Talk:P. D. Q. Bach/Archive 1

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

Although P.D.Q. Bach is a fictitious character, I think that he deserves his own entry because he has a body of music which is both appreciably substantial and also distinct from the music Peter Schickele has pubished under his own name. Dmetric —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:07, 22 October 2003 (UTC)

I am appreciative of the edits made to articles I've written; they add information I may not have known about and bring my writing into line with Wikipedia conventions.

But some of the edits to this article on P.D.Q. Bach make me wonder if it's really so necessary to so heavily underscore that P.D.Q. Bach is a fictitious character. I thought it was sufficient to write in the first paragraph that "P.D.Q. Bach" is a pseudonym which Peter Schikele uses to write satirical music.

I look at the pages on fictional characters on TV shows, such as Homer Simpson and Jean-Luc Picard, and in articles like that, the fictional nature of the character is mentioned in the first sentence and afterwards follow many paragraphs unencumbered by any reference to the fictionality of the character. On this article on P.D.Q. Bach I am seeing a tendency to preface nearly every sentence with something along the lines of "According to Schikele".

On the one hand Wikipedia has a duty to inform in a clear and accurate manner. But on the other hand, readers don't like having stuff they already know rehashed to death. Besides, I think readers are smart enough to keep reality and fiction separate, especially when the fiction is presented in as tongue-in-cheek manner as P.D.Q. Bach's life story ("the last and least of Johann Sebastian Bach's sons"). Schikele calls his audiences an "eagerly skeptic public", and when in his Carnegie Hall act he complains that people still doubt the existence of P.D.Q. Bach, the crowd laughs out loud, followed by Schikele complaining "Nobody seems to take these concerts seriously." Again, the audience laughs heartily. - Dmetric —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 21 November 2003 (UTC)

I see what you mean.

Hoaxes. I removed it because I thought it was wrong. Here's why: Schikele presents P.D.Q. as comedy, with no attempt to actually make anyone believe that there really was a 21st son of J.S. 141.217.177.19

23:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not to pass on the merits of excessive obviousness as applied to this article, but the same could be said for Orson Welles's

War of the Worlds: probably no attempt to deceive, but nonetheless likely to deceive because it uses a deceptive fictional device. - Nunh-huh

23:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intercal

P.D.Q. Bach is the INTERCAL of Baroque music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.34.4 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Umm... not sure if this really a useful bit of info to have in the article. Plus, it's formatted to look like Schickele has said this about PDQ, but I've found no evidence of this. (Anyway, it's he more like the "Weird Al" Yankovic of Baroque?) Anyone object to me taking this out? Other opinions, anyone? Doug A Scott (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you know what INTERCAL is, and you have ever seen P.D.Q. Bach's books, you would know what this means, and I agree with it! It looks misplaced in the main article though... Also, this information is on one of the INTERCAL resources page. Obviously, he has also seen these things, I guess. -- zzo38(*)? 03:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

A line about P. D. Q.'s having been married twice to women named Vera has appeared, disappeared, and appeared again. Sounds like time to take it to discussion. Personally, I think the Veras are non-canonical.

The basis of the Veras is an introduction which Shickele made on one of his recordings, about a piece titled "La Prima Vera." This was an excuse for a pun on "primavera" (Italian for "spring") and "prima Vera" (first Vera). My vague recollection is that the piece wasn't even ascribed to P. D. Q., and in any case wasn't actually performed. There is no reference to a piece titled "La Prima Vera," or to the associated story about his wives, in the Definitive Biography. The DB doesn't say he was married, and Schickele has ascribed all descendants of P.D.Q. to his affair with Betty Sue Bach. So I'd say the wives were just a throwaway joke rather than being intended as canon. GMcGath 13:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just tracked it down. The joke is in "What's My Melodic Line?" (on The Wurst of P.D.Q. Bach), and is made about a different fictional composer, Archangelo Spumoni. So the claim that P.D.Q. was married to anyone is just plain wrong. GMcGath 00:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious origin of "P. D. Q.", does it need to be noted that this is also in itself a satire of the typical way of distinguishing between the various (actual) Bach offspring by referring to them by their initials, such as C. P. E. Bach, rather than by their full names? Rlquall 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. In particular, folks who come to this article via the comedy route, rather than the classical music route, probably don't know that. - DavidWBrooks 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence about "Prelude to Einstein on the Fritz" has gone through a lot of changes; the part about the Bach prelude, in fact, is my own. But when recently re-listening to the piece, I noticed that the snoring, which the sentence mentions as if it were a leading characteristic of the piece, actually occurs only for a couple of seconds. At the point in the article where the sentence occurs, the article is discussing the most important characteristics of the music and its surrounding presentation -- things like issues of style, comedic methods, Schickele numbers, etc. Citing a single piece is appropriate if it makes an important point (as does the mention of blowing through double reeds, illustrated by Iphegenia in Brooklyn). But the sentence about EotF doesn't establish any major point; the use of snoring has already been mentioned in the paragraph before. As it stands, the sentence is misleading, since it suggests that the snoring is an ongoing feature of the piece.

