Talk:P. D. Q. Bach

Entry

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)

Taking Pains to show P.D.Q. Bach is fictional

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. User:Marcus2 added a categorization to this page: 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)

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)

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)

La Prima Vera

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)

Origins of name

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)

Einstein on the Fritz

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)

Musical Parodies

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)

Changes of 4 March 2007

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)

Something intresting

• 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 unsigned comment was added by 74.103.11.210 (talk) 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)

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)

Weird Al of Classical Music

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)

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)

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) 11 February 2008

USND at Hoople

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)}

1807-1742

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)}

Baden-Baden link

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 Baden-Baden-Baden page that explained the joke. We already have Tromboon and 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)

Composer project review

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 non-free fair-use rationale. 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)

Fixed Birth/Death Dates

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)

Let's kill the Infobox

I suggest we just kill the infobox, which is designed to portray information about real people, not characters. (Do we have an infobox for Captain Kangaroo? I don't think so!) This will have the added advantage of ending the ridiculously endless tussle over the birth/death date order, which is pretty absurb for a fictional character. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable request. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried reducing it to relevant information (labels, instruments) - not sure it works, to be honest. Maybe just killing it would be best. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "inappropriate tone"

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 boldness. --Smack (talk) 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)

Does anyone else perform P. D. Q. Bach?

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)

Proposed merger from Lasso d'amore

By the same logic that the afd for Tromboon mentioned at the top of the page, led to a merger here, then Lasso d'amore 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)

article on Iphigenia in Brooklyn

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 The Wurst of P. D. Q. Bach, Peter Schickele Presents an Evening with P. D. Q. Bach (1807–1742?), and at of course 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)

Dates

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)

Date of "The Wurst of P.D.Q. Bach"

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)

Merger proposal

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)

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)