This article is about Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, J. S. Bach's Cantata No. I, which - as you probably know - means nothing chronological, but that it was selected to be No. 1 in the first attempt to print all of his works 100 years after his death. It is a chorale cantata on a beloved hymn. Bach planned a complete yearly cycle of such cantatas for his second year in the Leipzig office of Thomaskantor, but this one, for Annunciation (to Mary that she'd bear a child, so 9 months before Christmas, 25 March) became the last one, possibly because the librettist died. Annunciation was the only occasion during the long period of Lent for which festive cantata music was allowed.
We have already several featured articles on Bach's cantatas, including one about a chorale cantata (Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125). This one had a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2016, and a recent peer review with little attention. I'd like this article to be as good as can be because it is linked from the most profound database around Bach's works, Bach Digital, - look for the little blue Where, - please help. - On Wikipedia's 20th birthday, Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments below, we have split the details of the recordings section to a separate article, as before for BWV 4. Please be patient with that article to grow, and the section here to be just a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this up, hopefully with comments by tomorrow evening. Ovinus (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overarching comments
I'm unfamiliar with naming conventions for Bach's work. In my understanding, "BWV" is an organization/compendium of Bach's music? In that case, shouldn't the article title just be Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern and move the hymn it's based on to Wie ... Morgenstern (hymn), since I doubt there is another piece to confuse it with?
The cantatas are uniformly named since a 2010 discussion. The hymn came first, the cantata was derived. --GA
Sounds good!
I'm thinking about the lead, which was hard for me to fully understand. As an FA I'd like it to be really accessible, but I also understand that this article is one that an excited newbie to Bach chorales (hint, me!!) would be unlikely to visit. Hopefully others can weigh in, but in my mind it should give more context or be organized slightly differently.
You mean "Bach chorale cantatas". There are practically no chorale tunes by Bach, but hundreds of four-part settings of the tunes of others, which might be called Bach chorales. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining! Well... as you can plainly see, I'm unfamiliar with all this, but hopefully that will help us make a widely understandable article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Bach composed it in his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, where the Marian feast was the only occasion during Lent when festive music was permitted. I think this sentence would be more appropriate for opening the third paragraph.
I think the extra weight of a cantata performance after weeks of "fasting" should come sooner. --GA
Sure, but I think we should give some more context for our non-Christian readers. I'll think about this.
Is the Marian feast the same as the feast of the Annunciation? In my understanding there are multiple Marian feasts
It's to avoid repetition, and to explain to those who still don't know that it IS a Marian feast. We could say this Marian feast, if it helps. --GA
I think "this Marian feast" would be clearer, but I'd be fine with just "the feast".
I think the wikilink to theme should be removed because it goes to something literary, not musical
At this point, it is the theme/topic in a narrative sense, not a musical theme. --GA
Oh duh!! Can we just say "The hymn suits..."
three vocal soloists maybe three solo vocalists ?
convince me ;) - we also have the two violin soloists, - how would you call those then? --GA
A Google ngram shows the two choices have nearly equal prevalence, but I'd prefer the latter for parallelism with two solo violins later in the sentence.
vocalist redirects to Singing, but then says it's rather used for jazz and popular music, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that connotation! Okay, keep the original
continuo I've heard of "basso continuo" but somehow never heard it shortened to continuo. Would spelling it out in full be fine?
We don't do that in the other cantata articles. Th uninitiated might confuse it with double bass. We could use b.c. but I'd find that less clear. --GA
The double bass...? I'll again have to think about the intended audience of this article. It's a prospective FA, so I'd like the lead to be pretty accessible. I'll go over it again after reading the full article.
retaining the hymn's first and last stanzas unchanged I think we should make clear that the usual procedures for Bach's second cycle specifically included retaining the first and last stanzas unchanged. As it reads right now, it sounds like the hymn was paraphrased for each cantata, but not necessarily in this specific way.
We do that in the body. I wonder if the concept of a Bach chorale cantata (linked, and this thing explained in the lead) should be repeated in individual cantata leads (40!), - boring for those who know that, and want to know about this specific piece.
Sure, but the sentence as it stands is a bit vague on this and leaves the reader (er, me at least) a bit puzzled. How about As usual for Bach's second cantata cycle, the hymn was paraphrased by a contemporary poet retaining the hymn's first and last stanzas unchanged, but transforming the themes of the inner stanzas to a sequence of alternating recitatives and arias. Alternatively, as you say it may not be important to repeat it on each article
that's more or less what I read, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I quoted so much. The only difference is the removal of the comma after "poet", which grammatically means the entire section portion is usual for the cycle (but is still readable).
English/American commas will remain a mystery to me. Please, you fix it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Philipp Nicolai's hymn "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" (1599) I think it might help readers if we do Based on Philipp Nicholai's 1599 hymn of the same name and not wikilink hymn; I don't think this lead is understandable to those who don't know what a hymn is
I think a link to hymn might help especially those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in a spirit of longing expectation of an arrival "in a spirit of" has a lot of imprecise meanings to me. Could we say "evoking the feeling of longing expectation of an arrival" or "representing the longing expectation of an arrival".
English is not my first language, I am thankful for guidance in such matters. Spirit still seems to evoke more the "representing", but I may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be more clear for the uninformed that this arrival is the feast. (Right?) So maybe "representing the longing expectation of an arrival—the feast."
Well, the arrival is not the feast, but will be the announced birth on Christmas. Do we have to say that? ... as in the body --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't understand that either. I think it's very important for context
Last thing for now: crowns the closing chorale. What do you mean by "crowns"?
Well, perhaps a too literal translation from German, short for what the source has: "In the splendid final chorale, however, the horns are to the fore. Whereas the other instruments move together with the vocal lines, the second horn acts independently and, with its signal-like motifs, lends an air of baroque festive splendour to the concluding strophe". Usually at this point, a closing choral is simple, four vocal parts and the instruments playing with them. This is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Thomaskantor italicize? From what I understand, the Thomaskantor is the director of the Thomanerchor group in particular? I would appreciate if this was clarified
It isn't. Thomaskantor implies all these duties, at least during Bach's time. I am not sure about italics, - we wouldn't have Generalmusikdirektor italic, no, or in general German titles which have an article (or redirect). --GA
Suggestion: In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He was employed by the town of Leipzig to this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training and education of boys singing in the Thomanerchor. The second sentence duplicates some information from the first, so how about In 1723, Bach was appointed as the Thomaskantor in Leipzig, making him responsible for the music of four Leipzig churches and for the training and education of those in the Thomanerchor, a boys' choir group.
Not convinced yet. The Thomanerchor is one of best-known choirs in the world, - I don't think we need to explain. We wouldn't for The Beatles, I guess. --GA
I would explain for The Beatles too. Sadly, I've never heard of the Thomanerchor before.
did you enjoy the article on Thomaskantor then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did! It's crazy to me that such an old choir is still singing together. Listened to a 2000 recording of theirs of "Weihnachtsoratorium (Kantate IV)", though I'm not sure where that cantata (?) lies in Bach's life. Maybe we can discuss more on your talk.
for these occasions I think we should move the preceding comma and use "for liturgical events" for clarity
"event" sounds strange for a performance during a church service ;) - changed, and "liturgical" repeated the second time. --GA
text and tune Is tune the formal word to use here? What does it mean
Yes, see link. A hymn tune is a certain melody, to which sometimes several songs are sung. Old 100th, for example. This hymn's tune is also used for other hymns. --GA
25 March, nine months before Christmas Is the nine months important?
Yes, explaining why celebrated then, duration of normal pregnancy. It could be removed if you feel strongly about it. --GA
I didn't make that connection... could this be explained?
While the name of the librettist I think "identity" is more appropriate here
taken --GA
his death in January 1725 would explain that Bach lost a competent collaborator and inspiration This feels like a non sequitur or maybe just unrelated. Do you mean "his death in January 1725 would explain the end of Bach's cycle?"
yes and no, - he could have proceeded with someone else, but seems to have wanted this particular one, - open to suggestions --GA
How about his death in January 1725—for Bach, the loss of a competent collaborator—may explain the end of the second cycle.
I change a bit, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The composer returned to other texts I think we can just say "Bach" instead of "The composer"
... but we just said Bach the previous half-sentence --GA
I'm not hard pressed about this one, but I just like the sound of "Bach" better than "The composer". To be more figurative about this change, why describe him in such banal terms as "the composer"?
What do you suggest? "He" would be ambiguous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what was in me that day. "The composer" is probably better... I think I was just confusing myself. Sorry! Ovinus (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
meant so much to him For formal tone, "was so important to him"
taken, even if - to me - it sounds more commonplace, - my translator also also offers "significant" --GA
and in later years added Can we just say "and later added" ?
I think it might be interesting that it wasn't just writing missing ones the following year but a process over several years, - one here, one there, up to 1735. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find that fascinating. How about and sporadically, over the next ten years, added ?
I added some, please check. Next will be that someone will ask for a source ;) - I just looked at the years in the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the Thomanerchor: Looking at Erschallet,_ihr_Lieder,_erklinget,_ihr_Saiten!_BWV_172, one of your earlier FAs, the Thomanerchor isn't mentioned. Is that sentence necessary, since we don't talk about the boys' group at all?
That was my first FA, and a long time ago, - perhaps better compare to BWV 125, the most recent, or even BWV 56 which didn't make FA but I remember good discussions. We talked about the group in the background section, and it's mentioned in recordings (without italics, no need for choirs to be italic, even if foreign language), and I like to hint at the tradition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue the review soon. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A festive scoring like this, including brass It's unclear why the instrumentation is inherently festive; is it because it includes brass?
