Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that for the 250th anniversary of the death of Johann Sebastian Bach in 2000, three record companies issued recordings of his complete compositions?

• Source: "Bach Edition" Archived 10 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine at www.musicweb-international.com 1 December 2001. Teldec's 1999 Bach 2000 Box set, Limited Edition Archived 12 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine at www.amazon.com Bach-Edition: The Complete Works (172 CDs & CDR) Archived 29 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine at the Hänssler Classic website

• • ALT1: ... that for nearly 150 years after his death, the grave of Johann Sebastian Bach remained unmarked? Source: ... in the absence of any tombstone his grave was soon forgotten. When St John's Church was rebuilt in 1894 a few Leipzig scholars and Bach admirers succeeded in having what were believed to be the composer's bones exhumed. ... The bones were laid to rest in a stone sarcophagus next to the poet Gellert in the vaults of the Johanniskirche, and many people went to pay homage to this tomb.
  • Reviewed: Paul Corey and Java-class cruiser
  • Comment: ALT0 is 148 characters. ALT1 is 96 characters.

Improved to Good Article status by ErnestKrause (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 113 past nominations.

Storye book (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC).

• @Storye book: Wow, Bach as a GA! New enough (promoted May 27), much more than long enough (50 KB), no copyvio (Earwig flags a copy of Wikipedia as well as an attributed quote). However, DYK has more specific sourcing requirements than GA, and there are a few statements in this article that are unsourced—in the second paragraph of "18th century" and the second paragraph of "20th century". The latter statement, in particular, requires some good sourcing as it's about popular culture depictions.
  As for the hooks, I don't think ALT0 is that interesting, but ALT1 is quite interesting. Hook cited and verified in source (which does appear to be reliable). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Gerda Arndt has just edited those sections for 18th century and 20th century; they should be ok now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) *: Thank you for the review! - That a GA lacks references comes as a surprise. I added one for BWV 71 being his only cantata with an extant printing during his lifetime (which wasn't mentioned above but came without a ref), and thank goodness the same ref also served for all other prints during his lifetime being of keyboard music (18th century). I dropped the mysterious sentence following that fact. - I worked on the list of 20th-century adaptations a bit, dropping advertisement of labels and recordings. All these things have articles, so it shouldn't be too difficult to copy some references. I'll try but everybody could. - The arrangement of the refs remains a mystery to me, but that is no DYK requirement I guess.

  The hooks: I don't see anything interesting in that some person's grave remained unmarked for a long time, - what does it tell you about that person? We need to write for our famous broad readership, who may not know what JSB did, - why should they care to find out, just because his grave was unmarked?

  After edit conflict: no, not ok yet. We still need refs for the 20th century facts. Everybody welcome, and make your edits short to avoid conflicts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just added the 20th century citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Thanks to Gerda Arendt for adding citations. (When I saw that Bach was a GA, I expected you would've been the one who wrote it. :P) The article now has zero unsourced statements. For "20th century", I think a better source would be preferable to make statement about Fantasia—per MOS:POPCULT, we should use a source about Bach, rather than a source about Fantasia, to show that it is significant enough to be in this article. But that is beyond the DYK criteria, and the source does verify the statement, so we're good to go.
    I get the concerns about ALT1 not being interesting enough, but I personally think it is. Yes, the hook will partly be interesting to people who know who Bach is, but for those who don't, I think it's still interesting that a grave would be unmarked for that long. If anyone has any other suggestions, that'd also be great, but I'll approve ALT1 for now. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

    I didn't add the Fantasia ref ;) - I didn't write the article, - it was mostly in place when I joined in 2009. The two key authors were later banned. - If we have that after-life hook (instead of presenting the subject active), can we at least run it on his day of death, 28 July? It would need an exception from the six-weeks max (not by much), or you could withdraw your approval for now and bring it back in a week ;) - Formally, I believe, the icon has to be at the beginning of the line (but I'm out of touch with DYK - when it was still a place to present things good to know I wrote most of the 144 hooks in the archives mentioning Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

    • Placing this at the beginning of the line just to be sure. Also, I would support running the hook for Bach's death date; that seems like a special enough occasion. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Reluctantly decided to pull this as the hook implies the remains have been positively identified when there is evidently still doubt. I think a new hook will have to be found. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, ErnestKrause, and Storye book: How about these?

• ALT2 ... that some scholars have questioned if the remains of Johann Sebastian Bach are actually his?
• ALT3 ... that many of Johann Sebastian Bach's manuscripts were lost due to a lack of interest from some family members in preserving them?

I don't know how widespread ALT2's fact is (i.e. if it has gained traction), so it might be undue. ALT3 could use workshopping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the hooks, Narutolovehinata5. I don't think ALT2 is appropriate for an anniversary of Bach or for the celebration of a GA article. I would accept ALT3 if I could find the fact (+citation) in the article. Where did you get the "due to a lack of interest from some family members" from? Or have I missed something? How about:

• ALT4: ... that Johann Sebastian Bach didn't get on with his employers until the king of Poland gave him a job as court composer? (That's in the lead and in the main text). Storye book (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:? Storye book (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Storye book: It's based on a part from the "18th century" section: Bach's surviving family members, who inherited many of his manuscripts, were not all equally concerned with preserving them, leading to considerable losses. It's a paraphrase though, so maybe the hook could be reworded to be closer to the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah thank you. The citation is offline, but that is fine. Yes, I can accept ALT4, then. It's awkwardly worded, though. How about, "because some family members did not care about preserving them"? Storye book (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• ALT3a ... that many of Johann Sebastian Bach's manuscripts were lost because some family members did not care about preserving them? Like that? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I can accept ALT3a. Note to promoter: ALTs 0, 2 and 4 are also still in play, should you prefer one of those. Storye book (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you're the nominator, I don't think you're allowed to approve ALT3a. Asking Vigilantcosmicpenguin to take a look at ALT3a and ALT4, in addition to the other hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Approving ALT3a. I would also support a hook about the St Mark Passion, if someone can think of a catchy enough phrasing. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