Perhaps the sentence could be moved down to the discussion of the appropriate "period" in which it occurs (which I'm sure is lited in the Definitive Biography, though I don't have it handy). In that case, I'd suggest actually expanding it a little; the misleading quality is partly caused by trying to cram too much information into one sentence. GMcGath 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Zounds good to me. We certainly don't need redundant material in the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... you should mention what his "contrition" period works are parodies of. The Fanfare for the Common Cold- well, that's Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man. I'm working on it. --Stratford15 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes- The Grossest Fugue is a parody of Beethoven's Grosse Fuge and The Seasonings is a parody of Haydn's The Seasons--Stratford15 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the changes of 4 March made by the user at IP address 71.231.108.6, because they removed the references to the fictional nature of the subject. As agreed above, this is an important aspect of the article.

If the user who made the changes disagrees with this edit, he is of course welcome to undo it, but should please explain (either here or in the edit summary) the reasons for the changes.

--Smalljim 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, the joke is that his tombstone says "1807-1742", implying that he lived his life backwards ... OTOH, the cited reference (The definitive Biography of P. D. Q. Bach) makes it clear that the calendar dates for birth and death are correct (just look at the Table of Contents) ... I have the book in hand, but do not feel like adding page numbers for each of the references, since it's all fictitious anyway ... so please, let's stop reverting each other ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}

does anyone else feel it worth including that virtually all of the musicological and biographical research on this midget of the musical pantheon was done at the university of southern north dakota at hoople? this is repeatedly stated in the biography already cited.Toyokuni3 (talk)

USND at Hoople

has had a Wikipedia article since 2004 ... 'Nuff Said!

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}

Requesting an outside opinion. User:Binksternet and me are in disagreement whether or not there should be a link explaining the connection between the fictional place of death Baden-Baden-Baden to its self-evident real-life inspiration Baden-Baden. user:Everyme 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would work best for readers if there were a

Lasso d'amore pages; why not put up a page about PDQ's death place? Binksternet (talk

) 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it notable enough? user:Everyme 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, a one-sentence explanation in the article is enough for those who don't know that Baden-Baden exists and therefore don't get the joke - creating

Baden-Baden-Baden as a separate article would be *way* overkill, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk

) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree that a BBB article would be overkill. My reasoning in including a simple link to Baden-Baden (as "Baden-Baden-Baden") was that it would be a fully sufficient explanation that doesn't require deeper elaboration in the article prose. user:Everyme 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't (and don't) like "Baden-Baden-Baden" in the infobox is that the reader will click on the link and not get the joke. Explaining it in the text by putting Baden-Baden next to "Baden-Baden-Baden" is superior to having a misleading link. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's do that then. From your reverts and comments, I thought you were entirely against linking to Baden-Baden from this article at all. user:Everyme 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find a place in the prose where this info would fit in, so I decided to put it in a footnote.[1] Please let me know what you think / feel free to undue or amend. user:Everyme 02:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have found your own compromise, but: i) wouldn't "Baden-Baden-Baden [sic, cf. Baden-Baden]" be simpler? ii) I don't suppose it would get past deletionists, but in favour of a separate article for Baden-Baden-Baden, it does also occur in the song "Triplets" in the 1953 Astaire musical The Band Wagon ("Every summer we go away to Baden Baden Baden, every winter we come home to Walla Walla Walla"). N p holmes (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, I like your solution. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine as it is, but speaking as somebody who's too lazy to follow footnotes, I think putting the words from the footnote in the text itself would be even better. But some might think that was too clumsy. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel very free to give it a try. I just wouldn't know how and where to plausibly fit them in. Also, I for one like footnotes since they allow targeted access to certain pieces of info such as this one, with minor relevance for the main topic. user:Everyme 11:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. You can find my "review" on the comments page. It actually has some suggestions for improvement, so please read it. There's plenty of room here to expand the parodic content, and mine the depths of Schickele's creation, without necessary running afoul of the copyright police.

