|
'''''The Musical Offering''''' (German title '''''Musikalisches Opfer''''' or '''''Das Musikalische Opfer'''''), [[BWV]] 1079, is a collection of [[canon (music)|canon]]s and [[fugues]] and other pieces of [[music]] by [[Johann Sebastian Bach]], based on a musical theme by [[Frederick II of Prussia]] (Frederick the Great) and dedicated to him.
===[[Trolltalk]]===
==The music==
'''This is the second VfD for this article, first was 27 April 2004 - 3 May 2004, effort to delete failed. See [[Talk:Trolltalk]]'''
===The theme from the king===
The collection has its roots in a meeting between Bach and Frederick II on [[May 7]], [[1747]]. The meeting, taking place in the king's residence in [[Potsdam]], resulted from Bach's son [[Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach|Carl Philipp Emanuel]] being employed there as court musician. Frederick wanted to show a novelty to Bach: the [[pianoforte]] had been invented a few years earlier, and the king owned such experimental instrument, allegedly the first Bach ever saw. Bach, who was well known for his skill at [[improvising]], was given the following theme by Frederick to improvise a fugue upon:
[[Image:Musical offering.png|frame|none|The ''Thema Regium'' ("theme from the king")]]
"since the community is rather small and users rarely get mod points. Also, Slashdot's editors don't pay much attention to what goes on in 20721." -- Then why should an encylopedia? '''Delete''' [[User:Afcassidy|Afcassidy]] 12:48, 17 June 2005
*'''Keep'''. Trolltalk is rather known throughout the Slashdot community. Slashdot editors don't pay attention to anything, as any regular will tell you, by the number of duplicate stories and the occasional brokenness of the website, like the search feature. -- [[User:Claviola|claviola]] [[User_talk:Claviola|(talk to me)]] 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Other more influential and important online forums have had their articles deleted. TrollTalk is not noteworthy enough based on those standards. [[User:Afcassidy|Afcassidy]] 2:55, 18 June 2005
*'''Keep''', the trolltalk sid: a) is the oldest continuously used thread on Slashdot, b) has the highest post count of any thread on slashdot, despite regular purges, c) if it wasn't purged its post count would be astronomical, six figures or more, d) is the only "hidden", user-created thread left on slashdot, and as such is a historical curiousity if nothing else. Notable. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
According to the press of the day, Bach succeeded pretty well in producing an instant fugue, although he must have confided afterwards he felt not very much at ease playing the new type of instrument.
*'''Delete''', nn. --[[User:Weyes|W]]([[User talk:Weyes|t]]) 07:26, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 07:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. --[[User:Pile0nades|pile0nades]]<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pile0nades Talk] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Pile0nades Contrib]</sup> 08:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', obviously. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. You have got to be kidding me. Someone goes to the trouble of creating an free encyclopedia and some clowns just see it as an opportunity to go around telling peope that their interests are not not notable. All this information on things I don't care about is driving me crazy! I must delete it! I'm not trying to troll here, but good lord. What is wrong with you people? Addendum 17:46, Jun19, 2005: I am not a sock puppit. I am a slashdot user (http://slashdot.org/~bit%20trollent) with a normal if occasionally trollish posting history. I am not, nor is trolltalk affiliated with the GNAA. Get over yourselves. --[[User:bit trollent|bit trollent]] 17:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' -- this vote was cast shortly after a "call to arms" was posted in the Trolltalk forum (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20721&cid=12856190) asking for help to derail the VfD - you can expect many sock-puppet accounts to be created over the new few days for purposes of voting "keep" on this article. Trolltalk is affiliated with the [[Gay Nigger Association of America|GNAA]], which has used sock-puppets, spamming, and intimidation to survive four votes for deletion, bragging about "defeating Wikipedia" (http://www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikipedia) after each one.