"normal" was just strings and oboes, and anything more was "festive" --GA
I changed the table to use {{music}}, let me know if that's okay
ok --GA
The sparkle of the morning star is illustrated Putting quotes around "sparkle of the morning star" would help readers understand what you mean
not sure I understand, and it's not me but a source author who means something ;) --GA
Is there any more information about movements 2 through 6?
probably, give me some time, please. - history: Mincham has much detail, but was not accepted as reliable by some, and Gardiner was available online only by Bach Cantatas Website which was regarded as illegal copying. I'll check them out. --GA
Manuscripts & publication
copies of the vocal and instrumental parts are extant, and held by the Bach Archive in Leipzig Can we just say copies of the vocal and instrumental parts are held by the Bach Archive in Leipzig ?
I added a "but" after the preceding "lost", thinking it's clearer --GA
This set of performance parts is marked as original source at the Bach Digital 1 website, Is this "marking" bit necessary? I think it's a bit confusing
Francis Schonken added that, and it's explained in the next half-sentence, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ovinus, are you feeling able to either support or oppose yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: A reluctant oppose until the discography thing is resolved, at which point I'd need to review once more. Seems to be a sourcing problem? I don't really want to wade into this... :( Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it over the weekend - but first the hymn tune requested by Mirokado, and I believe a short summary here is what will remain, with a separate article about the details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of the cantata is given as 25 minutes Given by whom? Bach himself?
no, the source :) - this is a standard wording, of course the duration varies due to conductor mood, but we take them all from Dürr, so it gives an idea --GA
To me this sentence implies Bach said so. How about "One author gives the duration of the cantata as 25 minutes" or "Dürr gives ... minutes"
You seem to be the only one to think so. In all FAs about Bach cantatas, we don't give that much attention to who said it, and - as explained - it's only relative anyway. - If I had meant that Bach saids so, I would have said so, in active voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I'm not thoroughly convinced but the other FA I checked had it as you said. I see that Dürr is a really helpful source in these articles, heh! Ovinus (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
firstly, its text ... well-crafted and mature This sentence scares me; I can't tell whether it's grammatically sound. Perhaps it could be split up?
I thought by saying it will be three, and then have firstly to finally, it's structured enough. I'm afraid that if we split it , we may loose where Leisinger's reasoning ends. Or what would you suggest?
Take a look at what I did? I separated the three reasons with semicolons.
It was changed, see what you think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glorious!!
possibly in 1927 I find this a bit odd? Do we know a definite time range, say 1920s? Or is that all the source gives
As you probably saw the source gives "(1927?)" (at the bottom of the left page.) - What can we do? How much does it matter?
Didn't see the source, sounds good!
I also made a few small changes that I hope you find innocuous. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ovinus, and sorry for having been a little nervous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also replied. (Please read the essay by RexxS about indenting, available here, - can't remember the long name. I fixed it above.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thx for that; I've always just kind of derped around with indentation. Ready to support. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The number of violins in the infobox doesn't match up with the number in the text
Do you think the two solo violins should appear in the infobox? --GA
Could just say "violins". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but a key feature of the sound of this particular cantata are the two solo violins, - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 4 subsection is short on sources
Which one do you mean? Recordings? For more than one cantata, we made a separate article discography. Perhaps that might be an idea here. --GA
Sorry, not sure how "recordings" ended up in this point - was referring to the subsection titled "4". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I looked at the TOC, where 4 is Recordings. Will supply refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is fine. Don't think having one-sentence subsections makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard for higher quality articles on Bach's cantatas to have a section for each movement. There's not much to say about a short recitative, about also no natural combination to the previous and following movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is best for one article may not work for another. Maybe it is appropriate in other articles to have separate sections for each movement, but this article would be better served by a unified approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a series, and a unified approach concerns them all. The sections will grow (because I found a new ref), just the recitative will always remain short. --GA
Requiring all BWV articles to be organized in the same way serves this particular article poorly. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the table of recordings, the OCLC links do not consistently support all of the details in the table - for example, the use of period instruments. In other cases the information provided at the link actively contradicts what is in the table - for example the second entry lists a label of Erato, but the link indicates World Record Club and doesn't mention Erato at all
I was a bit in a rush, - several were reissued. I'll look again. All recordings are sourced to the Bach Cantatas Website, but now we have a critic who doesn't accept that as a reliable source. --GA
Werner has an entry mentioning ERATO now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the general point still stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current plan is to split the detailed recordings section off, and replace it by a summary, as previously done in BWV 4 and the Monteverdi vespers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the Bach Digital links not sorted into subsections of Cited sources, as the other sources are?
Bach Digital is the source of sources for these works, and should not be hidden somewhere at the bottom. That's what we did in other cantata FAs. --GA
Sorry, don't follow - it is a cited source and not solely a general reference, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
K. Still not entirely sure why it needs its own header, as opposed to just being a web source like the other web sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In older Bach cantata FAs (172, 4), the position was held by scores, sources for the music. In the meantime, we have Bach Digital, where you can see facsimiles of what was handwritten at Bach's time, - that's not any web source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that what is actually being cited to these sources though is supported not by the scores but by the information on the site itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes --GA
So in this context then it is a web source, not some other thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you ordering book sources?
I try alpha by author, but made a mistake, fixed, thank you. --GA
Why does the formatting of short cites differ between the two Bach Digital sources?
do you mean the year? We could make it 2021 consistently. --GA
No, I mean one includes an ID number and the other does not - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both have an ID number now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter titles shouldn't be italicized
you mean I should use "chapter", not "title"? --GA
In the context of {{cite book}} |title= is used for the title of the book. Since in this case you are using it to cite a chapter, yes, should be |chapter=. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done for Dürr/Jones and Jones --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Petzoldt: is this an authorized republication?
tricky question. I believe that it's more helpful to an English-speaking audience than the German original. I found it in Thomaskantor where it must have been for years. --GA
I don't disagree that it would be more useful, but unfortunately if it's not authorized our hands are tied as per Wp:LINKVIO. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jones: why include page number in both short and full cite?
I'd like to link to the section about the cantata, and mention those pages in the full cite, but there are other more general facts referenced to other pages. Help? --GA
I only see one citation to that work, which is to that same page. Are there meant to be others? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I confused Jones' own book with the translation of Dürr. I now cited two pages, giving the beginning of the chapter as initial link, and using para chapter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Zahn including publication location when it was not mentioned for the other sources?
because Francis Schonken entered that one. --GA
Yes, well. It does need to be made consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't like to remove something which someone else added, and may be useful for some readers. How would I find locations for books that I know by Google? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This information would typically be found on the copyright page of each book, or sometimes elsewhere in the volume. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Terry: link provided doesn't match bibliographic details listed
same, and I am not sure I understand the question. --GA
If you click the link provided for Terry, it doesn't go to a work by Terry, it goes to the book by Wolff - in other words, the link is a different work than what is actually being cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake, that ref came without any link, and when I formatted, I overlooked that. Fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bischof: don't see date at link provided. Ditto Dellal, check others
when a site doesn't offer a date, I use access-date, as done for Bach Digital. --GA
Using accessdate is fine, but if the site doesn't include a date the citation shouldn't be including |date=. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am lazy. If date is filled, a sfn ref is easy, if not it needs to be defined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but when laziness extends to adding detail to a reference that isn't in the source, that becomes a problem... Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removed, at least I vaguely remember that some added that years ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I see there have been extensive changes since my review, including to sourcing; could you please ping me when the article is more stable so I can revisit? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One reviewer asked for sources to the discography, the next for more detail on the hymn, and first also for reception. I am willing to oblige. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting after recent edits:
Would suggest value statements like "morning star is a good image for the heavenly light" would benefit from in-text attribution
Attributed, but then also quoted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the parenthesis end where the quote ends? If so, can it be added? There are a few other spots that would benefit from attribution because they are either value statements or interpretation - for example the "It is unclear..." line in the previous section. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thank you, added, and it's followed by a full stop but I understand that is preferred outside the quote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting the latter part of this point: interpretive statements like the "It is unclear" line would benefit from in-text attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN9: is this fact not available in secondary sources?
It is a secondary source, no? - I hope that ref numbers are still the same, I see it for more chorale text than biblical in the chorale cantata cycle, which is almost self-evident. --GA
Now FN5 - Britannica. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder actually why we need any ref for the fact that 25 March is 9 months before Christmas, but Aza24 asked, and I explained, below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Aza24 asked for an explanation of the significance of the time period - I'm not seeing that this sourcing was requested, have I missed it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either include locations for all books, or don't - this should be consistent. If they are to be included please check that they are accurate - Columbia University Press is not in Columbia
FN34 is too broad a page range. Also how are you deciding whether page numbers appear in short vs long citations?
I added now the precise link to p. 91 (FN34) and p. 94 (FN35), but think the range of the chapter is good to know for someone who wants more background. --GA
Okay, but the broader question still stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I try to give the page in the short citation, but rather than giving no page in the full citation, I try to indicate where the relevant chapter begins, like for Dürr/Jones the beginning (to end) of the chapter covering the cantata, although other facts may come from elsewhere in the book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN40 is missing page(s)
added, my bad --GA
University of Hamburg is a publisher, not a work, and shouldn't be italicized. Check for other problems of this kind.
sorry, copied blindly --GA
Still issues here - for example BIS is unitalicized one time and italicized another (shouldn't be). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:ELCITE citation template shouldn't be used in External links, and how are you deciding which links to include here?
Some links there are former refs, and one was restored to ref, per Mirokado. Why does it matter, just for curiosity? It looks the same to the reader. --GA
I moved them to Further reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"subscription required" should be indicated separately, not within the work title parameter, although the link appears to be accessible without subscription anyway?
removed - it works now. After I had looked at several reviews from the site, I was requested to subscribe, but not again recently. --GA
Check alphabetization of Periodicals
good catch --GA
Kenney is an editor, not an author - check for others
Kenney changed --GA
Why include |via= for Qucosa but not other sources?
