions}} templates link to this discussion, so it is best to keep them to get more input here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the justification for four sections being simultaneously moved in this way. One at a time perhaps might be reasonable, but not in this extreme manner. The Triple Concerto, BWV 1044 has already been discussed. It was a WP:CONTENTFORK, with no context (Frederick the Great not mentioned anywhere) and with some sections empty. Perhaps WT:WikiProject Classical Music would be an appropriate forum to discuss this kind of multiple merge. Mathsci (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, don't prevent input from readers of the article by removing {{Split portions}} templates that link to this discussion: that is the first method of requesting more input from others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Classical music notified --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the earlier discussion at Talk:Brandenburg Concertos#Proposed merge with Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, which supported, with a wide margin, the split of Brandenburg Concerto No. 5. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Francis Schonken can experiment on BWV 1065. Otherwise making simultaneously move/merge proposals is not advisable at the moment: I would like to see exactly what Francis proposes for BWV 1065, for the summary and then the article. At the moment the edits of Francis Schonken were made hastily and show that he was moving around other material without due care (e.g. Weimar concerto transcription (Bach)).

I am sure that User:Gerda Arendt is aware that the edits on the carefully written sections BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055 and BWV 1044 were almost exclusively made by me. There was a huge amount of detail, e.g.

Larghetto BWV 1055/2 (4:39)

Another experiment like 1065 was Triple Concerto, BWV 1044, which looks like a WP:FORK. That article was not properly sourced (see WP:RS) and very poorly written in terms of musicology. Sourced content on Frederick the Great was omitted. It iwas an experiment that did not work. Perhaps it is all a question of Francis Schonken's individual tastes, with could be quite subjective. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) I agree with having BWV 1065 as an experiment but so far feel that it has not resulted in producing high quality material, just some kind of hastily concocted hack job. The detailed sections on BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055 and BWV 1044 are all of the same kind. Previously edits on BWV 1044 caused problems and were reverted. They did not conform to WP:consensus. Francis Schonken seems to have some master-plan which he wants to implement as quickly as he can: I do not think that is a very good idea at all. I also don't think that Francis Schonken is the most appropriate editor for making merges, etc, given his history at WP:ANI. Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's spin out the most developed sections first, per WP:Summary style. This has nothing to do with which editor contributed most to which section, and the invitation that the editor who contributed most to a section would also perform the split also stands. Currently BWV 1055 has over 25 paragraphs in this article, in one section, without any divisions in subsections. BWV 1052 and 1053 have each over 20 such paragraphs. On the other hand, concertos such as BWV 1060 and 1063 each have around five paragraphs in this article. The current layout seems to suggest that 1052, 1053 and 1055 are each around four or five times as important as 1060 and 1063: that disparity should be avoided, while not covered by relevant scholarship (and a contravention of the WP:BALASPS policy). BWV 1065 has eight paragraphs, and is still a less developed section compared to the section on 1055, so 1065 is certainly not the one to start with. In sum:
  • over twenty paragraphs without subdivisions in subsections are a readability issue, indicating a split would be welcome for these sections;
  • disparity between section lengths distorts the idea of relative importance of these concertos, so also this indicates a split of the longer sections (and possibly some expansion of the shortest ones), per WP:BALASPS.
Anyhow, I'd propose to start with BWV 1055 now (definitely the longest section), and after that split has been completed, continue with 10521053 → 10531052 → 1044 → 1065 (each step after the previous has been completed). 1065 can definitely use some more development in this article before being split out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC); Updated proposed sequence 1052 has a bit more history with its documented early 19th-century public performances, and still needs to be updated per #Wolff's view on the original version of BWV 1052 above, so it makes sense to keep this one a bit longer in this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref cleanup

[edit]

See discussion here. Mentioned also already above in the #Wolff's view on the original version of BWV 1052 section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keyboard_concertos_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=1241805271"