*'''Delete.''' If sock puppets want to keep it, then it should go. [[User:P Ingerson|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:P Ingerson|P Ingerson]] [[User talk:P Ingerson|<small>(talk)</small>]] 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''—I've seen articles ten times more notable than this silliness that have been deleted. We need to stop having one standard for internet trivia and another standard for everything else. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' nn. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 15:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Del...''' I mean, '''keep''', or er, '''comment''', I guess, since I'm inevitably going to be accused to be a GNAA sock-puppet. I think you're all a bunch of retards. All of you who take this internet crap seriously. Honestly, what the hell? Go out to a club, get some woman drunk and have sex already. Trust me, you'll feel much better after you dip your shlong into a female creature for the first time, and suddenly, you won't care anymore if there's an article about trolltalk on your crappy internet encyclopaedia (which I've subtly vandalized in several ways btw, just for fun). Uh oh, but what have I just done? This comment is against wikipedia guidelines! Quick, someone nominate it on Comments for Deletion! Hahaha. Jesus. -- Who The Fuck Cares 00:01, 1 Jan 1970
**'''Comment''' -- votes from anonymous users are not counted, also, everyone should be made aware that the term "female creature" is taken directly from the movie with a very offensive title (which I won't repeat here) which the GNAA is based around. The heroes of that movie have never encountered women before, and when one of them does encounter one, they all make a big show out of shouting "female creatures!" in shock and alarm.
**'''Comment''' -- Why should we be aware of that? I can't see why anyone should care. [[User:MrVacBob|MrVacBob]] 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***'''Comment''' -- It is evidence that Trolltalk is part of (or at least strongly aligned with) the GNAA, a group that has abused Wikipedia quite extensively and gone to great measures to keep its vanity articles up and that has publically announced itself as an enemy of Wikipedia.
****'''Comment''' -- There is no evidence that trolltalk has anything to do with GNAA, other than the fact that they both troll slashdot. By all accounts GNAA hardly uses trolltalk at all, other than crapflooding it when a GNAA member is insulted. Stop with the paranoid generalizations. --[[User:Bk0|Bk0]] 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*****'''Comment''' -- <i>Trolltalk/GNAA connection</i>. Please review [http://trolltalk.111mb.com/search.php?query=GNAA these two-thousand three-hundred sixty-eight comments] and let me know what conclusions you draw from them.
******'''Comment''' A counterexample to invalidate your point: the KKK talks chiefly about blacks, but they aren't affiliated with them. Thanks for playing though.
******'''Comment''' -- Congratulations on demonstrating that GNAA members post on trolltalk. It is a PUBLIC forum, genius. Anybody can post there. By your logic, the dozens of forums that have been vandalized by the GNAA are also affiliated with the GNAA. Search slashdot for GNAA and you will find similar results. But that's not what this is really about is it? You people have a vendetta against trolls. Stop deleting perfectly accurate, valid and valuble information just because you hate trolls.
*'''Keep'''. [[User:Abortion]] 19 June 2005 [[Trolltalk]] is an informative article and not a troll. Why then, should it be deleted?
**'''Comment''' -- New user, probable sock puppet.
*'''Keep''' I don't see any reason for it to not be there. [[User:MrVacBob|MrVacBob]] 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Keep''' In retrospect, I believe that the trolltalk article should be kept. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. [[User:Afcassidy|Afcassidy]] 12:48, 17 June 2005</strike>
**'''WARNING''' -- This is a fake vote not cast by Afcassidy but by the anonymous vandal 66.82.9.80 who has vandalized this page several times. Please check all votes carefully to make sure they were actually added by the person "signing" them and not forged by the anonymous vandal, who will probably continue this foolishness. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Trolltalk&diff=15450602&oldid=15450433 Proof of vandalism.]
Two months after the meeting, Bach published a set of pieces based on this theme which we now know as ''The Musical Offering''. Bach inscribed the piece "Regis Iussu Cantio Et Reliqua Canonica Arte Resoluta" (the theme given by the king, with additions, resolved in the canonic style), the first letters of which spells out the word ''[[ricercar]]'' (an old name for a fugue).