You'd have to ask Francis Schonken. I removed it. --GA
There are no citations to Terry or Harnoncourt
Terry is now in the hymn, Harnoncourt in discography, - thank you for noticing --GA
Hofmann is listed under Online sources, but has no online link - should not be in this section
If the claim made in that removal is correct, then the source will need to be cited as not online. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that the quotation by the Bach Cantatas Website of the liner notes is against the will of the publishers, - they could have requested removal a decade ago. Francis Schonken believes otherwise, and my appetite to argue with him is zero. I believe further that a link would help our readers to verify, but. Moving for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that you've moved it, but I'm not sure liner notes are well placed in a Book category either. What about splitting Print/Online rather than Books/Periodicals/Online? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, moving news to online, because available, but of course they were first printed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dörffel link does not seem to match with bibliographic details provided
sorry, copied and url not removed. - The source is on IMSLP, and one has to download it to access. --GA
New link suggests there is another editor to be credited? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN43: the list at the source doesn't appear to be in a particular order
in what order would you think? --GA
The citation is supporting the claim that this work "appeared as No. 4", suggesting fourth-most favourite or the like. Since it seems that the list is not in ranked order, I would suggest reframing to just say it was one of the fifteen on all three lists. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are listed with ranking, but as you wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you ordering online sources without authors?
alpha by publisher but made a mistake --GA
Harnoncourt: the given link does not provide access to the liner notes
not used, see above - I got this far, but need to interrupt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Hamburg source appears to be a republication - if this is an authorized republication, the citation should include details of the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the booklet from Hänssler, but I can't find that. How is this instead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear anything has changed since my most recent responses. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and made some changes, but it's long, - please let me know if I misunderstood or overlooked something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the questions, I'll reply soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For easier recognisability, I'll name the sources: 1) Mincham, 2) Dahn, 3) Bach Cantatas Website, 4) Dellal. All four have in common that they cover details in an accessible way, and that they are used selectively in the article.
Mincham - the website was introduced to project Classical music in 2010, and pros and cons discussed (can be found in the project archives, nutshell: use with care). My pros: he has many music examples to offer (more than Dürr/Jones), and right next to explanations, which I find may be easier to access, especially for lay readers, than turning to a score, possibly handwritten in old clefs. He has been frowned upon by Brian Boulton who knew him personally, found him nice but no authority, but was used heavily as a source for articles by others, see BWV 28 (mostly by Nikkimaria).
Dahn - the website is focused on the chorale settings by Bach, offers the precise four-part setting, with background information about a hymn's history, but is used exclusively to easily show the music. This could be under external links, but would there be harder to connect to the movement in question.
Bach Cantata Website - the page from that website was the key source for our article when it was begun in 2005, and still in 2009. It just is the best source I'd know about details of recordings, such as who played the oboes in a certain recording. It would be silly to leave readers suddenly without that. Again, it could go to external links, but then the connection to the recordings - the only place where it is referred to - would be harder to make. - As the site has been under fire, all recordings also come with an entry on WorldCat, and I can look for reviews in addition.
Dellal - Pamela Dellal translated all of Bach's works with text, and - may Jones forgive me - often does it better than in the Dürr/Jones. She is referenced only for her quoted translations, which add to understanding the content.
Looking at other Bach cantata FAs: Dahn was not used because he was not yet know, Mincham was used less from 2015 when Brian had commented:
WP:SELFPUB source; seems to pass the policy requirement "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[1] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[2]"
It is stated in the BWV 1#Movements section: "... the musicologist Julian Mincham ..." (emphasis added) – I could however not find a source yet confirming that Mincham is actually a musicologist (heading a music department is not the same as being a musicologist)
reliable source in the context, with the caveat that Mincham shouldn't be called a "musicologist" unless reliable sources demonstrate that this is correct.
Dahn's bach-chorales website:
WP:SELFPUB source which seems to pass the policy requirement quoted in the first bullet of #1 above.
Weakest point of this source is, imho, that it relies on bach-cantatas (see #3 below) for understanding the German-language sources on which it relies (the problem being rather in poor understanding of German leading to misunderstandings/misrepresentations than in the underlying German-language sources themselves). This problem appears however limited to German sources about the origin of hymns (hymn texts and chorale melodies) when there are no up-to-date English-language sources about these hymns.
reliable source in the context, with the caveat that, generally, information about the history of the hymns modelling for Bach's compositions should always be double-checked (occasionally a German-language source about the history of such hymn is misrepresented)
Bach-cantatas website by Oron, Braatz, and others:
That the source is quoted elsewhere, in more reliable sources, is independent of the assessment of this source (and the assessment of the sources quoting bach-chorales.com)
not a reliable source
Dellal's translations at emmanuelmusic.org:
Emmanuel Music seems to tick all boxes of a reliable source (at least I can't see a single of such boxes that wouldn't be ticked).
Dellal's translations have the advantage of being in up-to-date English, compared to more stolid translations that can be found elsewhere.
^Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:
The University of California, Berkeley library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."
@Ealdgyth: I have recently helped upload the brand new image for the infobox of BWV 1. I agree with User:Gerda Arendt and User:Nikkimaria that the Bach Cantatas website is a reliable source, particularly for discussions of recordings. It is listed in the encyclopedic book on the Cantatas of J S Bach by Alfred Dürr and Richard D. P. Jones. For English translations, some care is sometimes needed with metrical vs literal translations. The English libretto by Mervanwy Roberts in the Breitkopf & Härtel edition might not be ideal—it seems stilted. The literal translations of the edition of John Eliot Gardiner/Christoph Wolff can often be used as the basis of a home-brewed literal translation. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find I'm convinced by #2 and #4. We need to remember that the FA standard is "high quality" and while #1 and #3 may meet the WP:RS standard, I'm still not seeing that they meet the FA criteria of high quality. Note that I don't take account of what may have happened at other articles or in the past or at other FACs... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can live without #1. But, as explained, #3 was The Source for this article from 2005, and is used as a backup only, supported also by other sources. Removing it entirely seems like separating a child from its mother, denying that she was the mother, although the relationship was visible to the world for 15+ years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, building on your analogy: maybe time this article grew up, start a life in its own right (... as a FA) & stopped living under its parent's tutelage? Anyway, don't think an article promoted to FA in 2021 should still use Bach Cantatas Website as if it were a reliable source. Sorry. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I grow up, I don't deny who my mother was, and don't eradicate her memory. I am thankful to the editors before me who built the recordings section based on BCW, and have no intention to hide that. Rather no FA. - I will work on your "citation required", but probably not today. A remark here that you think they need a citation would look better to out readers than tags in the article, imho. Today, I want to improve Arik Brauer further. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Rather no FA" – is that official? I really think it better to make the decision about BCW without further delay, in order not to create false expectations... --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking to Ealdgyth about BCW, and would appreciate if you would not change the article until we reach a conclusion. We have time, Ealdgyth has to schedule TFA February, and I have to improve "my" article, and there's no danger with BCW in the article as it was from the beginning. Kindly self-revert for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but there is no exception for "mother source" in the criteria. You're welcome to convince me that the two sources meet the "high quality" reliable source and thus the FA criteria, but I can't see how these sources right now satisfy the requirement. And personal feelings of "honoring a mother" quite honestly have no place in editing wikipedia. That's not how we source things. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved them to external links, to prevent Francis Schonken getting in trouble for edit warring. I miss Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That resolves my concerns. Unwatching now. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't thank me because I removed them for his sake, before I saw your comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the discography has now been spun off to Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 discography. The problems relating to the Bach Cantatas Website source have been re-introduced there. That being another problem altogether, I do think that the current "Recordings" section of the BWV 1 article is rather shortish (apart from a still unresolved sourcing issue), anyway too short for a FA (one-paragraph main sections are a bit of a layout issue too): this could be addressed by expanding the recordings section a bit, or by a more integrated "Reception" section. I'd leave it to the FAC initiator to address the issue ASAP, with whatever means they think appropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see a general explanation (as of when the split was made) at the top? The new article will be developed, and then this summary will be adjusted. Today, I need to work first on the article of a Recent death biography which can not wait. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Almost all editors today have been making helpful edits to the new discography article. At the same time, tags have been added to the discography article. Too many tags indicates poor quality; so a poor quality article cannot be merged into a WP:GA. Theoretically the same problem applies to BWV 4 amd its separate discography. Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little new to the FA side of things, so take this all with a grain of salt.
also with a designation for a Marian feast which made it acceptable also for Catholic performers and musicologists The second "also" may be unecessary.
Should there be a comma after In 1725?
That's all I can comment on. Nice work. ~ HAL333 01:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gerda. I hope to read through the article over the next few days.
Thomaskantor: italicised in the lead, not in two later sections. I think without italics is better, since italics are being used for work titles and this is a position. (The linked article has the same problem, with the title and some occurrences without italics, but italics for the bold occurrence in the lead).
§Hymn: Can you say a bit more about the original tune for Nicolai's chorale than just the Zahn number? For example, the composer, or say it is traditional or composer unknown or whatever.
I'll see. Traditionally, it was believed that Nicolai wrote both text and tune, but now Zahn says the tune is older, I'll check, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that out, and fixed it already in the hymn article. Will get it here when the other is solid enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The updates now in this article provide the extra information. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
§First performance, last chorale cantata
I think "was to be" would be a better idiom than "turned out to be".
taken, changed --GA
There is a little confusion between "the last chorale cantata of Bach's second cantata cycle" and "over the following decade added a few chorale cantatas for some missing occasions".
It is tough. We need to distinguish "second cycle" (per date, mid 1724 to mid 1725) and "chorale cantata cycle" (exclusively chorale cantatas, the early BWV 4, and several later, the last 1735). Where is that not clear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "here be Dragons!" How about "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern was to be the last newly composed chorale cantata of Bach's second cantata cycle.", taking the phrase from the linked article. That explains in what way it was "last". --Mirokado (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, changed. The Easter cantata was the only exception - the only older composition performed that year. Unbelievable creativity, all these Sundays, + some saint's days and 3 each for Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and all without computers etc. --Mirokado (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
§Scoring and structure:
would it be better to say "solo violins" for the first two mentioned?
tried, pleas check --GA
That is better, easy for a reader unfamiliar with some of the musical terms to understand. --M
the second pair of violins is described as "obbligato". What about the other instruments? (obbligato says the opposite is ad libitum, what is the distinction if neither are specified?)
