Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565

In film section

The "In film" section has become unbalanced; it does no longer conform to the WP:BALASP policy while elaborating extensively on one film which is not particularly often mentioned in connection to this composition: other films of comparable bandwidth in reliable sources w.r.t. this composition currently have one or two sentences. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Copy-pasting references that has been copied from me is not permissible (see WP:IBAN). In these circumstances I will just add an addendum to WP:ORN to explain current disruption with the Morricone material. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ORN#Follow up on BWV 543 and BWV 565. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Morricone and ownership issues

One editor has spent about 3 weeks discussing Ennio Morricone on the talk page of BWV 543. Their edits there have not been helpful. Similarly, on the WP:NOR noticeboard, the same editor has launched into discussions about Morricone's work: so far, in his edits, he has not unearthed any useful sources.

While researching film material related to Bach and Morricone, however, I have found a huge amount of material related to BWV 565. I have only chosen a small sample. I have selected 4 sources and have used all four. I chose two diametrically opposite views; although one of the commentators disagrees with Morricone, they are old friends and have discussed their differences (see the Cambridge University Press book—the author died in 2016). There are many pages in these particular books on this area (i.e. art film music, a well-covered topic).

From this article, the section about "Reception" is not really about reception, but some kind of hodge-podge. In the case of the subsection entitled "In film", it is just part of what would normally be called "In popular culture." It seems to be a list of films, almost no explanatory prose to give context. Just a raw list.

What I have written here is prose on "Bach reception" for BWV 565 with regard to Morricone. Other articles on Bach organ works are not written as if they were some list (except of course for discographies and arrangements). The reversion that has happened is not acceptable: there must be a reasonable discussion and later a WP:CONSENSUS. The new source material (4 books) should be taken on board by other editors. Since WP:ORN has been invoked here, perhaps that would be a convenient way of involving a larger number of editors in Morricone-related discussions. Mathsci (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The first statement about the claimed fame of the Toccata seems like a "peacock" statement and does not to be supported by the body of the article without very careful qualification.

The second statement concerns authenticity and the phrasing of the final sentence. The non-reporting of facts from the Bach Archive is a non-event, but the final sentence is presented as some kind as "proof" of authenticity. The commentary in the Breitkopf edition is more non-committal, giving pros and cons for authenticity. They err on the side of caution There is also the 2018 2nd edition of the book by Rolf Dietrich Claus on authenticity, translated into English, with additional commentary. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ringk manuscript - all pages

Ringk manuscript - all pages

All pages of the Ringk manuscript have been added to the article. Please adjust as yall think might be best.

Another option is combining all pages into one single image, which was done here:

But I don't recommend using that. My own opinion is that showing the pages separately works better. Others might feel differently. I doubt that I will have anything more to add to such a discussion, so whatever is decided as consensus is fine with me. Even if that means removing all of the pages that I added, and reverting back to where only the title page and first page are shown. --Concord19 (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Neato. I like the idea of all the pages, as this particular piece is debated as to authorship. Misty MH (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The "trill" at the start - A curiosity—or more

It may be a curiosity, or more, but I was just reading a big argument over the "trill" – or "mordent", "tremolo(?)" or whatever – of the very first note in the piece (which is then repeated an octave lower, and then repeated an octave lower than that). (I'll get to some details shortly.) The article here makes no mention of a trill at all.

The Trill Controversy:

I remember in Music Theory in college some discussion of trills and their types, and how at different times and in different countries, they were played differently. There was a good deal of variation between centuries and locations around the world; and here we have someone putting an Italian name to what may have been the German composer Bach's piece. And it was being written down perhaps some time after Bach, and music practice may have changed.

Often, trills go up and then back to the starting note. But here, it goes down, and then up.

Arguers in that big argument (all talking about it going down and then back up) said it should go down a whole step and then back; while the original poster, claiming a Masters degree in piano, was showing it as a half step down and then back. They argued that it was common to do the whole step. Also: A typical way of sounding a trill is just three notes for the trill; but this one has a fermata over it:

Don't some trills go longer than 3 notes? In any case—

I wonder if there is some scholarly debate or consensus over this for this particular passage, especially discussing the whole- vs. half-step part?

I also wonder if there are any major examples of this particular trill going up then down vs. the versions I myself heard that went down and then up?

An interesting curiosity, it seemed; and it made me wonder if there was any controversy about it over the centuries? :)

Misty MH (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)