I do need to point out that the image currently being used in the infobox does not have a

. This is a serious problem; this use (in its absence) likely violates copyright. (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if a appropriate rationale exists for the use of the album cover on this page, which is not actually about the album.)

Prost! -- Magic♪piano 14:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a more literal translation of the PDQ's etigraph:

Here a man lies completely; 
In the body thickly,at sins richly. 
We put it into the grave, 
because it us fancies it is strained.

—The preceding

) 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Which just goes to show that "literal" and "useful" are, sometimes, two completely different things ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that 'translation' appears to be simply what Babelfish offers up. My stab at it: Here lies a man without compare, 'Fat' in love, and rich in sins, We stuck him in the grave, Because we think* he is wrecked*

• I'm guessing at Schikele's translation here. I don't believe he wrote actual German, but rather what sounds German. cf. dünkt - denken (thinking), verreckt - similar in sound to English wrecked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.255.93 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, the Epigraph is very good German. ('uns dünkt' is 'We deem', and 'verrecken' is very gross language for 'to die'. So the last line would be something like "Because it seems to us that he has finally bought it ")77.190.87.204 (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They were switched around. It said he was born in 1807 and died in 1742, ha.65.255.147.8 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They were CORRECT. PDQ Bach is a joke, he was born long after he died, perhaps a backhanded way of saying that (mercifully?) he never lived. lol --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the official PDQ biography has the dates in correct chron order—it's only the gravestone that gets them backward. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just not so - but then you know that as well as I, I suspect. Although this is a "funny" subject, making our own jokes about it isn't necessarilly even funnier.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For true aficionadoes, The Definitive Biography of P.D.Q. Bach has a section explaining the different "theories" for explaining the "error." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested source says, on page xiii, "It has become traditional to list his dates as they were inscribed on his first tomb: 1807–1742." The section of the infobox under discussion is not a simple listing of dates separated by ndash, it's a description of date of birth and a description of date of death. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By the same logic that the afd for

should go the same way. It would then be good if someone actively hacked the text merged from each article so that it flowed together and fitted into the article in a better way than the Tromboon stuff currently does.--17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge. None of PDQ Bach's instruments is standalone notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge and create the
  Corrugaphone article. Reading the article it mentions its a modified bloogle or Corrugaphone and from its description its something I played with about 20 years ago when there was quite a craze for them. See [2] for a photo.--Salix (talk
  ): 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The use of a lasso d'amore is documented on Wikipedia for at least one other performer (
  Sasha Forte on The Body Has a Head). The instrument has received wide-ranging coverage, including Grove, percussion teaching books, and various music journals. I don't understand how the fact that it is almost exclusively linked to P. D. Q. Bach makes it automatically non-notable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk
  ) 02:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Not that my opinion matters for anything on this website, but would anyone argue that the Wagner tuba is not notable if Wagner and Bruckner had been the only ones to write for it? James470 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to describe Peter Schickele's persona of PDQ Bach as being the "Weird Al of Classical Music"? Frotz 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because Schickele's work predates Weird Al's, and Schickele is a far more talented musician and parodist/satirist. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article struck me as too "in character," as opposed to the detached view that an encyclopedia should take. I suggest that most of the article adopt the same tone as that used to describe characters in books. If that's already the case, please excuse my