Well, i took the term from older articles and sources. It more or less translates to "of solo importance". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
now removed, is OK. --M
§Movements §4: "Ein irdscher Glanz, ein leiblich Licht rührt meine Seele nicht" (An earthly flash, a corporeal light does not stir my soul): I have my doubts that "flash" is a good translation for "Glanz", which at least in modern usage indicates a continuous light of some sort rather than something which is inherently transient like a "flash".
You are right. Only: we take translations from the sources. I'd like to check how Jones translated, but have no access to the page 667), - anybody? If I find another, I can change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found this translation but can we use it? Ambrose [3] has this ("No earthly gloss, no fleshly light / Could ever stir my soul;") which I like, but the source was removed. Can we reintroduce it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I've been thinking about this:
An earthly flash, a corporeal light does not stir my soul; (emmanuelmusic): flash is just wrong, corporeal is a bit clumsy
A temporal luster, a carnal sheen, do not stir my soul; (lyricstranslate): sheen and lustre are both quite good for Glanz, temporal is wrong for earthly and carnal has inappropriate connotations. Also found via Bach Cantatas with a different copyright.
No earthly gloss, no fleshly light / Could ever stir my soul; (Ambrose): I agree, pretty good, particularly the meter, and a good English idiom which conveys the meaning even if not a word-for-word translation
In this case, Google translate does rather well,
An earthly shine, a bodily light does not move my soul (Google translate): Accurate, unpretentious
Also:
A glitter from the earth, a light from the body does not move my soul; (Francis Browne (probably him), via Bach Cantatas): glitter is interesting, otherwise rather too many words
Should we continue to use emmanuelmusic? No, we cannot use obviously incorrect material for our main content just because someone has published it somewhere, however "reliable" or "high quality" other things they have published may be.
Can we use Ambrose? I think so, at least for a translation:
His translations were published (BWV 1 here) on the University of Vermont website in 1997–1998, long before they appeared as XLibris books (self-published)
We are not relying on any expertise in BWV 1 here, just a translation which anyone can check for themselves
There is clearly no one "right" translation for these lines. I think I might prefer "fleshly glow" to "fleshly light" since glowworms glow, people glow with health and "gloss" and "glow" go nicely together, but Ambrose's translation is fine. --Mirokado (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used Ambrose now, restored from external link for that one phrase. Sorry, I missed this comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I made a couple more edits to that paragraph. --Mirokado (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, and I hope to get to them in detail later tomorrow. (In the morning, I'll have a chance to listen to BWV 3 in a cantata service!) I agree with Thomaskantor better not italic, - the problem seems to be that {{lang}} formerly didn't set italics, and now does, and not all instances have been found and changed. This may be one of them. More on the hymn is a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado, update: I fixed Thomaskantor in both articles, and replied above. Before looking at the hymn history, I plan to expand the music, split the recordings section and expand an article of someone who died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is OK, there is time (also for me to add more comments :) ). --Mirokado (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
§Manuscripts and publication
"at the Bach Digital website": we normally italicise website (work) names, I suggest doing that here too, also for the mentions elsewhere including short notes and §Cited sources. --Mirokado (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made it italic in the prose, but am unsure about the cites. Compare BWV 125. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited to show what I meant. Apart from general consistency, I think the short notes are clearer like this. --Mirokado (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... initiated by ..., and ... a century after Bach's death." With a long list each of whose entries are also long, it would be better to have the list last in the sentence, so the reader can tell where it ends without having to parse the start of a phrase qualifying the subject of the list in some way. Thus I suggest rearranging the sentence: "... initiated a century after Bach's death by ..., and ...". --Mirokado (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tried, please check --GA
Super, thanks. --M
"The chorale cantata was a good work for the programmatic, with a chorale text not relying on "disreputable German church texts" ("verruchte deutsche Kirchen-Texten") as Carl Friedrich Zelter had phrased it, also with a designation for a Marian feast which made it acceptable for Catholic performers and musicologists, and finally as a particularly well-crafted and mature composition.[ref]": several problems here:
The opinion should not be in Wikipedia's voice, so inline attribution to the ref author is needed
"programmatic" is problematic here, not a correct idiom
you've already removed one "also", I think we can lose the remaining one too
something like: "According to musicologist Ulrich Leisinger, the chorale cantata was a good choice to open the program, with a chorale text not relying on "disreputable German church texts" ("verruchte deutsche Kirchen-Texten") as Carl Friedrich Zelter had phrased it, with a designation for a Marian feast which made it acceptable for Catholic performers and musicologists, and finally as a particularly well-crafted and mature composition.[ref]" --Mirokado (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a bit differently, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better than my suggestion, well done. --Mirokado (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
§References
The short notes for Wolff 2002 sometimes have hyperlinked page numbers, sometimes not. I suggest you link a single page or first page for a page range for each note. There is no need to link the last page in the range too. --Mirokado (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read through the updated Reception section and copyedited a bit. Once the two open points above are addressed I will be happy to support, assuming there are no further substantial changes. --Mirokado (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the reception-related material seems underdeveloped. Meaning, the history/context material is fairly well developed (compared to some other compositions by Bach, relatively much is known about the origin of this work); also the description of the work is fairly well-developed in the article; relatively little is, on the other hand, given about how the piece was received in the 170 years since its first publication. That seems, over-all, an unbalance of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something specific in mind, for this cantata? Or perhaps at least link with a summary to the section about reception of the chorale cantatas in general? - We do have FAs on compositions without Reception, but "with" would be preferable. Feel free to add. I plan to say more about the melody of the hymn tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you misunderstood:
I've applied some updates etc to the article (no big stuff, this isn't my FAC)
My remark #1 above is rather the big stuff which I won't be doing: if I would, you might not recognise the bottom third of the article when I'm done. We've been there in previous FA's, so I won't be going that path.
For clarity, there's no time limit, take all the time you need.
Not interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or ... DOESNTEXIST) type of reasoning: for THIS cantata (BWV 1) there's 170 years of reception history that isn't covered adequately in the article (especially since the short discography overview was removed).
trying to be a bit more specific:
there's some reception history between the publication of the cantata (1851) and the end of the 19th century. I'd like to see some summary of it in the article;
there's some reception history in the first half of the 20th century. I'd like to see some summary of it in the article;
reception history in the second half of the 20th century should be expanded
reception history in the first decades of the 21st century should be expanded
I'll come back every now and then to see whether this is evolving in some direction. If you have questions (that is, apart from asking me to do the legwork), I'd be happy to oblige. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my #3 above, in view of the #Coordinator note of 15:09, 9 February 2021 below: there appears to be some sort of (soft?) time limit. @Gerda Arendt: could you provide a time prognosis as to how much longer it would take you to get this sorted? Add one or two days more for me to come back and check, and then try to get the coordinator's approval for the delay. Until then, with the current rather limited "reception" content in this article, I can't support this to become FA yet. Finally, some ideas where you might find stepstones on this:
Thank you for posting the list of potential sources (certainly helpful for me and a good example of how we should work together). --Mirokado (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the stepping stones. I used #2 and will look further tomorrow. In #1, the first movement of the cantata is mentioned in comparison to Kuhnau, but I see nothing more substantial which would deserve coverage here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19th-century reception, and reception from the second half of the 20th century seem more or less covered; reception in the first half of the 20th century is not covered adequately yet:
The third paragraph of the "Reception" section is currently one (unsourced) sentence – that sentence needs a reference
Content on reception in the first half of the 20th century can further be expanded with material found in the last two links listed above (likely for expansion of the 3rd paragraph of the "Reception" section) and in the 4th link listed above (likely rather for "Manuscripts and publication" subsection)
Gerda, I'm finished editing the BWV 1 article for now (meaning: likely won't be editing it again before conclusion of this FAC procedure one way or another – so no fear you might get in an edit conflict with me when applying further suggestions made in this FAC to mainspace); in my last edit I inserted some hidden comments where the suggestions made by me above may be inserted. If you can cover that more or less adequately, I'd rather support a successful outcome of this FAC. If you have trouble giving a reference for the No. 1 listing in the BWV of 1950, I'd be happy to provide that – that is, if and when the first-half-of-20th-century reception of this cantata has been elaborated satisfactorily in mainspace, otherwise, after the FAC conclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the above, including the oddity. I took the Voigt and Schweitzer on board. I am unsure how to mention that only one performance of BWV 1 was listed 1904-07 compared to many of the Passions without getting too wordy about that one line. Terry, I think, is better in the hymn article. Mentioning the Poole, I wonder if we should mention trivia from 2018 also, [4]? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2018 selection as one of Bach's 33 best church cantatas by three leading experts (Maul, Wollny, Gardiner). (as a side-note: I have been red-linking Peter Wollny in many articles by now – I hope someone will some time get around initiating that article). Below I see you're planning on extending the editions a bit probably later today – after that, I'll try to do my last checks on the entire article within 24H (after a cursory glance I think a few small improvements to phrasing etc would be in order, nothing big). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reacting to somehing you wrote in a comment in the article) Gerda Arendt, re. "should we talk about the just one performance?": there are two, one in Bethlehem, PA and one in Leipzig. If it were just the one in Leipzig, then I'd say nothing special – adding the American one seems a bit less ordinary for the era we're talking about here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for pointing that out, I misread. Will do then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[possibly more to follow – will proceed with further checks when I find the time] --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I like your wording for Leisinger's three reasons, - I thought it was undue weight to go into such detail but appreciate it. However, "following Zelter's appreciation" is not clear to me. I am used to appreciation as rather positive, and his is more a verdict, no? Also, did others "follow" his statement, or did he just summarize what was around anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zelter, who died in 1832, is, afaik, not "mid 19th-century", so the mid 19th-century views followed (after) Zelter's assessment. I changed "appreciation" to "assessment" per your remark. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: don't know whether this would help to further fine-tune the text of the BWV 1 article, but I have found where the Zelter quote originated: see opening quote of this Bach-jahrbuch article. I began reading the article (but it is rather terse German, so the reading progresses slowly). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that it is a good find, I doubt that it should go to this particular work, rather perhaps to Zelter's article - a section that could be linked to, including from here? - or a broader perspective of the 19th century on the 18th. So take your time reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I'm currently rejigging the sources list: the old distinctions (e.g. Print vs. Online sources) made no sense: how is a reader, checking sources, supposed to know that the full reference for "Gardiner 2013" is to be found in another of these sub-lists than the full reference for "Gardiner 2006"? That's all very well if you have an on-line application with an operational pointing device, but doesn't work, e.g., for printed versions of the article. "Bach Digital 3216 2020" (my emphasis) was even worse as no full citation even mentioned the "3216" number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I have no idea what you mean by old distinctions when it's new distinction made to please Nikkimaria. Can we please agree on making suggestions here but not rejigging but discussing first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Do you have any issues with what I propose? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that is of no concern. Please discuss it with Nikkimaria. I understand that you make a list by title, and one by author, correct? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And update the {{sfn}}s so that these start with the same text as the (alphabetically sorted) entries in the full references list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that organization is more useful - might as well use a single list with no separation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, seeing your comments in the #Source review section above it is my humble opinion that your contributions to this FAC have ceased to be helpful a long time ago. However, in the off-chance I'm wrong about that, could you please explain "might as well use a single list with no separation"? I think I'm not getting what you mean. What difference would that make (as in: practically) – or what do you actually propose? And why would that be a better arrangement than the current one? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about having those by author first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether that is Nikkimaria's intention, and even less why that would be a good idea in Nikkimaria's or your mind. For me, I'd oppose it: when starting to look for something in the sources section, one can see past the three "by title" entries immediately, locating the start of the "by author" list without much ado. In what you propose it would be harder to find the three "by title" ones so deep below the start of the section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I can imagine a reader searching for a specific author, I see nobody searching for a specific title. From the article, there are links which make searching unneccessary. I'm just asking, - either way is fine for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is for a printed copy with a reader who doesn't know what list a source would be in, then simply present a single list sorted alphabetically by what is displayed in the References list. This is a common convention that allows one to quickly match up short to long citations, even without links if necessary. The by title/by author distinction is, as Gerda notes, not an intuitive approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... is, as Gerda notes, not an intuitive approach" – Gerda said no such thing: she had no issues with the arrangement I implemented. So, Nikkimaria, your ifs and buts seem of no consequence, as you don't even seem able to explain what you personally prefer, and why. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should not have this discussion in three places, can we please have it here?
