Talk:Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconClassical music: Compositions
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Suggestions[edit]

Here are some suggestions:

  1. Discuss, on this talk page, the text content layout and images of the Text and translation section;
  2. Restore some undesirable side-effect of these edits (IMSLP link no longer working; restore wikilinking;...)
  3. General cleanup and improvements, e.g. wikilink on first instance only (e.g. "Orgelbüchlein" is now linked on second and third instance, but not on first); link Bach's Nekrolog; etc.
  4. Consider whether an article structure more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure might be beneficial.
  5. ... (feel free to add more).


Re. #1: I'd minimize the hymn quotation, and retain only those stanzas that also appear in reference works on this composition and/or those stanzas that are referred to in the discussion of this composition in such works. The first image is to broad and pushes lines of the first stanzas on two lines. In fact I'd remove all current images from that section, possibly replacing them with images from commons:Category:Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her thusfar not used in the article.
Re. #2, #3 and #4: I'd be happy to proceed with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article was written in 2009. The text was put here a long time before anybody dreamed up the idea of an article on the text (August 2014). The article on the text in its current state is not satisfactory as a resource here or for the reader in general. It does not distinguish BWV 769 (or BWV 769a) as amongst Bach's masterworks (published within his lifetime), nor does it hint at any kind of description (as a type of chorale prelude with the cantus firmus in the pedal). The article on the title gives no context for the work at all. Looking back at the editing history, I see that Francis Schonken originally wrote that part as one sentence with no added comment at all of any kind. Then Francis Schonken had the brilliant idea of gluing in 5 musical quotes from the beginning of each variation, with no further comment. That is the worst kind of wikipedia writing, barely better than compiling a list. That kind of "contents page" writing is useless for the reader. No information is conveyed from the sources. Sending the reader to that article for the text would just mislead them. The text and translation was copy-pasted from here. The muscial work itself is a very long and complex composition, so the words are relevant here. They procide context for the descriptions of the variations: each creates a different sound world; and the words help. The reader should not have to spend their time going to another article to find that extra information. The article itself was hacked out of here and is not well presented. Even the quotation of the cantus firmus created by me was re-used there.
My advice is to leave the text in this stable article alone. It was written in 2008 as Christmas approached. If there are problems, they are in the much more recent hymn article Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her. I would encourage anybody with writing skills to improve the paltry sentence on BWV 769 in that article, replacing it by a few brief sentences to provide context. Given the limited nature of that article, it is undue to have half a page of musical quotations pasted in there without any context at all. Without commentary it's just like a list—something like a contents page from the beginning of an organ volume.
The process of removing text indiscriminately from stable articles is not helpful to the reader. There's no harm in duplication and the text appeared here originally. It was blanked without explanation. I note that the German article, developed completely independently, has all the verses. The text of the article itself, paraphrased from Williams and elsewhere, explains the particular musical ambiance evoked by the special choice of voice-types in each variation, some more complicated than others (iii and iv). The text is relevant to these and will assist the reader, particular those not familiar with a carol well known in German and Nordic countries. Why should the reader have to flit to another article loaded with irrelevant content? Anyway wikipedia is not a source and it is impossible to guarantee the state of related articles on the historic hymn. A more serious case is Puer natus in Bethlehem, which does not discuss the variety of different hymn tunes. So I would stick to the stable state for the following reasons:
  • wikipedia is not a source
  • the presence of the text here (from 2008) is integral to the article
  • the text helps the reader understand details in the rest of the article and provides a wider context
  • there is no harm in duplication
  • there is no reason to make large scale changes to something that's been stable for 7 years
Creating other articles by hacking away at stable articles, copy-pasting their content elsewhere, does happen. But after having done it, it's not a great idea to degrade the stable article by blanking the appropriated material. The musical quotation of the hymn, uploaded by me on WP for this article, was also appropriated to the hymn article. Is somebody now going to suggest it belongs there? These stable articles should be left alone. There is often room for improvement, but that is normally down slowly, incrementally and with consensus. Mathsci (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small steps[edit]

  • (from suggestion #3 above) Is there a reason not to link to Bach's Nekrolog from this article? The Nekrolog article is one I wrote since my last edits to this article in 2014, had forgotten it features here with a quote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

The suggestions above are still valid. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Tagging of Canonic Variations[edit]

The references here


seem impeccable. Could Francis S>chonken should explain/discuss his editing, because at the moment it just sounds as if he is vandalising the article in a random manner. As I've written previously, he has made the same kind of comments on Orgelbüchlein, which earned him a 6 month topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you remove

Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel; Agricola, Johann Friedrich (1754). "C. Der dritte und letzte ist der im Orgelspielen Weltberühmte HochEdle Herr Johann Sebastian Bach, Königlich-Pohlnischer und Churfürstlich Sächsicher Hofcompositeur, und Musikdirector in Leipzig". In Mizler, Lorenz Christoph (ed.). Musikalische Bibliothek ... Des vierten bandes Erster Theil. Mit vier Kupfertafeln. Musikalische Bibliothek [de] (in German). Vol. IV, 1. Leipzig: Mizler. pp. 158–176. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

i.e., the first one you list above, from the article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musical structure section based on a single source[edit]

An entire section being based on a single source is problematic (however excellent that source is), and I have tagged accordingly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The musical analysis of Peter Williams (1st and 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press) is excellently written. His analysis of Bach's organ works is exemplary and has been praised in reviews of the academic musical literature. Williams description of the five variations is lengthy, comprehensive and encyclopedic. I also have the 2010 Breitkopf edition (which I purchased in Cambridge); the commentary refers to Williams, but does not supersede his analysis. It seems fine and does not warrant any negative criticism of Peter Williams. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting

Wolff, Christoph (1991), "Principles of Design and Order in Bach's Original Editions", Bach: Essays on His Life and Music, Harvard University Press, pp. 340–358, ISBN 0674059263

(a source you introduced elsewhere) as an additional source, particularly pp. 349ff. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a helpful suggestion, because Wolff does not give any "musical analysis" of this kind or detail. As with Orgelbüchlein and Clavier-Übung III there are already multiple pages of this kind of musical analysis, mostly drawn from the reference texts of Williams and/or Stinson. These are the standard references for organ works. For harpsichord and violin, the musical analysis can also be found for example in BWV 1017 and BWV 1019, with quite different references. The same is true of William G. Whittaker's analysis of BWV 39. In this case "musical analysis" is a very clearly delineated part of technical expertise. At the moement, I have the impression that you have not properly understood this kind of "musical analysis". Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Laaber-Verlag volume edited by Siegbert Rampe is fine. From my understanding, Francis Schonken has no access to that secondary source and furthermore seems not to be aware of or interested in it. The chapter on John Butt (written in German) contains a very similar section to the musical analysis, duplicating Williams' work. Possibly a few words might be added.
On the other hand, (Personal attack removed), the musical analysis did not involve Christoph Wolff. Wolff's commentary had a quite different purpose, namely "History, origins and genesis". Given that FS does not have any access to Laaber-Verlag books (I believe it's published somewhere in the Black Forest and I've used Laaber elsewhere), there does not seem to be any purpose in continuing this discussion. Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wolff still may be used as an additional source to the history section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midi files to be superseded with recordings of ogg audio file[edit]

The midi files depend on soundfonts, which are not stable for instruments. I would therefore prefer to have the high quality of the recorded ogg files. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ogg would be better than MIDI (both being an offence to Bach's art though, the offence being slightly less pertinent in the ogg case). I'll remove the {{in use}} tag here while you're compiling the oggs at commons. Replacing one commons file by another is not a "major edit". --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to write ogg audio files, e.g. BWV 612, and it is actually quite tricky; it involves encoding lilypond, finding soundfonts, adding micro-pauses, etc. The audio files for example for BWV 39, BWV 1017 and BWV 1019 were quite time consuming. I am not sure that your comments are particularly relevant here. The files were edited on en.wikipedia.ord and it is a matter of record how many days it took me. Do you have expertise of encoding LilyPond?
I have not finished editing the article at the moment. There doesn't seem to be any urgency at the moment. The article was created by me just before Christmas in 2009; it has always been a stable article. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky or not, time-consuming or not, the result is suboptimal, and an attack on Bach's art. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about when you write "an attack on Bach's art." It makes no sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the commentaries, I will have to spend some time working out the conundrums of the canons, just to clarify matters. After a first detailed draft reading, the very lengthy commentary of Breig will probably take one or two days to give a brief explanation. It is complex by its nature and cannot be hurried. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Many of the images are very poor quality. I have uploaded the title page of BWV 769, but I would like to find proper images of a version of Martin Luther's hymn Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her. At the moment the size of the image is barely the size of a postage stamp. It might take a while to find suitable images. Mathsci (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer File:Straßburger Gesangbuch 1541 Vom Himmel hoch (Isny).jpg over File:Luther-Bapst-1567.png; also, again: updating commons, then replacing an image in Wikipedia is not something that warrants a template that speaks about a "major edit" in Wikipedia: neither the activities at commons, nor replacing a media file are major edits for the Wikipedia article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think your commenrs are not very helpful. I have no way of verifying the date of the first image; nothing is identified and the labelling is ambiguous. That is what happens when poor files—improperly sourced sourced and low quality—are uploaded. The image is of poor quality and is the size of a postage stamp. The other image on the other hand is of very high quality, There is a proper source in the manuscript collection of the Bibliothek zu Berlin. I certainly have looked at Gesangbücher. Mathsci (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text and translation + rejigging[edit]