*'''Keep''' it real now y'all
**Vote by anon user [[66.82.9.80]] [[User:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]] 17:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. No reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. (See comments below) [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 17:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[Image:Australia flag large.png|15px]] [[User:Cyberjunkie|<font color="green"><b>Cyberjunkie</b></font>]] [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|<sup><b style="font-size:74%;"><font color="gold">TALK</font></sup>]] 18:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 19:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', trollcruft, sockpuppet limit has been exceeded. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 20:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
** Oh come on, what is it with you people?? The [[slashdot trolling phenomenon]] and associated articles make for some of the best, most entertaining/informative reading on Wikipedia. The [[trolltalk]] entry is part of that. Why all this deletionist mania?? What's to be gained by eliminating good articles just because some people you dislike have contributed to them? [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 21:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***'''Comment''': This is an encyclopedia, a forum for truth and accuracy. These "troll groups" support the very opposite of truth and accuracy. I am not aware of any encyclopedia of any merit that suspends integrity and allows the publication of lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff, just because those things can be "funny". The fact that something is "all in good fun" (a matter of opinion) does not excuse any indiscretion and make it automatically acceptable for every venue. There are many appropriate places for anarchistic comedy but a serious and fact-based encyclopedia is not one of them.
****'''Comment''': If you want an encyclopedia to be a "forum for truth and accuracy," you really should prevent people from anonymously making edits to it. Also, as I am sure you're aware, because of this open nature (not preventing anonymous edits to articles), Wikipedia is considered a bit of a joke when it comes to content that encyclopedias are traditionally consulted for. This is simply an attempt by whoever started this VfD to stifle and suppress a certain demographic. If we only have articles about Slashdot, CmdrTaco and the editors et al., we're showing a certain amount of bias toward that side of site. Like it or not, Trolling is definitely a huge part of the Slashdot culture.
*** With all due respect, you are absolutely missing the point and also, I think, compromising Wikipedia's mission. Of course we do not want Wikipedia to include "lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff". If the [[trolltalk]] entry contained LNVF I would support its deletion. But it most certainly does not. The article is NOT itself a troll. Rather, it ''describes'' the activities of trolls. This is a crucial difference, and, honestly, it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. It's the same difference between an article on [[al Qaeda]], and a piece of al Qaeda propoganda. Wikipedia would obviously include the former, but exclude the latter. Would you argue for deleting the al Qaeda entry because "Wikipedia is not here to wage jihad"?? [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 21:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**While I think this article should go, I believe judging the merit of an article by whether or not sockpuppets vote to keep it is absurd, and such votes should not count. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 21:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***If an article's support comes almost entirely from sockpuppets, that's strong evidence that it's nothing by a vanity article created & maintained by the very people the article is about. Vanity articles can sometimes be hard to identify but the character & identities of the persons editing/supporting them can help to determine if an article's only purpose is self-promotion.
***Yes. It might sound absurd in theory, but in practice any article that deserves to be kept on merit, won't attract sockpuppets because it doesn't need them. Only articles that "should go" will atrract socks supporting them, because they're the only ones that need them. It's a useful rule of thumb. [[User:P Ingerson|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:P Ingerson|P Ingerson]] [[User talk:P Ingerson|<small>(talk)</small>]] 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***I think that's a crap rule of thumb. With that as our standard, we would delete every article related to Islam, the Holocaust, Ukraine, Sino-Japanese relations, and god knows what else. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 21:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***Good point, but how often do serious articles about Islam, Sino-Japanese relations, etc. get nominated for VfD in the first place? And when they do, it's usually socks wanting them deleted for not supporting their POV. And then the corollary applies: If the sockpuppets want to ''delete'' an article, it deserves to be kept. [[User:P Ingerson|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:P Ingerson|P Ingerson]] [[User talk:P Ingerson|<small>(talk)</small>]] 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***Oh, I didn't realize the rule of thumb only applied when an article was already up for deletion. I thought it was a general way of determining which articles (in VfD stage or not) were worthy of deletion. Okay, so even in this more tightly circumscribed form, and even when we invoke the corollary you describe (in which sockpuppets are voting for deletion, thereby guiding us to "keep") we must still recognize the mutliple exceptions to both the corollary and the proper rule. For example, some articles go to VfD ([[new anti-semitism]], for example) and have POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides. In these cases we must invoke an exception to the corollary of the circumscribed form of the rule. It is at this point that I think we should realize that we're better off trashing the rule altogether, and voting not based on a dubious rule-of-thumb regarding how other votes have been placed, but rather ''according to the merits of the article''. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 23:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
***But this ''isn't'' a hypothetical situation with "POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides". Is it? [[User:P Ingerson|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:P Ingerson|P Ingerson]] [[User talk:P Ingerson|<small>(talk)</small>]] 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Oops, sorry. My penis isn't small enough to contribute to this discussion. I should like to point out however that you are all being trolled by the nominator, who also posted the comment on trolltalk about this vfd, keeps vandalising this page through anon proxies and vehemently replies to all keep votes with his typical "blah blah wikipedia is what I think it should be" bullshit. GJ.