) 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The only way this would work is if it were an utterly deadpan parody of encylopedic "objectivity". WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

How boring to put the dates in the right order...Schikele never does this, either in books or for sheet music...I thought it was conforming to Schikele's humour to put the dates this way...and the circular link I thought was also amusing too: there is no such place as Baden-Baden-Baden.--Ebrownless (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding from reading the article is that The Definitive Biography of P. D. Q. Bach gives the DoB as 1 April 1742 and the DoD as 5 May 1807; it's just his grave where the dates are shown the other way round, followed by a question mark. On second thoughts, the bracketed form for DoB and DoD in the lead might lend itself to the reverse order plus a question mark. I admit that my removing the circular link to

Baden-Baden-Baden

was done from a "Wiki-instinct" and not appropriate for this page.

Removing the dates altogether from the lead seems rather dour and calling them "irrelevant" is missing the point. I suggest to reinstate this or a similar version:

P. D. Q. Bach (May 5, 1807,

Baden-Baden-Baden –^? April 1, 1742, Leipzig

) …

Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fictional people don't need birth and death dates in the first line. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed them previously because the forward/backward debate is endless. The article talks about the backwardness, so it's not like the topic is neglected. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the backward dates are in the article, so no need to put them in the first line. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the date of this compilation album from 1978 to 1971. This caught my attention because I remember listening to the album with friends during my freshman year of college in 1974. The Schickele website shows this album was released in 1971. Nyghtheron (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if anyone has taken up this comedy besides its creator. --Smack (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, When I was in High School, we performed a few choral numbers. There are many publications available. I also recently heard a major Orchestra (Boston Pops?) perform some PDQ works. They are very funny when performed!Timothy Alan Shoemaker (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if there was a list of the works that P. D. Q. Bach has re-used and how they belong together. Any objections? -- 62.156.56.125 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I started the list at User:Dynam1te3/List_of_works_reused_by_P.D.Q._Bach. It can be moved to the article namespace when there is enough information in it. @Binksternet: Please stop calling my work disruptive vandalism. -- 62.156.56.125 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added a reference to this work to the article on the Fulton Fish Market, and discovered it does not have its own article, despite its being one of PDQ's masterpieces. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Iphigenia in Brooklyn is mentioned at

List of works by P. D. Q. Bach, but also at Iphigenia in Aulis (Euripides) and Iphigenia. I just added it to Iphigenia (disambiguation)

, though I'm not sure that will survive.

Well, as they say in Wikiland:

WP:SOFIXIT

, although I guess that decoding all the quotes and allusions won't be easy.

BTW, ought the attribution to Iphigenia at the Fulton Fish Market not go to P. D. Q. Bach? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It should. I finally fixed it. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

really serious error

"Schickele's works, attributed to P. D. Q. Bach, are primarily comical rearrangements of well-known works of other composers."

Wrong! This is simply not true, and an implicit insult to Schickele's skill at writing original parody (or just plain stupid) music. The author is confusing PDQ's works with such Schickele pieces as the Unbegun Symphony, a clever hotch-potch of familiar themes from popular works. For example, the opening of Brahms' Second Symphony segues into Ta Ra Ra Boom De Ay (the first three notes of which dovetail with three notes of the Brahms).

This needs fixing, and I'm surprised friendly Professor Schickele hasn't brought it to your attention. I'm tempted to perform the necessary surgery, but I'd rather leave it to the author. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is "the author"? There is no single person who is the "author" of any Wikipedia articles. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 14:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed "are primarily" to "often incorporate". Does that help? —Tamfang (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be to change the quoted sentence to "PDQ's works occasionally quote bits and pieces of famous compositions, but are principally Schickele's original stylistic parodies and burlesques." How's that? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, though I'm not sophistimacated enough to recognize if it were false. —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Epipelagic just reverted my change, accusing me of deliberately adding disinformation to articles to waste his and others' time. I will not ignore this unjustified personal attack. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Where? —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is not here, it is at Fulton Fish Market. I think WilliamSommerwerck's addition of trivia there is not needed because it is unencyclopedic. Here, all is good. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is P.D.Q. Bach really a fictitious character?

