To return to the main question which needs to be resolved:
Should Bach’s works in MB be amended to follow the nomenclature in Bach Digital, even if this removes a relevant generic name from the title or removes the major/minor (Dur/Moll) from the key signature in the name? For example:
- Removal of generic name (and complete removal of key)
- A instead of A-Dur (bearing in mind that the key has been added as an attribute)
My view is that, while the Bach Digital source is useful in determining work names, it should not be followed slavishly. In particular, MB style guidelines should always be followed where they conflict with other sources (of which there are many - what’s to stop someone next week saying - “we should just follow wikipedia” or whatever?) and information which is correct and useful (e.g. choralvorspiel) should not be arbitrarily removed. In any case, even Bach Digital is inconsistent in its nomenclature, for example:
- Sonate G-Dur, BWV 1027 has both the generic name and full key signature in the title. Obviously, removing them would just leave the BWV number as there is no non-generic title.
Maybe the best way of resolving this is to do a poll (as I saw recently for Wagner). I’ve not tried this before, but here goes:
- Use Bach Digital name for all Bach works
- Use Bach Digital name amended to include generic title and full key signature where relevant
- Use a name from Bach Digital or another source (e.g. Wikipedia) which most closely follows style guidelines and is useful for users
- Do not amend existing MB names unless they do not fit style guidelines and there is a clearly better alternative (which may be from Bach Digital or somewhere else).
0 voters
Votes please (and in particular from @Algwyn, @reosarevok, @ProfChris, @Jim_DeLaHunt) - fairly quickly please as some of the edits only have a couple of days left. Also comment where you think I have not summarised the options correctly or you need to add something.