The text and translation were created by me in the article in 2009. That content was later appropriated by Francis Schonken, when he copy-pasted what I wrote in 2009. The commentary of Breig, Williams and Wolff in the section on "History and origins" can also be slightly rejigged, when I am slightly less tired. Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Breig[edit]

Copy-editing should not be confused with content editing.Mathsci (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have one of the pdf files for Werner Breig. My proof reading has not finished at the moment, so any interruption on {{in use}} will be reverted. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... and now that these were now for four variations, that marked a new stage in Bach's development, with the flourish in Vatiatio V starting to gain a sense of finality" is unintelligible: if someone tags it with a {{clarify}} tag, don't remove the tag before the problem is sorted. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: please don't write unintelligible code such as "{{harvtx|Breig|2010}}" in mainspace (diff): at least use the preview function of the Wikipedia editor before saving. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently you are edit-warring and edit-conflicting at the same time. That is what happens when you create havoc. Why be so impatient; why not wait for me to proof read newly created content. At the moment tou are behaving like a little imbecile. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please proofread before posting in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to continue edit-conflicting. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And stop making these remarks about mainspace. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normally people use "ce". It's quite easy. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but people generally don't use "ce" in the middle of the word "Variatio" like you did here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These errors in article namespace have not been handled yet, only the tags indicating them have been removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please proofread *before* hitting the "Publish changes" button. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page number for "passionate vitality" for [1] is page 221, as I reported it. Similarly the command ce is easy to read. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Know about what your'e ranting about with "hitting the "Publish changes" button". Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"hitting" (or: "clicking") "the "Publish changes" button": publishing your changes in Wikipedia like you did here. I hope that clarifies what I meant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as said multiple times now, in various places, that book wasn't published in 1880, so fails verification (unless if the reader who wants to check the verification knows it is to be found in a book published in a completely different year, or in a different volume on a different page).
Re. "... command ..." – are you trying to "command"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for Bach & Agricola worked with harvnb. That is what I used. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...which is not the problem: the German text was misquoted (*I even gave the exact page number* where the German text can be found). I corrected the misquoting. That edit was reverted. Then I left the error and tagged {{failed verification}}. Then that tagging was reverted. Please correct the problem instead of taking other editor's time over such errors, which, for clarity, *were already rectified*, and then for *no good reason* the rectification was reverted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I've no idea what you're talking about. I am still mystified about the segment on Werner Breig. It seems that you haven't understand what I was writing about. Could you please explain a little more clearly. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand, then don't revert, like you did here. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... and now that these were now for four variations ..." is fairly unintelligible: afaics it is still in the article.
Same for "... Variacetio I, I, ...". --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quote which worries you was actually written in 2009. But I really do really want to know about the content concerning Werner Breig. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again,
"... and now that these were now for four variations ..." is fairly unintelligible: afaics it is still in the article.
Same for "... Variacetio I, I, ...". --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these unclear texts are referenced to Werner Breig, while Breig's English version is clear, understandable, and doesn't contain such errors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from tiny slips (e.g. a spelling in 2009), you don't really seem to have understand what Werner Breig was writing about. Nothing at all. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Breig doesn't write "... Variacetio I, I, ...", which, BTW, was introduced in the article today, and remains uncorrected. Maybe better not to compare your writing with Breig's? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Butt[edit]

As I commented, Francis Schonken blanked part of a subsection related to Peter Williams. Blanking of any kind is just vandalism. That is not related to "personal attacks".

