Talk:English Suites (Bach)

	Classical music portal This 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
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Error[edit]

The first english suite is in F Major, correct it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.42.79.243 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The keys are correct, but the order of them does not relate to any note sequences in the chorale "Jesu, meine Freude".. first of all there are no F naturals in the chorale (it's in e minor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsallaroundyou (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first English Suite is not in F Major, it's in A major!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.242.161 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"generally thought to be the earliest of Bach's 19 suites for keyboard". Well, are BWV 818-824 and BWV 832 all ignored? --Ahyangyi (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bach compositions printed during the composer's lifetime"[edit]

Why is this in the "See also" list? The English suites are not on that page. When were these works first published, anyway? Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noprint[edit]

If the bracket is left off at the end of "noprint" then this disappears from the article: "English Suite No. 2 in A minor – Gigue (help·info)"Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant Well, this is strange. I'm seeing the line just fine and I'm using chrome. The line is there in IE. In Firefox, the line disappears. If I add <br> tags at the end, the line reappears. Do you see it now?

The reason I did this is.... I've been going thru articles that have </div> missing. Most of the time it is benign. However there are cases where they leave it off on centering, page widths and noprints. These cause problems. If {{noprint}} is missing a bracket it is much more noticeable. Bgwhite (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox. Whatever you did to get my text back has worked. I now see "English Suite No. 2 in A minor – Gigue (help·info)" I just put that in yesterday, so it's nice for it to not get zapped. Thanks. I don't want to understand all the details, as long as everything ends well. :-) Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(watching, and not related to this article:) I observed several (unpredictable) times that whatever I changed didn't show right away, but after refreshing the page. That would perhaps also explain, - not why it happens, though, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of whom English Suites were written in remembrance of (Wiki-interest)[edit]

Topic and background[edit]

In the neighboured article, there is a paragraph which carefully stated some historical debates and relative research results, in terms of whom Bach's English suits were written in remembrance of:

'Bach's English Suites display less affinity with Baroque English keyboard style than do the French Suites to French Baroque keyboard style; the name "English" is thought to date back to a claim made by the 19th-century Bach biographer Johann Nikolaus Forkel that these works might have been composed for an English nobleman, but no evidence has emerged to substantiate this claim.[citation needed] It has also been suggested that the name is a tribute to Charles Dieupart, whose fame was greatest in England, and on whose Six Suittes de clavessin Bach's English Suites were in part based'

This discussion is possible to be further shifted into Talk, for the expressions of users' ideas with the freedom.

Commons' thoughts[edit]

Jason's idea: This piece motivated up my great interests As a piano teacher and bilingually cultural post-learner, from the view of keyboard's fingering approach in practices and the daily operations of education practices and the reasonable imaginations with musicality, I would like to give another possibility of musical reasonability: Rather than understanding its creation as for certain special nobleman or a historical master with full literacies, as one from commons, it's better that we would make a understandable analogy in practices, and carry a sense as to appreciate some scenes of royal ceremonies alongside the procedure of our keyboard-techniques' trainings, such as welcoming some foreign leaders and diplomats etc., cherishing beauties of English culture and customs when Square-based Ceremonies were hold for all the commons in which Queen and us can together feel the joyfulness, or watching New Year's Day Talks on TV or online, or some others. The reason is: In English Suites, such as the prelude of Third English Suite, we can play out and hear huge some versions of royal military band and honor guards, then some stylized and procedural patterns were repeated, developing and recycling time after time, with baroque ornamentations, modeled counterpointes, fixed polyphonic dialogues, similar motifs and structuralized solutions. I think, if it was written for certain clear historical identity, the scenes shouldn't be described so huge and with so many repeated and standardized 'curtains' one by one. To commons, only in some huge national festivals and square-based matches, we can see and share some festival procedures organized step by step. Furthermore, to composers' nature, they usually wouldn't say out whom a piece was really written for but generalized several historical imageries and their characteristics from various different persons and events together to form one abstracted theme - that's to say - without clearly telling us what particular person or event they were writing for. But, if coming to English formal life style or somewhat with the most baroque-senses in Bach's era which can be mostly kept till today, I thought a generalized ceremony with royal life styles or stylized scenes would be a better symbolized representation. Then, with this musical imagination, we go to classify, organize, formalize and specialize keyboard-techniques, treated some special ornamentations (such as 3:2 trills), some standardized gestures of hands & some for body's, and some　impromptu presentations for sound-effects. We can appreciate our own 'golden performances', even only on our own keyboards, as from a small common's. Therefore, a 'generalized' musical impression of English noble (or Royal) life style and a idealist palace-ized (or Royal Court-ized) imagination would be Bach's another possibly reasonable dream. This idea from instrumental practices, which need some supports. Further developing zone from Educational Research: English Suites, as from generalized impression for English nobleman or customs, should have some more distinguishable characteristics in standardized structure as 'Dancing Suites' from English language, life fashion and customs, such as two paragraphs(rooms)nested as one whole ball suite (dancing theme). Otherwise, why did Bach give single title of these works as 'English Suites', rather than 'France Suites' or 'France style English suites' or 'Partitas'? Here, we can think and explore more evidences from the nature of Work-structure Analysis.

Jason M. C., Han (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Slightly better arguments here than at the French Suites article, but still no consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English Suites (Bach) → English Suites – There are no other English Suites of comparable notability. Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bantock, Rabaud, etc, it's a genre. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Someone searching for "English Suites" (especially with capital "S") is overwhelmingly likely to be searching for Bach. It already redirects here, so per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is unnecessary disambiguation. Dohn joe (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per Dohn joe. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should check at the WP:CM page for the general naming conventions. We try to avoid idiosyncratic taxa for obvious reasons. Whatever the larger convention should be followed. Eusebeus (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: As per WP:CMG, "An article's title should be selected to best represent what readers of Wikipedia expect. This means, among other things, that titles should be consistent for each genre."^[1] And almost all the other articles in the category Suites by Johann Sebastian Bach have "(Bach)" following their names. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 14:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all suites in the category have "(Bach)" after their names, and in some cases they have it just because there are other notable suites of the same name.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, see French Suites, I also oppose having two similar discussions at the same time, would be better to run one and treat the other accordingly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.