:''Unsigned comment from {{user|206.51.237.44}}, the fourth edit from that IP address.''
*'''Delete''', non-notable forum. [[User:Martg76|Martg76]] 21:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', well-known and verifiable trolling phenomenon. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 21:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' IMO, NN --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]]([[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]) 21:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Congratz to whoever just deleted a string of legitimate comments, both Keep and Delete. Here was mine: Obviously no one who believes in Wikipedia believes, as Paul M claims to, that Wikipedia should include articles on anything and everything. But it really is starting to feel like Wikipedia is being taken over by people who think the project should only include articles on topics like [[Frederick the Great]] and [[China]] and [[Atomic theory]], because these are the types of articles contained in dinosaur, Gutenberg, pre-internet encyclopedias like Brittanica. Like the hidebound architects in Ayn Rand stories who use fabulous new materials in the same tired way they used older, weaker materials. Grow an imagination, you deletionist fanatics!! [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 21:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', My ISP, Comcast has a dynamic IP system. Just because we share the same IP doesn't mean we are the same person. Wikipedia is pretty popular you know. You've grown so paranoid with vandalism you've lost your ways Wikipedia. Anyway my comment was not to keep everything. But to keep things that are useful. And indeed trolltalk is a useful article that contains information on a well-known subculture. Also I'd like to add I'm a long time slashdot user (http://slashdot.org/~Stalyn) - Paul M.
*Not notable. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot encyclopedia. May deserve a brief mention at [[Slashdot]]. <b>Delete</b> or <b>redirect</b> (and possibly merge). - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' with the main Slashdot article. [[User:Cleduc|Cleduc]] 00:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', sockpuppet magnet. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 01:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' not notable, or merge in [[Slashdot]]. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' non notable forum. [[User:JamesBurns|JamesBurns]] 06:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', please do not feed the trolls. —[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] 09:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', sockpuppetry [[User:Proto|Proto]] 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Notable part of internet/slashdot culture. Useful article, informative. --[[User:Timecop|Timecop]] 11:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', more notable articles have faced deletion than this thing. let it go. 12:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**You say that like it's a good thing. Stop deleting notable articles. You do not own wikipedia, and are yourselves neither notable, nor especially good judges of notability.
***You know that for sure? If sounds a lot like a [[WP:NPA|Personal Attack]] on a lot of these voters to me. --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]]([[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]) 12:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
****These are the same people who call non-sockpuppets sockpuppets. I voted to keep and was instantly mis-identified as a sock puppet by one of these crack investigators. Many voters seem to not have even read the trolltalk entry. They make false accusations about GNAA association, and persue vendettas against trolls in general which clouds this vote. Their judgement deeserves to be questioned.
****(Unsigned Post by Bit trollent)
*****To quote [[WP:NPA]] "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." So frankly, that doesn't matter. There is never an excuse. Besides, if you are not a sockpuppet, your contributions prove you are a [[WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22|Meatpuppet]]. --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]]([[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]) 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
******Meatpuppet?! You have just made a personal attack! Rather than respond to what you said, I will just express my outrage at your personal attack. Do not do it! Do not read it! Delete it! --[[User:bit trollent|bit trollent]]
*******"Meatpuppet" is an accepted term in a Wikipedia policy. ([[WP:SOCK]]) If you object to it, I suggest you either try to change Wikipedia's Sock Puppet policy or else make some serious contributions. --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]]([[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]) 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===Structure, instrumentation===
In its finished form, ''The Musical Offering'' comprises:
*Two ricercars, written down on as many [[Musical staff|stave]]s as there are voices:
** a ricercar a 6 (a six voice fugue)
** a ricercar a 3 (a three voice fugue)
*Ten [[canon (music)|canon]]s
*A four-movement [[trio sonata]] featuring the [[flute]], an instrument which Frederick played.