The current lead image is in the article since 17 February 2015 : a page from a solo violin part. (It was replaced by the same page in higher quality this year.) I think the violin part, representing the morning star from the title, is a good illustration. You offered an additional image, of the continuo part with bass figures partly by Bach, and I think that has a good position where it is now: in the Music section, where the specialists will look. Bach's contribution to that page was minimal, and is hardly detectable without explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Reception" section has expanded till it is currently around the same size as the other two main sections. This comment is about the lead section of the article: the other two main sections are each summarized into a sizeable paragraph of the intro. The "Reception" section is summarized in a single sentence. The summary of "Reception" topics should be expanded in the intro, until it is roughly covered with the same weight as the other two main sections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and I'll think about it. Tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hymn" subsection of "Background" section contains "... bridegroom, which refers to Psalm 45, described as a bridal song ...": not only Psalm 45, but Song of Songs evidently too, see Vopelius#p. 814 ([5] – "... Hohen Lied Salomonis" = Song of Songs), but I can't imagine that Vopelius would have been the only one to have remarked that. So "Song of Songs" should be mentioned along Psalm 45, with a decent reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that this detail is rather good for the hymn article (which to expand is on my to-do-list)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted, except that the added reference isn't fully formatted yet (which I leave to you). Don't think my suggestion was all that difficult to implement. Whether or not this belongs in the hymn article is not something to discuss here, but sure, seems like a shortcoming if it weren't mentioned there yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, formatted the ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead of "Music" section: I translated the title page of the manuscript. That title page was not written by Bach, nor by any of his usual scribes (nobody knows who wrote it, and it may well have been written after Bach's death). When I saved that translation, I recall writing something in the edit summary whether this (German) transcript of this manuscript title is needed? I am still asking myself this question... Unless there's a good rationale for keeping it (please state such rationale then), I'd remove it (that is: including my translation). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it's interesting to see in which way (order, language, ...) such a page was composed, I'm not married to it. Perhaps you might find a place for it in reception. An image of said page would be better than trying to imitate the layout, but thank you for trying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Handled. I thought I gave a rather straightforward suggestion, which was also easy enough to execute. I didn't ask for a commentary that was neither here nor there as far as replying to the suggestion goes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sparing me to remove what you added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead paragraph of "Movements" section: "The scoring provides a rich orchestration" – this sounds awkward: Bach provided the orchestration (the "scoring" does not really provide an orchestration of whatever sort). Please rephrase, e.g. by replacing "The scoring provides" by "Bach provided" (but that is likely not the only possible rephrasing). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same paragraph contains "..., BWV 65, written for Epiphany" – would make that "... , BWV 65, written for Epiphany 1724" (so that it is clear that this is an earlier cantata – like it is clear in the next sentence that the Christmas Oratorio is a later work). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the year. I thought "reminiscent" made clear that it referred to something earlier, but perhaps I'm wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Movement) 1 section: "tonic" → best link that word to tonic (music) ... not everyone might recognize this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Movement) 4 section: "Melisma embellishment emphasises ..." – the adjectival use of "Melisma" doesn't work very well (sounds pretty awkward), replace by either "A melisma emphasises ..." or "Melismas emphasise ..." (whatever is intended). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General: the prose is partly American English (fervour, emphasises) and partly British english (characterizes): please choose one variety, and update the rest to that variety of English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I try British which I believe is "fervour", but make mistakes. I found one "ize" and changed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teldec series (middle paragraph of "Recordings" subsection): in the series, Bach's church cantatas were issued/recorded in BWV order (=BGA order), thus this was evidently the first cantata on the first record of the series: please mention "BWV order" (and/or "BGA order") for this series. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is so, but none of the sources used says so, and the sentence is already long. I don't think it changes much in meaning. The detail could go to the discography article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: thanks. I run through my above 11 comments, just stating whether I consider them handled sufficiently:
OK – at least for me: I can, however, not speak for others who have commented on that.
Not OK. If FA promotion means this is not open for discussion after promotion (some might see FA promotion as a "valid" argument to disallow further consensus seeking ...) then no, the article should not be FA promoted at this point.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Not OK. Doesn't seem too hard to find a source confirming the fact, nor does it seem particularly demanding to split up a long sentence, so all "explanation" notwithstanding this is a plain failure to respond adequately to the suggestion.
Apart from these suggestions, there is a new one (resulting from what happened after I drafted my above list):
Layout problems in the "Movements" subsection. As I had to explain elsewhere not so long ago, WP:SANDWICHING describes the situation where there is an image on the left, some text in the middle, and an image on the right. A similar situation can occur with some poetry (in a foreign language) on the left, the translation of that verse in the middle, and an image on the right. If the poetry has long sentences, which one doesn't want to spill over to the next line (especially as the translation might spill over other lines, or no lines, or vice versa) this results in bad layout, unless when one views the layout on a sufficiently wide screen. The situation is now occurring, and imho unacceptable.
So, in sum, Nos. 2, 11 and 12 are not OK and I can not support FA status for the time being based on that assessment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to scroll up and down to find what which bullet means, and wouldn't know where to reply to #12, so do it here: I moved the image below the poetry and hope that will fix it. #2 I don't share your concern that being FA would deter further development (from the FA template: "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."), hopefully by discussion. #11 I think it's undue weight but will look for a ref and a wording, for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gerda: please see my recent email message about Movement 1. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. #12: I'd still put {{nowrap}}s around the longest lines (i.e. the longest German line, and the longest translation line) in the poetry (like this), so that poetry lines don't wrap unevenly (so that original and translation would no longer be aligned) on smaller screens. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the "Hamburg 2021" Further reading item to an AV media notes cite template (mentioning author etc), but have now commented out the "url" and "via" parameter values as a precaution: this document is clearly copyrighted to Hänssler Classic (2010), see last page of the document, and I am now uncertain whether the re-publication on Hamburg University's ftp server is legitimate copyright-wise. It might be, but it might as well be on a private part of this university's website without copyright clearance. I looked around on the website but could not find an indication this is part of "official" pages of the website, for which Hamburg University would accept copyright responsibility. I'd rather like to be proven wrong, but as long as the situation is unclear, I assume it is best not to link. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about music to comment in detail on the music, but perhaps a little on what the "Morning Star" actually is. The term is always applied to Venus, by far the brightest object in the morning sky after the Sun and Moon, als auffallend hell leuchtender Stern erscheinen der Planet Venus am östlichen Himmel vor Sonnenaufgang, and surely the point of the title is an analogy between the appearance of he brilliant heavenly object with the birth of Jesus? The same point is made explicit in Revelation 22:16, where the King James version has "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I agree, but think it's more a topic of the hymn than the cantata, and the hymn is my topic today. Please look there later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, please look again. The quote from Revelation is now in the cantata article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. As I said, I don't have the background to add much to the content discussion beyond my comments here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Compared to the first cycle, the music has less emphasis on biblical texts, but more on the use of chorale text and melody.[6]" Can this be better explained?