As an addendum to this discussion, I'll mention that during upgrade edits to the article that it was mention of the Mark Passion, now lost to antiquity, which appeared to receive the largest daily page count spike from readers of the article. It looks something like this which might offer an alternative for this discussion: "The 1731 St Mark Passion (German: Markus-Passion), BWV 247, is a lost Passion setting by Bach, first performed in Leipzig on Good Friday, 23 March 1731. Though Bach's music is lost, the libretto by Picander is extant, and the work can to some degree be reconstructed from it." ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• ALT5 ... that the 1731 music for St Mark Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach is lost, but could possibly be reconstructed from its libretto? Storye book (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

ErnestKrause? Storye book (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the wording would be something like "...potentially reconstructed..." See comment from Vigilant Cosmic Penguin above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• ALT5a ... that the 1731 music for St Mark Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach is lost, but can potentially be reconstructed from its libretto? Storye book (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That's basically it; when it was added to the main article then there was a large daily page count spike. "Might be...", or, "Potentially might be..." ErnestKrause (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• ALT5b ... that the 1731 music for St Mark Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach is lost, but might be reconstructed from its libretto? (Note: in Standard English, i.e. formal English in this context, "might" and "potentially" mean roughly the same thing. So: just "might be", to avoid reiteration.) Storye book (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a good version. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Organ works in summary

As a brief description in the summary, I'd want to mention his orgelbuchlein over the schubler chorales. BWV 565 is probably his most recognizable organ work so it should definitely be mentioned (even if there is some contention over whether Bach actually wrote the piece). But the Schubler chorales are basically just organ transcriptions of his cantatae. As an organist I think the orgelbuchlein is a more significant work, and I suspect better recognized. It's certainly more original and a better representation of his skill as an organ composer. I'm going to be bold here and recommend that change, though I cannot make it as the page is edit-protected. If someone disagrees I will happily discuss it.

Postscript: the summary really should mention his cantatae. He wrote hundreds of them and it is an omission to not include them. It was perhaps his most prolific form even if they don't get a ton of attention these days. Gnosifer (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added a short note about his composition of cantatas in the third paragraph of the lede. Regarding mention of his organ works, then in the current version of the lede, in the first paragraph, there is mention of "...organ works such as the Schübler Chorales and the Toccata and Fugue in D minor". These appear with links. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

FAC

@Ernest Krause, please remove the FAC nomination. As I've explained to you here, most of the music section is either a) unsourced b) sourced to random news / websites instead of RS or c) extraneous details (we don't need a list of all of the Bach-Vivaldi transcriptions...). There are still major issues with the biography... as I quickly found multiple incorrect or improperly cited sentences in just the first paragraphs (as I discussed in #Referencing above

Since you know that I am actively working on a new music section I am not sure why you feel this nomination is ready... I understand your desire to get things going with this article, but I only have so much time to contribute to Wikipedia, and there is WP:No deadline. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This is fully a surprise and I've not heard from you in a while; after not hearing from you for several weeks/months then I've started discussion with Wehwalt as to the best manner to go forward. You can see some of his edits on the Bach page. In answer to your question, then it seems that the three editors at peer review including UpTheOctave, Chicdat, and Gerda Arendt appear to be accepting the article in its current form for moving forward with nomination. Wehwalt and myself agree. The nomination is presently going forward with the understanding that the Bach Compositions Box in the article provides numerous links to his many articles about his compositions, all of which can be consulted as needed for detail and expansion of details and citations there. I've not heard from you since last year and its actually a surprise to see you here making some citation questions after not answering several of the pings I've made to you concerning the page which you appear to have left weeks/months ago. The linked composition articles for Bach have very extensive citation sections and bibliographies for the variety of his many compositions. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This must be a joke. I was busy IRL, as I explained to you. It seems that you briefly posted on my talk page a few months back, but I did not see it, and you did not follow up...

Much more importantly, you are not addressing the crucial substance of my post. About all of the missing or improper citations. Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone comes across as at all aggressive. Please see: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Johann Sebastian Bach/archive2#Note to EK Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Cello Suites

In the lead, there is mention of "the cello suites." Should Cello Suites be capitalized? They are specific works, as are the Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin.

For anyone looking for a lively and entertaining guide to Bach's Cello Suites, I recommend Steven Isserlis's The Bach Cello Suites: A Companion. Charlie Faust (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, per the pieces' article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

OK. I capitalized Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin per that article. Charlie Faust (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Gymnasium

@Michael Bednarek:^H is not sure whether this German word should be in italics. But this is surely a clear example where it should be in italics, because this makes it clear that it is the foreign word which just happens to shares its name (if words have names) with an English word meaning something different. It is regrettable that it cannot be in italics, but sloped sans serif will have to do. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you'll find I had marked it as a German word and italicised it, for exactly the reasons you give. Masato.harada (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Bach's grave

2009 research (footnote 117): “Later research has called into question whether the remains in the grave are actually Bach's.”

— Is this the current status of research on Bach's putative remains? – Sca (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)