I don't see how anyone can prove that P.D.Q. Bach is a creation. He may be one, but how would you know? Wikipedia is making a statement without proof. If P.D.Q. Bach is a creation and Schickele the creator, you'd be ruining the joke by making an unproven claim that P.D.Q. Bach is only a character or did not exist. Since I have not seen any evidence or credible source to dispute the existence of P.D.Q. Bach--I feel stupid even putting it like this--then Wikipedia and its writer of such a statement is making a false assertion in order to pass off some garbage; and, maybe that was Schickele's point in the first place if it is a fiction. The point here is behavioral science--a test of gullibility. If you come out saying P.D.Q. Bach is fake without proof, just because you know better or have a gut instinct, then you're letting the cat out of the bag just because maybe you're gullible. Also, there begins an issue of the credibility of Wikipedia and its authors. It may be more comfortable for you to document what you don't know, but it isn't right. So, ultimately, I would like to see a credible source for that first sentence in this entry, firstly that P.D.Q. Bach is a fictional character and secondly that the character was created by Peter Schickele. I mean, even Peter Schickele has more evidence in saying P.D.Q. Bach exists than Wikipedia has to make its statement saying it's a fiction. Rediculous!--arthurblenheim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm; not sure whether you're just yanking our chains, or if you're arguing in an extremely roundabout way for

spoiler warnings in the article ... +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk

) 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Troll alert! - DavidWBrooks (talk

) 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is not that the article is wrong in its deduction of Peter Schickele having created P.D.Q. Bach as parody, but whether or not it's a good idea to leave the lie without refute. Think of this as a compromise if you like, seeing how there seems to be no evidence except that Schickele did not expect anyone to believe him. The basis of the article seems to be the assumption that a rational person could not believe Schickele was telling the truth, yet it is advisable in this circumstance to appreciate as well that nobody has proved him to be lying--after all, Schickele doesn't claim the music for himself. Creating an article in this way would be much more accurate to the truth of what P.D.Q. Bach represents.

If anyone at Wikipedia can so declare P.D.Q. Bach a work of fiction, let that person provide a credible citation, or the article should remain impartial to the alleged creation--the main point of this article should not be that P.D.Q. Bach is Schickele's creation, but that Schickele states by assumption the existence of P.D.Q. Bach as though it were a reality, except for the continual parody tending to assume the opposite. Don't answer the one question, because you're ruining the joke. Can you imagine if you were a t.v. interviewer and you interviewed Peter Schickele and, while he was trying to talk about the life of P.D.Q. Bach--doing all the jokes that he does in his polite demeanor--you kept forcing upon him that which everyone would already know? You'd have to be psychotic.

(One argument made by user "Nunh-huh" under "Talking Pains to Show that P.D.Q. Bach Is Fictional" compares P.D.Q. Bach and Peter Schickele to Orson Welles' 1938 radio play, "War of the Worlds." This is an inaccurate analogy to which I provide here a citation proving it as incorrect. On the Library of Congress CD entitled "Old-Time Radio: Science Fiction, Disc 1," on Track 1, "Mercury Theatre on the Air: The War of the Worlds," Orson Welles summarizes his 52-minute radio play by revealing its fiction at the precise run time of 49 minutes, 47 seconds: "This is Orson Welles, ladies and gentlemen, out of character to assure you that the War of the Worlds has no further significance than as the holiday offering it was intended to be. ..." This is a satisfactory admittance as to the legitimacy of the claim to its fiction: the narrator, Welles, admits it as such by the end of the play. The analogy is false if Schickele never admits to creating P.D.Q. Bach as a pseudonym for himself, despite any other evidence leading to the contrary on the question of the actual existence or presence of P.D.Q. Bach. But, an instance of where the lying is expected to be treated as believed is the programming of the Fox News Channel, because the network protects itself not with rules of conventional ethics on journalism, but rather protects itself with the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which protects "fictitious" works in the U.S. from where it broadcasts; but ironically, the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for that network introduces an assumption as though it were fact that the FNC is a news station, despite that the site also documents claims against that assumption, meaning Wikipedia deliberately takes a position in which it also tends to argue against itself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim (talk • contribs)