I'll try here: at Bach's time, the sequence of readings from the Bible was the same every year. In his first year, Bach wrote cantatas close to those readings. In his second year - the one this cantata is from - he gave himself the rule to base the cantata on a hymn (chorale, church song), typically (but not here) the one assigned to the occasion, see Church cantata#Annunciation (25 March), Church cantata#Second Sunday after Epiphany (Epiphany II). These hymns were sometimes not really related to the readings, that's text, and he'd use the melody in the opening and the closing movement, that's melody, while some from the first year had a hymn only at the end, and some not even that. How would you say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The cantata and other Bach chorale cantatas were the only works that the city of Leipzig was interested in," It sounds a bit odd to describe a city as interested in something.
The city was his employer, and paying for the archive. It's really amazing how little of his vast output was held in Leipzig, and how much is probably lost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see hidden notes discussing what should be inserted. Are these matters resolved?
Only one is left as I write this, about more editions. That may happen, tomorrow, - too tired now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's about all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking promising thus far. I have an empty weekend ahead so I have no excuse to not look at this tomorrow or the day after. Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
some initial comments
There are a lot of dup links btw
I "killed" some, but think that a duplication in lead, History and Music should be permitted, - we can't expect every reader of the Music section to have read the History. --GA
Fine by me Aza24 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a contemporary poet—I assume (?) this poet is unknown, can we specify that? E.g. "Unknown/unrecorded/anonymous contemporary poet..."—otherwise it looks like we just forgot the name there. ditto for this when the librettist is first mentioned in the body text
Well, as explained, perhaps we know him. The wording dates to a time when we had no idea. --GA
I see what you're saying, but I'm not really sure how valid it is. With this logic we may as well never put anyone as "unknown" or "anonymous" because we could have known them. Aza24 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A date on the manuscript caption would be nice
For what? Performance date is just below. --GA
Is that the original manuscript? If so add "autograph" to "manuscript"—I just assumed it was a copy Aza24 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Aza that the caption of the image in the infobox is a bit uninformative. I'll let you two settle this (and other points of this section) before continuing with my final check of the entire article (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a copy, - I added details, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
accents the first aria—the meaning of "accents" is unclear to me here, surely there are less ambiguous words—are you saying, like, "Begins"?
I tried "corresponds" now. Not "begins", - throughout the aria, only this instrument and the bass group play, - perhaps not known to readers unfamiliar with Bach's work that he "coloured" or "flavoured" a movement by reducing the "orchestra" to specific sounds. The German word would be Klangfarbe, lit. sound colour. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, if I'm understand you right, the correct world is "doubles" as in "doubles the first voice"
Sorry, I was not clear. The oboe has its own music, it's just that the strings are silent. (The horn doubles the soprano in the first movement, but that's different.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if "begun a century after his death" can be linked to the Bach revival but eh maybe not
You include translations for all the terms thus far except Thomanerchor?
Thomaskantor is not translated but explained - because it's misleading, it was not just one church covered by the position. Once that is explained, I felt that translating Chor to choir wasn't really needed. --GA
More soon Aza24 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, Aza, I'll check later today, too nice weather right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
some replies, the other later today, out again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza, I'm back, and replied to the others --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
is there some significance in including "nine months before Christmas"?–this may be my ignorance speaking
Well, I think so, because it's the normal duration of pregnancy (which I thought doesn't need explanation). --GA
Not sure that the typical reader would draw that connection... you have too much faith in them! Aza24 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the source gives. If you google you get all crap about that Jesus died and was conceived that day, with no reliable source. Can we please leave it simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
would explain the end of the chorale cantatas in the second cycle, because Bach lost a competent collaborator and source of inspiration.—what about the end of the chorale cantatas? Or are you saying that the piece ended at the chorale cantatas because of this?
I'm sorry that it is so confusing, and we need to do something if it still is. We must distinguish the chorale cantatas of the second cycle which was meant to be a cycle of chorale cantatas exclusively (1724 to exactly this one, 1725) from all his chorale cantatas (1707 to 1735). --GA
No, that explanation is even wrong for this case. For Bach, secco means "the continuo group [alone] plays" vs. accompagnato, "additional instruments play". --GA
The current link doesn't get you that either then? Aza24 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never looked, sorry. Fixed the link, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on Reception later Aza24 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ornament means a very specific embellishment, not this: that an instrument plays something at all not at all, I've just looked at the score for the 6th movement, are saying that the horn part really doesn't fall under the definition on the ornament Wikipedia page of In music, ornaments or embellishments are musical flourishes—typically, added notes—that are not essential to carry the overall line of the melody (or harmony), but serve instead to decorate or "ornament" that line (or harmony), provide added interest and variety, and give the performer the opportunity to add expressiveness to a song or piece. Many ornaments are performed as "fast notes" around a central, main note.? Aza24 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We would have to use a different word then, not a link to ornamentation. Very few cantatas have the feature that the chorale is not just four-parts. Suggestions? "enriched" sounds like food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking out loud, maybe something like "The second horn is playing a counter-melody ... (in the closing chorale)"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, Aza? - Francis, do you have a suggestion for how to say (s. further up) that we had no idea who the author was until rather recently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-melody seems better, sure
@Aza24 and Gerda Arendt: don't know whether all issues of this section are deemed settled? Anyhow, will be proceeding with my last over-all check. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: despite my announcement here I'm confronted with edit conflicts. Maybe I should just give up. Oppose promotion to FA. The prose of the article is awkward in about every other paragraph, which seems beyond repair (at least, under the time constraint of a FAC procedure); the manuscript score containing the composer's handwriting is more suitable as lead image than one exclusively by a copyist; etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly say so in your own section, otherwise superficial reading might suggest that Aza opposed. For the image: if that continuo part was written exclusively by Bach, I'd agree, but as his fingering is too small to be detectable in that size, and therefore needs explanation, I prefer the image of the violin part there. Your swap was a bold edit which we please discuss on the talk or somewhere here, - again, please not in Aza's section. Feel free to move this reply with your comment. We had that one edit conflict: the swap of a lead image which was in place for years seemed to justify an immediate revert as such, per WP:BRD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... make a case for a different placement on the article talk or in the FAC" – I did so above. Sorry if it is perceived as being in the wrong section. That doesn't change the rationale for that change being on this page. In my appreciation the reason given for that change outdoes, by far, the objections raised against it. So, sticking, for now, to "not ready for FA" on this and other grounds (which I may detail further in #Comments by Francis – depending on how my further checks fare). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the captions I wrote or rewrote for both performance part images are determined by where each of these images is placed in the article, in view of the "link on first occurrence" principle, in view of not having a name of a secondary figure like J. A. Kuhnau in the lead image caption, etc. That's also why this topic is in this section, it followed on Aza's remark about the lead image caption. The problem remains for the solo violin I image: as a lead image its caption either has to go in a lot of detail (making it excessively long with details not explained in the body of the article) or it would be too short to be sufficiently informative (the repositioned solo violin I image caption fails on both points: too long, and still insufficiently informative when it precedes the body of the article). That's why I proposed the alternative lead image in this section: it makes a relatively short fully informative lead image caption possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I am sorry that I pressed the rollback button instead of thank you, and reverted myself immediately. I like the translation next to the original, among others, thank you! - Just the image, I don't accept, as explained above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original manuscripts of the chorale cantatas remained in the possession of the St. Thomas School, but were later conserved in the Leipzig Bach Archive.[1] Like for most cantatas of this cycle, Bach's original score did not survive.—these lines seem to contradict each other? Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to contradict each other, but before it said "parts" and that's what the manuscripts are: parts. Perhaps you can offer a wording that is less misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just changing "Bach's original score did not survive..." to "Bach's original full score did not survive" would do the trick?
