Talk:Prelude and Fugue in D major, BWV 532
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Video link
[edit]Hello Graham, you just removed a link to only the Fugue which is the best part and probably more interesting than the two which are there now. The transcription to the piano is poetic, but not a very original sound. The link to Kibbie is complicated. There you get four options, but first you have to download it before you can listen to it. The first and second option did not work on my computer. Then I tried the 3rd and 4th option and had to find out how the Media Player worked. My link is easy and interesting, please consider to remove Kibble and put this one in. Did you listen to it? Or were you just too eager to remove it? I got that impression because I don't understand what could have been so confusing about my username. Taksen (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The conflict of interest starts already with Martha and Kibble, why those two? But I understood in the meantime you retracted that. In my point of view it is about which website or file is the most informative and easy to use. On the one I put there this morning you can see the interesting peddle work, which is not on the other two. BTW are you an organ player too? Greetings from a grey Amsterdam. You must be celebrating now. Taksen (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I have a deep hatred of YouTube links from Wikipedia (as do many experienced editors), because they're usually copyright violations. That's probably why I was a bit over-eager to remove your link. I did check out the link, and that problem doesn't apply to it, which is good. I'm not an organist, but I thought that the organ playing was fantastic, though the sound was rather tinny (not that that could be fixed easily). YouTube links are not necessarily easier to use than download links ... they require Flash, which many computers do not have or can't use, and not everybody has a super-duper fast broadband connection. BTW, which operating system do you use? The M4A files on James Kibby's link work fine with Winamp for Windows. I suppose it comes down to whether it's worth adding a link just to see the funky pedalwork ... and as a blind editor, I'm not really the best person to judge that! :-) But in general, I don't like adding too many versions of a work to an article; it creates a slippery slope where other people think "We've got three versions of the work here; what's wrong with adding another one?" And on it goes. BTW, I added the audio file of Martha Goldstein's performance of the piano transcription to Wikimedia Commons (which is freely licensed) and I also added the link to James Kibbie's performance, as I did for all of Bach's organ works. Happy new year to you too ... less than 20 minutes to go here! Graham87 15:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Graham, three is a kind, is not that an english expression? And Kibbie is almost everywhere, where there is an organ involved? The more I listen to YouTube the more I like it. There is a lot of interesting baroque music and to see the performer(s) gives an extra dimension, although I can understand you care less. Besides on YT one can compare different performers, I like that. Some are less interesting, but not every Wikipedia article is interesting either. Taksen (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- In English, we'd either say "three of a kind" or "two's company, three's a crowd", which is kinda the opposite expression. I love comparing performances on YouTube too; there is some hidden treasure on there, but much of it (but by no means all!) is illegally uploaded. I've put the link back, this time in the external links section. Graham87 04:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Graham, three is a kind, is not that an english expression? And Kibbie is almost everywhere, where there is an organ involved? The more I listen to YouTube the more I like it. There is a lot of interesting baroque music and to see the performer(s) gives an extra dimension, although I can understand you care less. Besides on YT one can compare different performers, I like that. Some are less interesting, but not every Wikipedia article is interesting either. Taksen (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I have a deep hatred of YouTube links from Wikipedia (as do many experienced editors), because they're usually copyright violations. That's probably why I was a bit over-eager to remove your link. I did check out the link, and that problem doesn't apply to it, which is good. I'm not an organist, but I thought that the organ playing was fantastic, though the sound was rather tinny (not that that could be fixed easily). YouTube links are not necessarily easier to use than download links ... they require Flash, which many computers do not have or can't use, and not everybody has a super-duper fast broadband connection. BTW, which operating system do you use? The M4A files on James Kibby's link work fine with Winamp for Windows. I suppose it comes down to whether it's worth adding a link just to see the funky pedalwork ... and as a blind editor, I'm not really the best person to judge that! :-) But in general, I don't like adding too many versions of a work to an article; it creates a slippery slope where other people think "We've got three versions of the work here; what's wrong with adding another one?" And on it goes. BTW, I added the audio file of Martha Goldstein's performance of the piano transcription to Wikimedia Commons (which is freely licensed) and I also added the link to James Kibbie's performance, as I did for all of Bach's organ works. Happy new year to you too ... less than 20 minutes to go here! Graham87 15:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Graham, the article attracted on the last day of December six times more readers than it usually has. It seems to me one has to change the status of the article every now and then, if possible followed by a discussion. That will attract readers.Taksen (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the page view statistics tool has been having major problems in the last few weeks, so that may partly explain it. Very few Wikipedia readers who aren't editors know about talk pages, let alone article histories. Graham87 15:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
532a
[edit]There is by the way another version, BWV 532a (mentioned in Schulenberg (The Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach), 2013) (p.457: "if BWV532a is a later abbreviation..." )--
I will try to read/borrow a copy of Schulenberg and see in more detail what Schulenberg and other relatively scholarly sources have to say about 532 and 532a (frankly, I don't regard Classical Archives as adequate sourcing for a Wikipedia article) and follow up- sorry to leave this incomplete at the moment. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this fugue is eight measures long and consists of tight figurations encompassing an entire octave
[edit]"The subject of this fugue is eight measures long and consists of tight figurations encompassing an entire octave." Wrong. It encompasses a ninth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.197.249 (talk)