I am at the process of adding new content to John Butt's article. Similarly to Greig's content, creating for new content by me, Francis Schonken has no idea about this content, but seems to be agitationg about this content. He has no access to Laaber-Verlag. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis Schonken, is my understanding correct that you do not have access to the Laaber-Verlag source? If that is the case, why are you trying to prevent me from adding that content? There are four pages on Butt's analysis (pages 957–961). I had to acquire this at the University Library and it's quite heavy. Mathsci (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Francis Schonken ... seems to be aguitationgagitationg about this content" – ? No clue where you got that, could you explain? The Butt content seems fine. Please proceed. In the mean while I'll redo the corrections & tagging (that are completely unrelated to Butt). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are five pages on John Butt and, to stop edit-conflicts, that major content has to be edited without disturbances. That is why {{in-use}} is in effect.Do you think I'm joking about John Butt's editing? Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re "...Francis Schonken blanked part of a subsection related to Peter Williams..." – incorrect. Where did you get that? Please keep to the WP:REDACT guidance when modifying your own comments after they have been replied to (which you didn't do here and here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I am starting to edit using the the Laaber-Verlag sources and John Butt's article (5 dense pages). My understanding is that you have no access to any of that source. Is that correct? Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful as an answer after I exposed your false accusations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Francis Schonken about the Laaber-Verlag sources and John Butt's article. I understand that FS does not have access to that source. I am currently editing that article, creating new content—quite a lot in fact. At the moment FS seems to be trying to prevent me creating content. Have I understood that correctly? Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing Laaber-Verlag's source and John Butt, I will separate them into two parts: Variatio I–III; and Variatio IV–V. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with that, this is just straw man argumentation. When I signal the real problems this is deleted, e.g. here, which is clear and plain talk page vandalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting content[edit]

@Mathsci: please proceed with drafting content, which can be done here, on this talk page, or on some other page in an appropriate namespace as long as the article itself is fully protected. I'm sure we'll find agreement on the Butt-related improvements you've been suggesting above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for Francis Schonken to write his own detailed draft content—paraphrases and summaries—on John Butt on Laaber-Verlag within the next few days. There were about 5 pages of content. Mathsci (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please, draft content on whatever you like (or not). I'll do the same: see e.g. #Typo and #Spitta Vol. III below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken does not seem to have much experience of substantial creating content on secondary sources for organ works. So far he has spent a while copy-editing, i.e. gnoming. On the other hand I've had a reasonable experience of writing content with secondary sources. Amongst examples are Clavier-Übung III and Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. Another is Orgelbüchlein, still continuing. Another example was BWV 769. Since 2009 it has remained in a more-or-less stable article. That is to be expected, because the method of editing usually relies on surveying as many significant secondary sources as possible.
When new sources have been unearthed—quite rarely—I have tried to update articles. In the case of BWV 769, there were the Breig commentaries of Breitkopf in 2010. I am familar with that edition because I bought it in 2010 and practised it on Aix and Cambridge. The Breitkopf edition is only moderately useful. On the hand there is also the Laaber-Verlag article on John Butt. That might be more useful, but it would require studying it slowly and carefully. That type of writing means that major editing normally gets priority; that is why {{in-use}} is in force for major edits. That is to prevent edit-conflicts when major edits happen. That edit-conflict seems to have happened too often in Francis Schonken's case. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Williams[edit]

The Canonic Variations are one of the major organ works of Bach. Peter Williams' account of Bach's organ works describes in great detail all his works. That includes the texts of the works, which are not optional. They are an integral part of Bach's music. In Williams' accounts, there are abridged versions of the text (often Lutheran) and translations. Often these have an important role as musical iconography. There is no reason for separating or removing the text. The abridged versions, sometimes with a link or reference, occur in all of Williams' versions. The text for BWV 606, "Vom Himmel hoch", has a similar role. The comprehensive account of Williams provides an incredible encyclopedia.

Francis Schonken has blanked the section on the text. That blanking is just vandalising. The decision was arbitrary, misjudged and disruptive. Misjudgements like that clearly compromise the whole integrity of BWV 769. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the quotes from primary sources needs to be clear in mainspace: readers of the article are not expected to read this talk page as a manual explaining why certain quotes from primary sources are in mainspace and others not. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)\[reply]
You have simply blanked a section without justifiation. It explained clearly in the first paragraph of Peter Williams that text is appropriate in the article. Yopu have simply blanked the section, without explaining anything about the content of Peter Williams. The same applies i=to BWV 606. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken decides his blanking is a "personal attack". However he has blanked a section. That is vandalism and that is why we use "rvv". Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Francis Schonken decides his blanking is a "personal attack"." – where? when? diffs please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed completely reasonable this statement: "Misjudgements like that clearly compromise the whole integrity of BWV 769." The organ works belongs with the text and that is why it is linked to the book of Perter Williams. It might be that you dislike the text, but you have given no proper explanation. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "Misjudgement" where there was none is a gratuitous PA. Anyway, it didn't seem to help the editing climate, being a comment on a person and not on the content of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back on content[edit]