Huh. You argue that lots of

other stuff exists, but this article is already satisfactorily evocative of both the joke and the truth of the matter. The reader doesn't need a notional refutation. Binksternet (talk

) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, come to think of it, Milne never says that Winnie-the-Pooh is fictitious! Quick - rewrite the Ursus article! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference between P.D.Q. Bach from Winnie the Pooh is not that both are fictional characters, but that there was never any question as to whether or not Winnie the Pooh actually existed or not. This is not the case with P.D.Q. Bach. But, this falls away from the question that matters most: where is your citation that Schickele created P.D.Q. Bach? There is evidence of Pooh's creation, but, when it comes to Peter Schickele, Schickele discusses P.D.Q. Bach as though he were real. I know, because I saw Schickele in person. I still have the stub. He talked about P.D.Q.'s existence. This tends to argue that he exists, and that if there is any doubt as to P.D.Q.'s existence, it must be in opposition to the only person who would know that he doesn't, if Schickele did create him. This sets him apart from Milne and Pooh. As I had stated some time ago the comparison to Fox News Channel, if Wikipedia can credit the FNC as a news channel noting that people argue that it isn't, how can you state that P.D.Q. Bach is fictional? If your article on the FNC is any Wikipedia standard of conviction as to its existence, perhaps you should honor it by assuming that P.D.Q. Bach was really a music composer that people argue was fictional. The difference is that you don't have any proof that P.D.Q. Bach is real or not. But you have plenty of corroborative witnesses from inside the FNC with credible arguments that FNC programming is not news, and Wikipedia overlooks those witnesses when it establishes the FNC as a news outlet. I ask for you to prove that Schickele created P.D.Q. Bach. Just out of curiosity, when Wikipedia ignored the corroborative witnesses who state that FNC is not news, what made you decide that it's still news? Was it because the network itself insisted that it was? So I guess Fox News is a better liar, despite the proof you have in your hands that it is a fake--ignore the proof and commit Wikipedia to a lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got to assume this is a

troll. (Looking above, I see I came to the same conclusion four years ago. Such constancy is admirable.) - DavidWBrooks (talk

) 10:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interest in adding this P.D.Q. Bach composition?

In a P.D.Q. Bach performance I saw in San Diego there was one very unique piece that I think might be well worth adding to this article, however, I haven't been able to find out what it is. (It's been quite a few years since the show and I have no idea where my copy of the program is.) This particular piece's humor comes from the circumstances of its performance rather than from the music itself. Maybe someone here will recognize it. I'll try to give the idea as well as memory serves.

The piece's title indicates that it is a theme and variations of some kind. Shickele's pianist plays while Shickele acts as his page-turner. Shortly after the piece begins, the electric light illuminating the music begins flickering. It quickly becomes annoying and Shickele signals for help from backstage. His (real) stage manager enters from the wings, perfectly deadpan, dragging a bright orange extension cord. He unplugs the light and plugs it into the extension cord, at which moment all the lights in the house go out, leaving the auditorium in total darkness.

After a few seconds the normal lighting is restored and the piano light seems to be behaving. Eventually, though, it starts flickering again, producing a more agitated signaling from Shickele. The stage manager enters again, from the other side, dragging another extension cord. As before, when he plugs the light into it the house goes dark; this time, however, when the lights come up, Shickele and the pianist have exchanged places; Shickele is playing and the pianist is now page-turner (quite a trick to pull off in a few seconds, in the dark, without a break in the music).

Once again the light behaves well for a while and then starts flickering. Shickele signals; the stage manager enters with a third extension cord and plugs it in. This time, instead of the house going dark, the lectern on the stage explodes.

Now it is apparent that the theme is the misbehaving light and the variations are the different reactions to plugging it into the extension cords.

