Talk:Concerto for Two Violins (Bach)

2006–2007

Does anyone know where I can hear the Violin II part of this piece? Any suggestions are welcome!

I sort of know: If you look at the last song in the Suzuki Violin School Volume 4 Violin Part you will find. Get someone to play it for you. Or you can buy the Suzuki Violin School Volume 4 Violin Part tape and listen to the last song. Just a suggestion.-Theclassicalman24.83.9.218 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I know a link for a synthesized version of the violins alone in this concerto. It's at http://www.free-scores.com/download-sheet-music.php?pdf=20 and click on download midi. It has the violins together, violin 1, 2, and viola alone. 75.17.31.153 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)minidude09

Title

I play this piece and I've never heard it called the "Double Violin Concerto", so I'm proposing a move to "Concerto for 2 Violins (Bach)" or something similar. If nobody objects I'll move it in a few days. —focus 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Double Violin Concerto was a rather commonly used English title (see e.g. this Gramophone review, and also this one). There already is a redirect page Concerto for 2 violins, strings and continuo in D minor. See also Double Concerto (Brahms), though of course this is for violin and cello. "Concerto for 2 Violins" just does not sound right to me. Regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I've just never heard the phrase used, I don't know. But Concerto for 2 Violins is the official, and often used title, so it seems logical for the page to be called that. Double Violin Concerto could also be considered rather ambiguous, because a 'double concerto' could mean a variety of things. I've also heard Bach Double, but that's more colloquial.

I think that in general, if the piece has a nickname that's almost exclusively used, it should be the page title. I'm pretty sure that's not the case here, so I'm proposing the move. Thoughts? —focus 17:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference on whether or not to move, but I do think you should not assume that every WP reader knows that the musical form Concerto implies orchestral accompaniment, so the new title should be Concerto for 2 violins and string orchestra or something to that effect. The inclusion of (Bach) would also become unnecessary, as there is no other article with that title. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerto for Oboe and Violin in C Minor?

I have a score for a concerto for oboe and violin in C minor (as the 2 Harpsichord concerto BWV 1060) which claims that, judging from the way the harpsichord parts are written, the harpsichord version was originally the lost concerto for oboe and violin (in C minor!), later adapted as the double violin concerto and transposed to D minor for better matching the violins' sonorities, as well as turned into the harpsichords version. -- megA (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Parry or Perry?

In the provided audio clips, the first violinist's name is spelled "Perry" in the main article, but "Parry" on the page for the audio clips themselves, and in the metadata of the files. On 2013-05-19=Su Google tells me there exist professional concert violinists named both "Perry" and "Parry"; "Perry" is the one that comes up as the first Google hit, but most of the hits are for "Parry". But overwhelmingly, most of the Google hits are to MP3 piracy sites copying data from each other, so a Google vote on the correct spelling isn't really possible; there's too much noise.

Could somebody who actually knows who performed this respond here telling us what the correct spelling is and how you know it's correct, and then perhaps correct the erroneous spellings? (It's an easy fix if "Perry" is the one that's wrong, because that only occurs once, in the main article.) 67.183.64.49 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• afaics "Perry" would be correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Bold in lead section

There's no obligation to put anything in bold in the lead section, see MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure: the composition date is currently completely missing from the lead section, contrary to the WikiProject recommendation to put it in the lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Following your suggestion I included the date, but I disagree about the bold part, most Wikipedia pages do include the title of the article in bold. See the Wikipedia page for orchestra, where orchestra is in bold. 99% of articles in Wikipedia follow this procedure so to achieve uniformity we should keep the boldness ot the title. James343e (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion regarding the lead section: get rid of the German name, "(Doppelkonzert für zwei Violinen)" – there are various German names for the composition, and the one cited is neither the original name, nor likely the most common one (in German): it has zero relevance for English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, edits to this page don't need preliminary approval. Further, on the lead:

• No references seems quite in order, where the lead content is supported with references in the body of the article;
• Anyway *if* references are used in the lead, it should be to the most solid sources, and not, for instance, to websites far from any form of scholarship.
• No content that can only be attributed to a single source should be in the lead.
• The lead should not contain platitudes, understatements or other quirky content.
• previous two points apply to "... and represents an example of the work of the late Baroque period." – which will be removed.
• "Successful" works better than "notable" – less vague, and groups a number of expressions, as found in sources used for this article, including "most notable", "best-known and most frequently performed", "unstreitig der höchste Werth eigen", ...

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Following your advice, I did not change your edits and agree with the inclusion of the term "succesful" and the deletion of the FM source from the lead. But I included back the other more solid sources from the books. If you read Wikipedia articles for Beethoven's symphony No. 5 and Symphony No. 9, they include sources in the lead for claims such as "it is one of the most important/best/succesful compositions". I think the claim "it is one of his most succesful works" is strong enough to include references in the lede, even if it is supported in the body of the article. It will also avoids that some Wikipedia editor in the future, in say, 300 years, could delete such claims or put "this claim needs references to reliable sources" because he did not bother to read the whole article to find the references to such a claim. Such an edition (deleting the claim or adding "this claim needs references to reliable sources"), despite being unfair, could go unnoticed. So to avoid problems like that in the future, I included two references (again, following your suggestion of excluding the FM source).James343e (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Quality of sources

A few sources are below par, and should not be used in the article:

• Amazon (see WP:RSP: "generally unreliable")
• Discogs (see WP:RSP: "generally unreliable")

Spotify has been discussed at WP:RSN (e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Formally make Spotify a "generally unreliable" source?) without final verdict afaics – I'm not sure whether we should use it (I tend to avoid it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• @James343e: the so-called "1967" recording date for the Perlman/Stern/NY Phil/Mehta recording, derived from Spotify, was more than a decade off (see new references) – proposing to never use Spotify again as a reference on this page. For clarity, also recording dates derived from Amazon and Discogs (that is, including the Mutter recording) were wrong. These sources are now all removed, and should never be used again on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I could not find better sources, I'm glad you improved it with more reliable sources.James343e (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)