Apart from the trio sonata, which is written for flute, [[violin]] and [[basso continuo]], the pieces have few indications of which instruments are meant to play them.
<br><br><br>
'''Attention''': If [[trolltalk]] is delete I'm gonna off myself with a shotgun. My life is worthlesss but [[trolltalk]] keeps me from looking too deeply into the abyss. Please take this into consideration when voting/deciding. What follows here is a suicide note should you decide to delete it anyway:<br>
The ricercars and canons have been realised in various ways: The ricercars are frequently performed on keyboard instruments, an ensemble of [[chamber music]]ians with alternating instrument groups, comparable to the instrumentation of the trio sonata, often playing the canons. But also recordings on one or more keyboard instruments (piano, harpsichord) exist, as well as with a more ample orchestra-like instrumentation.
--<br>
<br>
As the printed version gives the impression to be organised for (reduction of) page turning when sight-playing the score, the order of the pieces intended by Bach (''if'' there was an intended order), remains uncertain.
I'm sorry people, I just couldn't take it anymore. I leave all my meager possesions to my best (and only) friend Timmy. I love you mom, dad. Even though oft times were difficult I don't blame you for anything. I made a conscious and informed decision to end my life. I feel a lot of things went wrong in my life, but this isn't one of them. <br>
<br>
===Musical riddles===
See you on the other side,<br>
Some of the canons of the Musical Offering are represented in the original score by not more than a short monodic melody of a few measures, with a more or less enigmatic inscription in [[Latin]] above the melody. These compositions are called the '''''riddle fugues''''' (or sometimes, more appropriately, the ''riddle canons''). The performer(s) is/are supposed to interpret the music as a multi-part piece (a piece with several intertwining melodies), while solving the "riddle". Some of these riddles have been explained to have more than one possible "solution", although nowadays most printed editions of the score give a single, more or less "standard" solution of the riddle, so that interpreters can just play, without having to worry about the Latin, or the riddle.
Joseph<br>
--<br>
One of these ''riddle canons'', "in augmentationem" (i.e. the length of the notes gets longer), is inscribed "Notulis crescentibus crescat Fortuna Regis" (may the fortunes of the king increase like the length of the notes), while a [[Modulation (music)|modulating]] canon which ends a tone higher than it starts is inscribed "Ascendenteque Modulationis ascendat Gloria Regis" (may the king's glory rise like the ascending modulation).
{{unsigned2|11:44, 20 Jun 2005|24.207.210.2}}
==Reception==
Little is known about how Frederick would have received the score dedicated to him, and whether he tried to solve any riddle or played the flute part of the trio sonata. Frederick's musical taste supposedly did not very much cherish ''complicated'' music, and soon after Bach's visit he was on his next war campaign, so it is possible it was not well received.
==20th century adaptations and citations==
===Arrangements===
The "Ricercar a 6" has been arranged on its own on a number of occasions, the most prominent arranger being [[Anton Webern]], who in [[1935]] made a version for small [[orchestra]], noted for its [[Klangfarbenmelodie]] style (i.e. melody lines are passed on from one instrument to another after every few notes, every note receiving the "tone color" of the instrument it is played on):
[[Image:Webern's Ricercar arrangement opening.PNG|550px|The opening of Webern's arrangement of "Ricercar a 6"]]
===As reference===
''The Musical Offering'' is cited and deliberately interpreted by [[Douglas Hofstadter]] in his famous book ''[[Gödel, Escher, Bach]]''.
==See also==
* [[Johann Sebastian Bach]]
* [[List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach]]
* [[Bach compositions printed during the composer's lifetime]]
* [[Perpetuum mobile]]
* [[Canon_%28music%29]]
* [[Fugue]]
== External links ==
* [http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/musoffcanons.html Canons of the Musical Offering]
* The [[Mutopia Project]] has some of the music of [http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/make-table.cgi?preview=1&searchingfor=1079&Composer=BachJS&Instrument=&Style=&timelength=1&timeunit=week&lilyversion= The Musical Offering]
[[Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach]]
[[fi:Musikalisches Opfer]]
[[de:Musikalisches Opfer]]
[[hu:Musikalisches Opfer]]
[[ja:音楽の捧げもの]]
| 