If the quotes from Luther's hymn are relevant to Peter Williams's analyses as rendered in the Wikipedia article I suggest to move the relevant quotes to the sections where these analyses by Williams are discussed, or, alternatively, in a section before the section where these analyses are discussed, so that the reader is informed about the content of the hymn before reading the analyses that refer to this content of the hymn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make much sense. In fact, what has happened is that the secondary source from Peter Williams (2003) has been comprehensively summarised and paraphrased on BWV 769. That is what I did in 2009. In same section Williams also made a reference or link—the first instance was BWV 606—to the abridged text and the translation. Williams made his own translation. In no case did Williams decide to ignore the text; indeed he could not, because he adopted the same pattern for each sacred work. The quotations from Spitta and Terry are an example of the text being used as "musical iconography": the the ascending and descending angels, but sound joyous peals from many belfries ringing in the Saviour's birth; the heavenly hosts soar up and down, their lovely song sounding out over the cradle of the Infant Christ, while the multitude of the redeemed "join the sweet song with joyful hearts." Hence the significance of the text. That significance has somewhat been lost on Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the end of 2009, I had created most of the content from the source of Peter Williams; currently I would probably give more details from his book, particularly in the full page on angels, which are related to the text. Otherwise very little has changed. On an another occasion, it might be useful to describe how Francis Schonken's editing changed in 2014, 2016 and 2018. Each time, against Francis Schonken's consensus, it involved removing the text and translation of BWV 769 to copy-paste Vom Himmel hoch, originating initially from me. There is no particular reason those 15 verses should be retained, from the point of the hymn. The hymn was created in 2014 in a Lutheran hymn. In BWV 769 it was created 5 years before that. It is likely to remain stable in normal circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I've fully protected the page for a week, as the alternative is blocking you both for edit warring. Mathsci, what is the meaning of something like this? You are the one who incorrectly complained about "rvv" edit summaries last week, but you are now removing talk page sections with questions as if they are "vandalism"? If you two can't work together (which seems obvious) and have no voluntary way of avoiding each other, this will end with either one or two blocks, or an interaction ban which will make editing harder for both of you. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken has not been editing with consensus. In this case a stable and anodyne article BWV 769, started in 2009, has been deliberately destabilised by Francis Schonken, with no justification. On the pretext of "multiple issues", FS has simply been deleting carefully sourced content: a short anodyne section on "text and translations" with images was just blanked out.[2]
User:Softlavender has mentioned some of the long term problems that this kind of editing has created very recently:
Francis Schonken, my general observation is that your extensive editing on Uns ist ein Kind geboren BWV 142, and your extensive posts on its talk page, for the past 10 days (that is, since 21 December 2017 UTC) have been disruptive, largely uninformed or insufficiently informed, and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish and a continuation of your harassment of, and vendetta against, Mathsci. I suggest that you drop the stick and move on to editing unrelated articles. I am fairly certain that if this goes to ANI, which it easily could and seems well on its way to, you will receive even stricter/longer sanctions than you received previously in regards to your interactions with Mathsci. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that until recently this was a fairly well written article. Mathsci (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: can you please restore this talk page section, seems like you removed it inadvertently. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: please restore this talk page section. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

I did a typo correction here ("Verängerungen" is not a German word); that it is very unlikely that the original print of this chapter contained such typo can be seen for instance here (which lists all the chapter titles of the book). Is it possible to redo the correction (which had been reverted in the mean while)? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a minor typo or copy-edit. This is not an urgent at all. The main source were unearthed by me; but why make such a song and dance of a really minor copy-edit. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously there were copy-editings in my footnote of Peter Williams, 2003, Page 513. It should have read "In die Societät ist der musicalischen Wissenschaften ist er im Jahr 1747 Junius .. ... getreten ... Zur Societät hat er den Choral geliefert: Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her, vollständig ausgearbeitet, der hernach in Kupfer gestochen worden." Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite how Williams quotes it, which is
  • "In die Societät der musikalischen Wissenschaften ist er im Jahr 1747 Junius ... getreten ... Zur Societät hat er den Choral geliefert: Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her, vollständig ausgearbeitet, der hernach in Kupfer gestochen worden."
Which isn't completely consequential in replacing all omissions by three dots, so if we use the original source for the reference (as it is now in the Wikipedia article) that should be either
  • "In die Societät der musikalischen Wissenschaften ist er im Jahr 1747 ... Junius ... getreten ... Zur Societät hat er den Choral geliefert: Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her, vollständig ausgearbeitet, der hernach in Kupfer gestochen worden."
or
  • "In die Societät der musikalischen Wissenschaften ist er im Jahr 1747 im Monat Junius ... getreten ... Zur Societät hat er den Choral geliefert: Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her, vollständig ausgearbeitet, der hernach in Kupfer gestochen worden."
I prefer the last one (i.e. without the omission of "im Monat"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spitta Vol. III[edit]

The fourth parameter of the first {{cquote}} box of the lead section currently reads:

There was however no Vol. III of Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach in 1880. I tried to correct that several times with various layouts of the correction, all of them reverted. Unless another format is proposed I'd suggest:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presumably you are referring to the English translation [3]. Major content editing had started from me; by contrast you have been concentrated on very minor aspects, of hardly any consequence, such as copy-editing, misspelling or labelling translations. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I could not mark this edit as minor, because "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" (emphasis added), as the lead paragraph of Help:Minor edit has it. The edit had been the subject of a dispute, and I linked to the talk page discussion about that dispute in my edit summary. The next edit showed that there was more to dispute about the edit... so I was exactly right in my assessment that "could never be the subject of a dispute" did not apply here. Conducting disputes via commentaries in edit summaries is a questionable practice, and at least shows that the edit is part of a dispute, so that null edit should probably not have been marked as minor (in fact, it should not have happened at all). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis Schonken's edits on this article have so far been minor—just dotting i's and crossing t's. His comments have not so far been concise. Mathsci (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tags for citations[edit]

All sections of articles have citations at the moment (except for the selected discography). Please suggest which references you think are missing. If you actually do not have access to Laaber-Verlag, please explain. The tags expressly ask for sections missing citations. So far I have not seen any.

I also do not understand what problem there is with "layouts" here. Please try to describe it in simple terms, without acronyms like WP:LAYOUT. Which specific format has been problematic for you? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:
  • the opening paragraph of Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"#Text and translation mentions Luther and Winkworth for verse and translation: however, the German text does not follow Luther's spelling, but a modernised one, so a reference for verification of the quoted text would be required; similar for Winkworth's translation: which edition (at least the title of the edition apart from the year), which page? Handled --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)\[reply]
  • The boilerplate note of Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"#Musical structure has "... based on the detailed analysis in ... and Butt (2008)" (my emphasis) – however not a single indication which part of the section is referenced to Butt (2008), thus "... includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations" per the {{More footnotes}} tag remains valid for the entire section.
(comment from Mathsci) Francis Schonken has no idea about the content here, which I have started to translate, summarise and paraphrase from the German. Although I have the sources, any "summaries" from Francis Schonken would necessarily be completely unverifiable (see WP:VS). If he doesn't have access to the source (which seems to be the case), why give a false impression that he has access? It seems quite misleading. Mathsci (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Layout:
There are other issues, but propose to proceed in limited batches. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These issues all concern WP:CONSENSUS: Francis Schonken has decided to adopt his own arbitrary guidelines on BWV 769. These rely on his own subjective and arbitrary tastes, not consensus. That is not how content is created. Indeed, given the article dating from 2009 and its obvious stability, it is on Francis Schonken's onus to change any departure from consensus. That concerns almost everything he has mentioned so far. That has been spelled out here by Softlavender.
Francis Schonken is determined to create issues where there are none. There are no collisions at the moment at all, just the quote box, which is fine per guidelines and, according to 2009, consensus has supported that (cf Clavier-Übung III and Orgelbüchlein). Perhaps Francis Schonken should read about WP:CONSENSUS more carefully. There is no MOS on how to list CDs and discographies. In general different editors just decide what seems reasonable.
I cannot see any objections at the moment, beyond the fact that Francis Schonken does not respect WP:CONSENSUS. His objections are petty and arbitrary. It is worth comparing the article, Schübler Chorales: here Francis Schonken has deliberately decided not to use any summaries or paraphrases from reliable secondary sources. He has not mentioned John Butt's chapter on Schübler Chorales. I have the Laaber-Verlag tome on loan from Cambridge University Library; I also have borrowed the unaccessible Bach-Jahrbach 1912 (from the Sedley Taylor library). If Francis Schonken does not have access to those sources, how on earth can he discuss this material? Perhaps Francis Schonken is proposing that I make a draft version outside mainspace so that he can copy-pasted it. However, in the case of Schübler Chorales, the complete omission of reliable secondary sources raises questions of WP:COMPETENCE.
Clavier-Übung III and Orgelbüchlein have established consensus. The same method of editing was used in BWV 769. Whatever his objections, he is not following WP:CONSENSUS. Mathsci (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Variatio II - major editing is still active[edit]