Rhsimard (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's indeed a work of art but not a composition (unless PDQ composed the music as well which I doubt) -- 62.156.56.125 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick Youtube search and didn't find anything (I am sure that Rhsimard had already done this anyway). But the person from 62.156.56.125 made a decent point. The key to this work seems to be in the performance. If we can find a video of this performance somewhere and a source for it, I think it might be best if we included it in the performances section of this page. That would seem to fit best. It is also very likely an original arrangement at very least, if not an original composition. Lexandalf (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the variation I saw at a concert at CalTech in the 1980s, Schickele was playing a bassoon duet with the pianist rather than turning pages. Jim Stinson (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to merge the MYCGOYH album article with zero secondary sources into this article. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Following the proposed deletion of Music You Can't Get Out of Your Head, I propose instead to merge that article into this article's section "Recordings". I imagine it will be difficult to do that, so a new page P. D. Q. Bach discography might be needed. That page in turn might become rather long if this proposed deletion should get extended, which will then raise the argument that it should be split – a circle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If we delete that article, then we need to delete all the other articles about albums that are listed... why is this particular article being picked out? maybe due to a person seeing the album article first, and not understanding that this is just one of many works. They are all listed here on this PDQ Bach article. My vote: Don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timshuwy (talk • contribs) 08:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thought, but feared to say it because the standard answer on Wikipedia to that is: just because

other stuff exists doesn't mean that the article under consideration is immune. So, to ward of the proposed deletion, I suggested a merge. If anyone will be taking this up and do it is another question. -- Michael Bednarek (talk

) 12:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely say that Music You Can't Get Out of Your Head should be merged with the main PDQ Bach article. The one reason is notability. The article only has one source and that is the web site of the vender (which is not considered a source toward notability). In order for a article to justify it's existence, it needs to have sources that prove that it is notable enough. 'Music You Can't Get Out of Your Head' does not. The only reason that it should not be merged is if someone thinks they can find some verifiable sources that they can add to the article. Lexandalf (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd

The "Biography" (scare quotes) section notes that "P. D. Q. Bach was born in Leipzig on March 31, 1742, the son of Johann Sebastian Bach and Anna Magdalena Bach; the twenty-first of Johann's twenty children."

In the first of the LPs that we have, it was more like "P. D. Q. Bach was born in Leipzig on March 31, 1742, the son of Johann Sebastian Bach and Anna Magdalena Bach; the twenty-first of Johann's twenty-odd children, and the oddest." Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like what I remember, and probably is worth quoting in the article. If you have the original source at hand, go ahead and add it. Reify-tech (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Would be great if anyone can find the source and add something like that. It's terribly po-faced and pompous to have the word "humorous" in that section while not giving any hint of a joke. Buster79 (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The humour would become obvious if the full sentence from his bio were quoted: "one minute after midnight". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:P. D. Q. Bach/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

