![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
" The concertos have been called a 'microcosm of Baroque music,' " -- by whom? If you can't find the source I suggest somebody changes it to something like "The concertos could be described as a microcosm of Baroque music".
The quoted passage above appears in section 2. Do we have a source for this? I believe it's too elaborate to have here without a source specified, so if there is none it shouldn't be here. If we get a source, we at least shouldn't claim that it's the best explanation.
Also, though this doesn't really matter right now, I think it's a pretty strange explanation. IIRC, there's not a lot that supports the idea of one instrument per part in Bach's orchestra, and I don't see much reason to assume Bach always played the viola (to such an extent that there was no other violist) just because of a single letter. A to me more satisfying explanation would be that he simply chose to write it like that, perhaps because there were unusually few competent violinists or something. EldKatt ( Talk) 12:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I have seen this statement repeated a lot. I don't think there is a reason to remove it. It's a reasonable opinion. The other thing is that with more than 1 player to a part, it tends to overwhelm the sound of the harpsichord. 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted Trisdee's "Recordings" section addition. Great as they may be, I don't feel Wikipedia is the place list recordings in this form, especially as other sites [1] do it much better and will be updated far more often. There is almost certainly precedent for this elsewhere in WP. Lambyuk 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I always thought the plural of concerto was concerti (e.g. Concerti Grossi) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.66.156 ( talk) 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
You're correct. Concerti is proper.
If nobody objects, then, I will rename this article accordingly. Calaf 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
To re-iterate what I wrote on the other version of this page: The Wikipedia naming conventions specifies, and general English usage tends towards 'concertos'. Also, almost all recordings use the nomenclature 'concertos'. While Italian plural 'concerti' is correct in Italian, it is not the current English usage (though has been used variably in the distant past). Please don't think that using the phrase 'if nobody objects...' gives license to make such large changes: two or three people discussing a point on the talk page does not constitue consensus. It is more appropriate to check the Wikipedia naming conventions if you are in doubt. 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
See this page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). I quote: "Plurals of Italian terms should be anglicized:
13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
can anybody confirm that one of the concertos has been analyzed and found to be fractal, and document that? an altavista search was not helpful.
I removed this section, titled Orchestral versus chamber music because it is only tangentially related to the article:
There is a rather interesting set of arguments about OPPP (one player per part), and the specific conditions of performance in Cöthen are a separate strand, but neither on this page, I think.
Hope the general tidy is better...
JH(emendator) 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I know virtually no Italian, but the English instrumentations don't seem to match up with what the Italian inscriptions say.
The Italian for 2nd and 3rd concertos sounds to me like "basso continuo using the harpsichord." All of the links to "basso continuo" link to double bass, which I don't think is the correct thing. The fourth one has an unspecified continuo. The fifth one refers to la flûte traversière. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an exact English name or page for it (other than the flute). The sixth one has no inscription listed. -- MinorContributor 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone just added a note on the lack of trumpets in the second movemnt of #2 because the trumpet could change keys back then without changing crooks. Looking at the score, I think the second movement of #2 is in D minor (though I'd like to confirm that, all I know for sure is "one flat"). Anyhow, it might be worth noting when movements differ from the main key of the concerto. DavidRF ( talk) 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like weasel words to me. 89.168.137.202 ( talk) 12:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. After re-examining the score, my conclusion is that the flute had replaced the recorder in the concertino in most of the later recordings or performances, so it's "flute or recorder". The difference with instrumentation in the autograph score may cause some confusion. This may be useful "In the present case, Bach's ripieno includes solo flute [originally recorder], trumpet, violin, oboe, and continuo. (The continuo is never omitted, as it provides the harmonic foundation of the entire piece.)" from Bach 101 Ptangto ( talk) 16:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Christian Ludwig was not Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt.
His elder brother Philip was the Lord of Schwedt, Christian did not own or have rights over the town or lands attached to Schwedt. Both brothers, as royal princes of Prussia, were given the courtesy title of "Margrave of Brandenburg" in their lifetimes. Later, Philip and his two sons were retrospectively known as Margraves of Brandenburg-Schwedt to delineate their particular branch of the Hohenzollerns. Therefore Christian Ludwig was never Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt and should not be referred to as such.
Can someone please supply a citation, with page number, for the specific edition and translation of the dedication used in the article? Also, other quotations require page numbers and full bibliographic citations. Wikipedia guidelines require a pinpoint citation for every direct quotation. Thanks.— Finell 06:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we need a notable recordings section, which could include among others, the Rampal/Maurice Andre set from Red Seal 1974. Gramophone magazine declared that if they could listen to all extant recordings, and survive the ordeal, this would be the best.(mercurywoodrose) 76.232.10.255 ( talk) 19:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I have corrected several tempo indications which had originally been taken from one specific recording that did not properly distinguish, and had given the tempos used in those performances. I also made one correction from "non troppo" to "non tanto", per IMSLP and additional recordings. Milkunderwood ( talk) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please check your facts (Bach Digital helps) - the two concerts, except for (as justly said) many many MINOR differences, are the same! Instrumentation (yes there is a violoncello part, just check Bach Digital) and the cadenza are the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.100.151 ( talk) 10:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The wide repertoire in France and Germany up till the middle of the 18th century, including Bach's own use of the instrument in both his passions and in some great cantatas, should be ample proof that the viola da gamba was NOT considered old-fashioned at that time. Dufuxing, Sept 28, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.93.33 ( talk) 06:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 19:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Brandenburg concertos → Brandenburg Concertos – the version with Concertos capitalized is more popular times ten (see ngram in discussion section below), so per WP:COMMONNAME should be moved to the more common name for this set of six concertos. As the set name is a non-generic name, the article title should also be italicized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works. Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.The music files at right were recorded in 1935, and are worth considering for inclusion in this Wikipedia article. This Wikipedia article currently presents only these movements:
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The Margrave did not have the ensemble to perform all 6 concertos, but might have performed some; and while the full score was found untouched, someone writes -- I'm a bit surprised there was one. Where were the 'parts'? That's what mattered in those days. Scores didn't become popular for a century or so... Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Brandenburg Concertos | |
---|---|
BWV 1046–1051 | |
by J. S. Bach | |
![]()
Christian Ludwig of Brandenburg-Schwedt, to whom Bach presented the six instrumental concertos dated 24 March 1721, portrayed in 1710 by
Antoine Pesne | |
Composed | 1717 | –1721
Instrumental |
|
On Bach's birthday, I offered an infobox, similar to other concertos, such as Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24, TFA in a few day. It was reverted with an argument concerning instrumentation, but there was no instrumentation. It might work in an infoboxes for each concerto. I still think it would be a good idea to visualize not a far too old composer, but why the concertos are called Brandenburg. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need independent article for each concert, since they always considered as closely related to each other. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 17:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)