Sorry, for this work we have score and parts, - not sure that "full" would add much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that, these lines are confusing to the point where, I'm not sure I understand the situation enough to comment on it. I can get at least 4 things from it 1) the original parts survive but the original full score doesn't. 2) the original full score survives but the original parts do not. 3) neither survives. 4) one or the other did survive and was "conserved in the Leipzig Bach Archive", but now is gone...? The distinction between original full score & original parts needs to be a lot clearer. Saying something like "The original manuscripts of the chorale cantatas remained in the possession" is ambiguous and could easily refer to either, regardless of the mentioning of "parts" earlier. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried by arranging the facts in a different order, first score is lost, so I hope it's clear that the rest is about the parts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis has tried as well, and addresses the issue sufficiently I beleive. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a ref for the translation of Bach-Jahrbuch? Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now wondering if the reason there's no ref is because you translated it yourself? That should be fine because of WP:NONENG, but I thought I'd double check Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand the question. Bach-Jahrbuch is literally "Bach yearbook", Jahr is year and Buch is book, for whoever writes that. The publishers call it Bach Annals. Does that help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops communication error on my part, I mean a ref for the english translation from the journal (e.g. "A precious work...")—but I assume you did it yourself so never mind this Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did it myself with help from a translate program which I modified, yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception confuses me a little, most of it is fine, but there is some before Publication (the transmission of the work for example) that doesn't really have anything to do with "Reception". IDK what the best approach would be here, rename the section (legacy?) or maybe split this information into a provenance/transmission section? Change the name to history? Aza24 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to discuss the header and content mostly with Francis. The whole section is new since the review started. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course transmission and conservation of (original) manuscripts containing the work is part of the reception history of the work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, I would think reception is what scholars, audience members, fellow musicians "think of" the work, not where it's been kept. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we know about what scholars, audience members and fellow musicians thought of the work for the period between 1725 (première performance) and 1847 (Winterfeld's commentary)1845 (Mosewius's listing of the cantata)(*)? Afaics, for that period of over a century, all we know is the care they took (or didn't take) in conserving its manuscripts, and the value these manuscripts had in the eyes of those who knew about them. Indeed, manuscripts that today are considered invaluable were in that period traded for nominal amounts, expressing that at least for a part of that period "scholars, audience members, fellow musicians" didn't think very highly of the work, even leading to the loss of the original score. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC); (*) found Mosewius's 1845 listing (without commentary) of the cantata here (last entry in the left column), and updated my comment above accordingly – afaik that was the first time the cantata was mentioned anywhere in print. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though I don't know if it's worth inclusion because of its absence of commentary. I also don't know that we could assume it's the earliest mention without a source saying it is, but perhaps Gerda will think otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting but I think the same about inclusion in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this for a while—way too long—and decided that I am ready to support for promotion. I think the prose is good and adding any further information will compromise the article's summary style. I'm also confident in high quality sourcing (especially in light of the most thorough sourcing review above). Aza24 (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than three weeks and has so far received one oppose and no support. Assuming that the issues concerned have been addressed I suggest canvassing the reviewers to date to see what their current views are. Regardless, unless it attracts some support over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issues have not been addressed. One reviewer was not pleased with the source this article was originally built upon, so others had to be found, same reviewer wants a section about reception (and I had no time to even begin), and another reviewer wants more about the underlying hymn, which made me look there and see that it first has to be developed, which I began. Aza24 and Wehwalt promised to look. Perhaps wait for them? Archiving would also be fine with me, however, knowing myself, it would make me procrastinate further, and possibly make me miss next year as this year. Let's please not forget that this article is linked to from the prime source for Bach in the world, - I'd prefer to improve rather sooner than later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is ready to be promoted at present, but I am happy with the quality of the content so far and look forward to completing this or another review when remaining updates are completed. --Mirokado (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the content is great and just lacking in a few areas. Edit: Pretty much ready to support on prose and comprehensiveness. (00:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)) Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article issues are addressed by now. Please indicate open questions if I overlooked them. Nikkimaria and Francis Schonken debate the appearance of the sources. I don't care too much about that at this point. It would be nice if this could be settled not only by 25 March - day of Annunciation - but 21 March, Bach's birthday. I appreciate everybody's patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I think you misunderstand: I currently can't support a FA promotion for this article. I was clear about that above. When I tried a last check some time ago, I was rather aggressively interrupted (by reverts no less) during the proceedings. I don't know when I will have time for another attempt at last check. I think you had time enough to get this in FA shape, but much of the proceedings are what I always dread when one of your GANs or FACs gets started: the article is not even nearly in shape for GA or FA promotion (just see the number of comments on this page!), and there's a large amount of things that don't get sorted unless someone does it for you. I'm tired doing the work for what after the facts you consider your GAs or FAs. I can of course only speak for myself. I care about improving the encyclopedia, and don't care about who does what, but my work being presented as someone else's is, when that is done on a systematic base, getting a bit offensive. So I'd suggest this FA procedure be closed on non-promotion, and we all get to improving the article, not caring about FA promotion until it is really in shape to pass a FAC procedure with no more than a minimal amount of necessary adjustments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francis Schonken. Would I be correct in gathering that your oppose is largely or entirely based on the reception section, for the reasons which you outline above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still want to do an over-all check (i.e., the entire article, not only the things I mostly (re)wrote myself in the reception section – although even that may still best be checked against the rest of the article, to see whether the narrative is coherent throughout). The issue with the lead image (I think it better to have the manuscript partly written by the composer as lead image instead of the current one, entirely written by a copyist) is also still unresolved. That issue is unrelated to the reception section. I recently also updated the collation of the sources list: while doing that I saw a few issues (which I forgot in the mean while, while the discussion then got hung on the new collation – but I want to take this up again). This is also unrelated to the reception section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, an oppose to promoting an FAC "must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis in original). I can see this with regards to Reception and the lead image. But not for "the entire article". You indicated above that you were unlikely to be coming back to this for some time; have I misunderstood that? While I don't want there to be unseemly haste over something as deciding whether to promote an article to FA, this nomination has been open for two months and you first commented on it 48 days ago. If you have further specific objections, I would be grateful if you could state them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The specific rationale being that I can't agree with the lead image, while there is a better one available (i.e., this arrangement of images instead of the current one), which I explained above (see AZA24's section). I'll try to make time for an over-all last check within the next 24H, which I hope you can grant me. If you want it sooner, let me know. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The best time for precisely worded concerns would have been the peer review in which you participated. The idea of a peer review is to prepare an article. - I don't want to reply to points such as the lead image again here. Please look above. (nutshell: the violins represent the morning star from the title, their music should be visible, not a continuo part in which Bach's entries are marginal, and not detectable to the unprepared reader who would therefore need a long explanation, which is undesirable for a lead image.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I believe that I have grasped your respective opinions on the lead image, and Francis Schonken's on the Reception section. I was concerned that there were other specific objections which had not been articulated and so could neither be responded to by the nominator nor taken into account by me. Francis, haste is good, but no need to rush. I shall return to this in 48 hours. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied. Expanding the lead by a summary of the reception is a good idea, but I'm not in a creative mood, - hopefully tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead now, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I shortened it again a bit: one paragraph on reception in the intro suffices. I'm now going to swap the two images again: the intro speaks about Bach's partial autograph (for which the partial autograph image is a better companion), while the scintillating by the violins isn't mentioned until the description of the 1st movement in the "Music" section, for which the violin manuscript picturing that movement is a better companion. I can assure you that neither page is exactly readable until it is clicked and viewed in a scale larger than thumbnail. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for shortening the lead, but I reverted the swapping of the images. After several users supported the violin part for the lead, and you seem to be the only one to prefer the continuo part there, we can discuss, or leave it as is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "After several users supported the violin part for the lead" – I am not able to find that in the discussion above. Can you clarify? As for the reasons why that is sub-optimal, I stick to what I said about that, and remain thus far unconvinced by your counterarguments (and, for clarity, your weak counterarguments are the only counterarguments I see in the discussions about this topic). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't support the violin pic for the lead explicitly, but when they supported it was in place. To make any major change to a FAC, you should seek consensus before. Some reviewers even do that for minor changes. I regard changing the lead image as a major change. If you still think the pic placement needs discussion, where, Gog the Mild, should that be held? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the nominators right to not make a change suggested by a reviewer, just as it is then a reviewer's right to then oppose the nomination on it not meeting one of the criteria. I believe that I have grasped your respective arguments on the lead, so there is no need to continue to restate them. As I read it, Francis Schonken is opposing promotion on the choice of lead image but is satisfied with other aspects. If I am mistaken on this, apologies, and could you gently point me to any other specific reasons why this should not be promoted?
Gerda Arendt, you seem to have responded to all reviewers concerns. If so, could you confirm this, if not, could you do so.
I note in passing that the article has been considerably improved thanks to Francis's considerable efforts here. All of this is without prejudice to whether I consider there to be a consensus to promote or not.
I didn't comment on the images previously, because I was happy with the original disposition. Looking at them in more detail, I think having an image of an artefact actually used for the first performance of the subject of the article is a good argument for keeping the violin part as the lead image. That is also less cluttered so just from the point of view of visual presentation it works better as a lead image and thus any reduced image representing the article. --Mirokado (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and this is the argumentation I feared... "it looks better, so who cares about authenticity?" – besides, the continuo part was of course also used at the first performance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about your fear, and you will call it a weak argument again: our general readers will rather have heard "violin" than "continuo", - it could be rather simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I have tried to respond to all concerns, but may have overlooked something. I acknowledge that Francis improved the article greatly by questions and editing, up to a point that I'd normally offer co-nomination. (Right now, that would probably seem like getting rid of a possible oppose, - what can I do?) Thanks also to Mathsci (image, music details) and Thoughtfortheday (recordings). I feel strongly that the violin pic should be in the lead, as it has been since 2015, and we don't talk about not using an image, only about position. From a distance, the two images look quite similar even. I will try to get rid of the red link in the caption. For a long time, red links in FAs were frowned upon. Now we accept them, but not in lead and infobox (not even in "normal" articles). I'd place the link in the body if only that scribe was mentioned there. I doubt that we need his name in the image caption. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3x(edit conflict) @Gog the Mild, my "final" assessment, seeing three remaining issues in total (including a new one!), is above in #New round (Francis). I put "final" in quotes, while this of course depends on what happens next: imho the last two (Nos. 11 and 12) don't require much effort, and the other one, the lead image issue, should anyhow best be settled by consensus before FA promotion (i.e., considering how it would become much more difficult to reach consensus on the issue after promotion). So, I'd much prefer to work away these last three issues, so that my current assessment does not need to be my final one. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken: Many thanks for the prompt and detailed response.
Gerda Arendt: Why is there a major edits label in Movements? Is this article stable? When is it anticipated that this "major edit" will be completed?
Mathsci announced expansion of the analysis of the first movement, on my talk. That's all I know. Should I have said "not now"? Probably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Gerda, you are the nominator, you are meant to be controlling the process. Even nominators should not be carrying out major edits during a FAC, much less third parties. Third parties should be posting comments and suggestions here. I now have to consider whether to archive the nomination on the grounds that the supports recorded so far were for for an article (possibly) materially different from what it is now, and that reviewers who continued to follow the FAC have not been able to follow any debate regarding proposed/made changes. Unlike for example with Francis's contributions. Can I recommend that you revert Mathsci's edits, apologise to them, and cordially request them to make any suggestions for improvement on this page? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read down to Mathsci's comment below. At least that lets other reviewers know what is happening, but gives them no detail and no opportunity to comment. I shall wait to see how substantial the changes end up being, but I am currently minded to archive the article so that it can be renominated and reviewers can appraise the substantially changed article, rather than have their supports for a different article carried forward. Or perhaps once Mathsci is finished you could furnish a diff and ask reviewers who have supported to reaffirm their support? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Hi again. Could I take you up on your last proposal? As I wrote below, I think the last changes can be done today so that reviewers can check matters. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Late - I was out as written here: These changes deal exclusively with movement 1. How is this: Mathsci finishes, and we invite all previous reviewers about that section, and the images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re Francis's point 2 above: I do not see that the nominator's preference is in breach of "Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." In any case there seems to be implicit and explicit support for the nominator's preference. Barring some fresh reasoning as to why this breaches a criterion I do not see it as an obstacle to promotion. (And yes, once promoted changing any material and contested aspect becomes extremely difficult.)