several discussions in past years

, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of P. D. Q. Bach: 2008-11-21== This is an assessment of article P. D. Q. Bach by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards ( Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? Good enough. ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good enough. ===Immature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good enough. ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. Good. Presumably all of the unknown works are already listed here. ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? His musical "style" is amply discussed, but critical and popular reaction is lacking, as is any explicit mention of what composers, if any, were influenced by his work (beyond fits of giggling and laughter, that is). ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief non-free content policy ? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Only one image. Image is copyrighted, but no fair-use justification exists for its use on this page. A fair-use sound clip or two would be nice, especially of some of the more outrageous things (e.g. the reed mouthpieces from Iphigenia). Some of the manuscript images in the bio might also be fair-use included. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? An excellent reference list, although album notes and published sheet music might also be mined for "useful" "background". More details could also be teased out of the definitive biography. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:SIZE ? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) footer sections need ordering per WP:LAYOUT . Setting off the biographic details by indentation is distracting and probably unnecessary, given that the fictional nature is hammered home already. ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations ( WP:CITE ) Article needs (more) images and/or other media ( MOS:IMAGE ) Images and media have copyright/fair-use issues ( WP:IUP or more specific GA/FA criteria) Article footer material needs organization ( WP:LAYOUT ) Article text formatting needs work (e.g. quotation methods, punctuation, inconsistent styles) ===Summary=== One of my favorite composers. This article is a good start at capturing the mystery that is P.D.Q. However, more sources could be brought to bear on the subject. More space could be devoted to the concert performances of his music; anyone who has been to one (I've seen two over the years) is likely to remember some of the more outrageous aspects of them. (I in particular remember Schickele "arriving late" and swinging onto the stage from a balcony, and ongoing onstage arguments with the "stage manager" during one concert.) I personally think there is an overemphasis on the fictionality of the character. It ought to be pointed out that the "epitaph" is somewhat mistranslated (this is intentional; it's in the book that way), possibly providing a more accurate translation. His musical style is discussed, but descriptions of critical and popular reaction (both contemporaneous and modern) are limited. The major influence on his style is not really discussed (alcohol). The posthumous history of his music is not discussed at all (see e.g. Franz Schubert). Considering that none of it was found until the 20th century, and largely in North America, this is a major oversight. The article, while it has references, could use a wider array of them (see the bullet above). The footer needs to organized per WP:LAYOUT . The image currently being used lacks a fair-use rationale; this is a serious problem, as a proper rationale may not be applicable here. I found the indentation of content from the Definitive Biography distracting; the fictional nature of the character is already clear, and other sources could be used to make a rounder portrait (not that P.D.Q.'s drinking didn't help in that respect). This is a B-class article, but its potential (especially the comic sort) has not been completely realized yet. Magic♪piano 14:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on P. D. Q. Bach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723152819/http://www.presser.com/Composers/info.cfm?Name=PETERSCHICKELE to http://www.presser.com/composers/info.cfm?Name=PETERSCHICKELE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"P. D. Q." consistency

There should be a effort to unify the appearance of "P. D. Q." within the article. I've seen it presented as "P. D. Q." (with spaces between the initial letters), "P.D.Q." (no spaces), and even "PDQ" (no spaces and no periods). My personal choice would be "P. D. Q.", with intervening non-breaking spaces, so that the initials are always kept together even across line breaks. I don't know what WP style policy says about this, however. — Loadmaster (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

When was the biography published?

I'm pretty sure that the copy of The Definitive Biography of P.D.Q. Bach which I read prior to working on this article was published in 1987. An anonymous user changed it to 1976 and Amazon.com says 1977. Dmetric 18:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a copy of the biography (paperback) in my hand, and it has a copyright date of 1976. There could be a later edition, I suppose. GMcGath 01:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too have a copy -- autographed -- and it says 1976 for the copyright.Shermanbay (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The copy I have says 1976 in the front. My copy states inside the back cover, "Made in the USA/Middletown DE/21 March 2019" Psu256 (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

PDQ as "plagiarist"

Someone stuck in (as a joke, apparently) that one of PDQs genres was "plagiarism" (and his occupation as well). Someone then removed it, but I restored it. It was removed under the justification that it was a joke. But the, PDQ himself is, what? a joke, correct?

I think this may actually be appropriate for this article, as Schickele himself makes much of PDQs "appropriation" of other composer's material in his "career". Maybe if someone can dredge up a reference to this somewhere. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not a genre of music, even if the character is a plagiarist. Further, the article has to stay serious, even when talking about something that isn't serious. That should be obvious.

Atropos

02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have in my head part of a speech by Peter Schickele, at a concert, where he stated, deadpan, that the overriding characteristic of PDQ Bach's music was "manic plagiarism." That's from the horse's mouth, but I'll be damned if I can find it in a film, video or publication. Shermanbay (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Schickele said that in his own composition, "Quodlibet" (a piece made up entirely of quotes from other pieces), that he was influenced by one of PDQ Bach's primary characteristics, plagiarism. JHobson2 (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I recall P.S. saying at one of his concerts that all composers borrow from one another, but it was PDQ who invented carbon paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjprice1 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

P.D.Q. Bach as arranger and conductor

I was ripping the CD "The American Roots of the British Invasion," Varése Saraband 302 066 334 2, for my personal collection, and noticed that on the track "Universal Soldier" by Buffy Sainte-Marie, it is credited as "Arranged and Conducted by P.D.Q Bach." Has Schikele used this in other non-novelty contexts? David Fell (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)