At the moment I am creating the content for Variatio I–III from Laaber-Verlag. This involves fourth steps: firstly the paraphrase, summary and translation (in German) from John Butt; secondly checking the actual organ score of BWV 769 to explain, simplify and clarify the content; thirdly the extension of Peter Williams 2003 of the first version of Variatio I–III; and finally merging and rejigging the secondary sources of Williams and Butt. I wonder whether it might be possible to prevent edit-conflicts while this major editing is continuing? It must be clear that the paragraph break for Variatio II is due to major editing at the moment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis Schonken, major content editing is going on at the moment. At the moment you are causing ec's, mostly concerning minor comments. Do you not want that major content editing to happen? Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please proceed with your major editing of the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"#Variatio II section – I'm not causing any edit conflicts there, nor anywhere else in the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"#Musical structure section. I'm marking and/or correcting dubious or plainly incorrect passages in places far enough separated from that section not to cause any edit conflicts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are in fact causing ec's. I cannot concentrate on the main topic (John Butt's translations, pariphrase and summary) while you are constantly distracting me from minor often trivial edits (usually requiring me to stop my edits). At the moment I am trying to puzzle out details of the organ score. That requires some thought, particularly where Variatio III, IV and V are concerned. It is time-consuming and actually rather difficult. Mathsci (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text and melody of Williams (2003)[edit]

Pages of 250–251 are self-explanatory for BWV 606. On the same pages Peter Williams explains the text and melody of BWV 700, 701, 738 and 769. Is there some problem? Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... for which the words and melody were composed in 1539 ..." is not covered by Williams: Williams doesn't say anything about *when* words and melody were *composed*, only that they were *published* in 1739. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither does Williams indicate by whom text & melody were published in 1539 (BTW, "published ... by Luther" is incorrect: the publisher is well-known in hymnology but not mentioned by Williams, nor does Williams suggest that the publisher was Luther). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? On pages 250–251, Peter Williams refers to Martin Luther publishing the text and the melody in 1539. I do not see what the problem is. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Williams says "... was published ..." (without indicating by whom), does nowhere say it was published by Luther. As said, the publisher was someone else, but that has little importance for this article: but still, the article should not say something that is both incorrect and not covered by the indicated source (Williams 2003). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of "faux" precision is not particularly helpful. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please label minor edits as such[edit]

user:Francis Schonken: can you please mark minor edits as such? That is usually indicated by Help:Minor_edit and shown in edit summaries. A technical musical term is a technical term, not a "scare quote". Could you please stop belittle my content and prose? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes, sneer quotes, and quibble marks) are quotation marks a writer places around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense." Obviously that does not apply to technical musical terms. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to put technical terms in quote marks: the effect is indeed scare quotes, thus here I removed inappropriate scare quotes.
  • The quoted source (Yearsley 2002, p. 113), does not put any quotes around the term, so let's follow the quoted source.
  • Please don't mark contentious edits, such as re-introducing the scare quotes mid-discussion, as minor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please label "minor edits" in the usual way for edit summaries. Easy to do, so please remember to do so. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The actual short excerpt of David Yearsley reads, "which features an augmentation canon between soprano and tenor voices". That seems to be quite straightforward. Mathsci (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, there's also no reason to italicise the expression: nor Wikipedia's style guidance, nor the used source (Yearsley 2002, p. 113) indicate that any italicisation would be warranted here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course diminutio is italicised, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: it is an expression in Latin – its English-language counterpart, diminution, is not italicised in Wikipedia (while MOS:FOREIGNITALIC does not apply to English-language expressions). See lead section of the Diminution article, which has italicisation (and lack thereof for English-language expressions) correct per Wikipedia's style guidance. Thus, canon per augmentationem (Latin, italicised), but: augmentation canon (English-language expression, not italicised). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion regarding tenor/bass vs. lowest middle voice/pedal for Var. IV[edit]

The Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her"#Variatio IV section currently contains some unintelligible prose regarding the tenor (...or bass?) line being in canon with the soprano, and the cantus firmus, which is not in canon with the soprano line, apparently being in the tenor too. Seems like summarized from incompatible sources. If such sources use the tenor/bass qualification inconsistently, it should be indicated which source uses which term for each of the lowest two voices. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yearsley (2002) writes soprano and tenor, but that is an error, as can seen from the score (e.g. on Breitkopf). Williams, in the two editions from 1980 and 2003, is correct (Willams gives a huge amount of techncal details on both editions). It's easy to check; even for example on a 2 manual organ with pedal. Mathsci (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that users can read the types of clef in the two musical scores in the article. Mathsci (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... is an error ..." – afaics it might as well be a valid variant interpretation. Maybe it is not up to Wikipedia editors to compare reputable sources in the way you propose. Internal consistency is a different matter: a choice needs to be made, and consistency with the presentation of the score examples seems logical. Maybe Yearsley's variant terminology could be mentioned in an explanatory footnote, in order to avoid confusion in the narrative of the body of the article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understanding the four different clefs is a fairly rudimentary exercise. Yearsley's error was just a simple misreading. In his book, Yearsley just made a passing mention to Variatio IV with no extracts of the score. Given all the known scores (e.g. the 2010 edition of Breitkopf), this kind of red herring is best answered at WT:WikiProject Classical Music. Before trying to dream up unrealisitic alternatives, it would be a better idea simply to check the 2010 scores of Breitkopf urtext edition (Werner Breig). If you are an organist and have the score (as is my case), it's easy to check. Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Original Print Version" pp. 114–117 of the 2010 Breitkopf publication edited by Breig is a primary source as much as SBB shelf number Am. B. 80. In fact it is a facsimile of precisely this primary source. Breig's "practical performance version", pp. 118ff. in the same Breitkopf publication, "uses only treble and bass clef", according to what Breig calls "editorial tradition" ("Commentary", p. 13). There are no tenor clefs in performance versions which follow this editorial tradition. Another primary source, Bach's autograph, does not use a tenor clef either. In other words, there are plenty editions/versions without a tenor clef, from the late 1740s to the first decade of the 21st century. Please don't try to "correct" a reliable secondary source by pointing to primary sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to be anything related to editing the article. It's hard to find what you're talking about here: nevertheless, you seem to have spent a whole paragraph. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my suggestion, since the OP of this section, to mention Yearsley's variant terminology for the imitative voice of Var. IV in the article. It has not been proven that such terminology can be dismissed as "incorrect". --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another reliable secondary source, the chapter on BWV 769 by John Butt, has a very detailed account, comparable to that of Williams' 2003 book. Williams and Butt make no ambiguity; the undetailed passing mention by Yearsley is undoubtedly a minor misprint, of no significance. (As a side-remark, the registration should be clear to anybody who knows how to sightread scores or who can actually play the piece on a two manual organ with pedalboard.) Mathsci (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Audio file - memo[edit]

This is just a reminder of the method of creating lilypond files from ogg files. I often make the files on en.wikipedia as a trial and then post on wikimedia commons later when I am happy with the results.

  1. Lilypond files can either be self-created or adapted from mutopia, if available.
  2. Midi files can be read from Timidity with the standard lilypond instruments (e.g. the Freepats soudfonts).
  3. /etc/Timidity/Timidity.cfg can be transferred locally to modify the soundfonts for instrumental numbers.
  4. Orgues.sf2 are useful for creating soundfonts; similarly a positive organ can be used as the ocarina without reverberation
  5. The ubuntu command for Timidity in high quality without clicks is "timidity --output-24bit -A120 filename.mid -Ow -o filename.wav"
  6. The audacity software allows different .wav channels to be merged, the volume changed
  7. Once the .wav file is tried out, the .ogg file can be recorded with the ubuntu software "oggenc". The command is "oggenc infile.wav -q 6 -o out.ogg"
  8. Lilypond files in .ly are needed to create micro pauses (for phrasing and articulation) , ornamentation and dynamics. That can be very time-consuming, but for a single piece only takes about one day.
  9. The wikimedia commons files can be used to control dynamics and to register seconds elapsed during the audio file.

Three examples of an audio-file can be found in BWV 529. Sometimes I use organists to experiment (Walcha, Koopman, Isoir). Other examples are 52 chorale preludes, Op. 67, numbers 25 and 45. Mathsci (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Mutopia, Urs Metzger in 2006 seems to have encoded the ornamentation in an automated way, which I have not quite sorted out. From my editing on 16 January 2010 there also seems to be an off-wiki reference to a file "vpr.mp3" which I so far have not been able to identify. It involves 10.2 MB of data on a very old laptop which seems to be BWV 769: it is on an unidentified performer. Perhaps I can work out what it is. I still will have to use my own manual method of modifying lilypond for oramentation and articulation, since otherwise the quality isn't sufficient and sounds like a sewing machine in the trills. Mathsci (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the history of the article, there was a free external link [5] of a virtual recoring based on samples from an organ built in 1731 by Gottfried Silbermann. This is now a dead-link. There is a youtube version of Ton Koopman which has not been removed. So that solves one of those enigmas. These were on 28 December 2009 or earlier. Mathsci (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article started on 22 December 2009 by me with this stub. It was already fairly well prepared in the first edit. I used the Koopman recordings as an external link; an hour or so later the virtual recording (some version of Hauptwerk) was added. Graham89 helped me a little. After 6 days it was more or less completed and stable until the end of 2017. Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a recent Hauptwerk virtual organ for BWV 769 here, It simulates the 1732 Andreas Silbermann Organ, Ebersmünster. Mathsci (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canonic_Variations_on_%22Vom_Himmel_hoch_da_komm%27_ich_her%22&oldid=978103178"