Point 11: I assume the objection is that this fails "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"? Francis, do you have an RS which confirms the order of issue?
I had no time to look but doubt that the order of cantatas in the Teldec series matters at all for this cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm needed right now RL. That and other issues will have to wait. --
Point 12 seems to have been resolved.
This nomination has been open for nine weeks; Francis first commented 50 days ago: it is time to close this one way or the other. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The major editing is happening because, as discussed on User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#BWV_1,_concertante_violin_1, the musical analysis of Movement 1 needed to be improved. So far, as Gerda mentioned recently on this page, I have been the only editor to initiate such an improvement. It required having the ten-line hymn text available in translation (done); adding an image of the cantus firmus (done); describing the opening sinfonia (done); and then adding musical analysis about the instrumental episodes and vocal passages for the ten lines (in process). The main impetus for change was a new reference, Vol 2 of Whittaker, which I purchased only recently on ebay: it is not available online. The musical analysis required four different sources, so is slightly complex. Nevertheless it seems to be going fairly well and I hope to complete it today. I hope that clarifies matters. Gerda can probably explain the current status. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First page of the first volume of the Bach Gesellschaft edition (1851)
(edit conflict) – not a reply to the above (don't shoot me if you don't like it, just trying to find common ground) Proposing the first page of the very first volume of the BGA edition →
Some advantages:
* It has the "sparkle" motif right in the middle of the page (and indeed, one needs both violins to suggest the sparkle)
* Looks nice! (surely looks better than the authentic scribbles)
* Highly relevant (at least from a "reception" perspective)
I like that image but not for the lead, but for where the publication is mentioned. Better than many words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(and another (edit conflict), this one is answering Gog the Mild, not Gerda's intermediate reply above): I didn't want to go too technical (yet), trying to find common ground should be the first step, no? Anyhow, technically, from the FA criteria: "It has images and other media, where appropriate, ..." (my emphasis) – the violin score is "appropriate" adjoining the prose explaining it in detail; the partial autograph is "appropriate" where "partial autograph" is mentioned. The other arrangement is "not appropriate".
Or, from the lead of the FA criteria "A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and ..." (again, my emphasis): the other arrangement does *not* exemplify "Wikipedia's very best work"; and it is far from distinguished by a "professional standard ... of ... presentation". So, there is enough material in the criteria to not grant it FA status under these conditions.
But as said, let's see first whether we can compromise on the BGA's first page. Gerda Arendt? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I answered just above - edit conflict - and already inserted the print where the publication is described in great detail. For the lead, a 19th-century print suggests the wrong period, imho. It wasn't printed for more than 125 years after being written, - we can show that at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: OK, "common ground" clearly failed. Indeed, the FAC has been open for too long. It should fail on (from the FA criteria, emphasis added):
"A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of ... presentation ..." – Not Wikipedia's very best work, not quite a professional standard of presentation.
"It has images and other media, where appropriate, ..." – the current arrangement does not present the images "where appropriate"
@Francis Schonken: Thank you. Understood. Are you now content regarding your points 11 and 12 above? If not, could you provide an RS re the order of issue? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was out as announced. I still feel that the order of cantatas in the Teldec series is of no concern for this cantata, - enough that it was the first - but I like to please and satisfy even wishes that I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now split the sentence and said (by adding a bracket) that "the first four cantatas" mean "BWV 1 to 4". Was that what you want? Same source as already used, it even gives all four titles full length but I fear that really would be undue weight on this detail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. my #11 (in #New round (Francis)): Gerda's tweak resolves the issue as far as I'm concerned. Re. my #12: I put a follow-up suggestion in the "New round" section above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{nowrap|Schön und herrlich, groß und ehrlich,}} {{nowrap|reich von Gaben,}}
{{nowrap|fair and glorious, great and righteous,}} {{nowrap|rich in wonder,}}
for the 9th line, on the German and English sides respectively. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now added #13 in the "New round" section above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I adopted the line adjustment, thank you, good solution. You seem to have fixed the #13, is that right? I agree with the change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was nothing to fix any more, unless you really want the link (then you'd need to check whether it can be ascertained it is hosted on the "official" pages of the Hamburg University website, or otherwise copyright-wise OK). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three images were added, and we need to talk about their placement. I am happy with
Violin part manuscript for lead (as before)
Continuo part manuscript (new) for Music now where preparation of manuscripts is discussed, Libretto ..., see below. (21 March)
Soprano part manuscript (new) for Analysis movement 1
Bach Gesellschaft print (new) for Publications
Do you agree, or do you have recommendations for changes to the analysis, and/or a different arrangement of images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few comments:
§1
wl dotted? Why is "dotted" in parentheses"? Actually, retaining the parentheses would separate the two wikilinks, so better anyway to retain them.
"The musical analysis of the chorale fantasia": I suspect "musical analysis in general" is meant here, in which case "The" is incorrect in English, just start the sentence "Musical analysis ...".
Done by Mathsci, thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images
I'm happy with the current placement.
After the further discussion below, I think the continuo image should be moved to the start of the "For the first performance of the cantata ..." paragraph in §Libretto and first performance. --Mirokado (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that (request from Gerda on my talk page). --Mirokado (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lead image, caption: is "J. A. Kuhnau" Johann Kuhnau? If so, that article does not mention "Andreas", perhaps it should. Ha! he died in 1722, so not him. Perhaps his son, who is only referred to as "Andreas" in that article? Perhaps we could add a note somewhere about copyists to clarify who is meant.
Content added by Francis, with new references. Thank you. (I now also notice that the redlink is an ill to scores). --Mirokado (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link is now blue, - not enough that we know about him to make it a stand-alone article, but I added the little bit to his uncle, with the scores as one of the refs. I think it looks better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
§Movements image: the continuo is not mentioned much in the content, so this image seems most bound to "Bach provided a rich orchestration". Can we mention something like "... including bass figures for the continuo in his own hand in the original performance parts."?
Francis' addition also covers this point. --Mirokado (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. is "J. A. Kuhnau" Johann Kuhnau? – no: J. A. is the (younger) nephew of J.: J. was Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor, and dead for about a year by the time Bach succeeded him in Leipzig; J. A. was, in Bach's early years in Leipzig, the new Thomaskantor's chief copyist until he became a student at Leipzig university.
Re. continuo and rich orchestration: there's no connection between "continuo" and "rich orchestration". If the current image arrangement gave you that impression, then there is indeed something wrong with the image arrangement. Even the leanest orchestration would still have a continuo in Bach's late Baroque period. That's why it doesn't belong along the description of the movements, because, as a continuo, it is not even worth mentioning (apart from being part of the ensemble): it is as standard as can be, and as ordinary as a bass drum in a drum kit. The importance of the continuo manuscript image is in being a partial autograph of the composer, and that is not explained near where the image is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. Indeed one of the benefits of asking questions is in revealing sources of misunderstanding or lack of clarity. A common convention in encyclopedia entries is to give birth and death dates for people when first mentioned. There is no need for us to do this if we have a wikilink, but in this case, with J., A. and J. A., adding J. A.'s dates would help someone to find who was meant. A sentence about original copyist(s) somewhere in the content would, I think, be in order. Thanks for clarifying about the continuo. Mentioning what survives in Bach's hand somewhere in the content would provide a good anchor for that image, I suggested one way to do that above. --Mirokado (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirokado: Thanks for the corrections. All high-res images for the Bach Archive were created by me on Commons, using the dezoomification tool and GIMP software. The zoom images of pages 1 and 2 of the soprano part are missing, so had to be uploaded differently. Since the "Reception" section specifically mentions autograph manuscripts and their loss, placing the image for the "transposed continuo" in that section might be appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well we should go back to what led me to propose the alternative lead image: another editor (not me!) found the caption for the lead image too convoluted (and still unclear). Then I saw it was not possible to reduce that caption much (but I did what I could), and then proposed another image, which was possible with a shorter caption. then the original image moved back to lead position, and now the proposal is to expand its caption again while it is not clear. Yeah sure... I can only say that seeing all this, shoving complexity on complexity, etc, etc, and yet another round of old arguments by another editor, while it can all be solved simply by putting the right image in the right place, will only lead me to put my foot down on what I come more and more to believe as what is right if this article wants to achieve FA status. The current arrangement of images (with captions which were not written for the place where they now occur in the article) is confusing, and more inspired by images as decoration than images as illustrating what the prose is about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried in preview moving the continuo image to the start of the "For the first performance of the cantata ..." paragraph in §Libretto and first performance. This is where it is directly relevant after Francis' recent update. On a wide window it is pushed down a bit by the preceding image, but otherwise it places fine. It does not interfere with the display of the following table, since either the window is wide enough or text flows below it. I suggest we move it there (I've also updated the comment earlier in this section). --Mirokado (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done that after a request from Gerda on my talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; I think the images are great, especially the additions. I will note that there are a lot of dup links—some may be justifiable, but most should probably be removed. I like the expanded movement one section as well, but would gently suggest the rather uncommon word "scintillating" (as lovely as it is) be switched with one of its many synonyms, or linked to the wikitionary. Aza24 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I reduced dupl links somewhat, but recitative, aria and such are still in three places: lead - history - structure. Can you please write the wikt link, - I'd have to look it up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, Mathsci,Ovinus, buidhe, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, HAL333, Mirokado, Jimfbleak, Wehwalt, Aza24: This nomination has sprawled somewhat, but seems to be coming to an end. I would be grateful if reviewers could flag up anything which they consider merits opposing promotion - other than Francis's objection to the lead image - so that I can take them into account in deciding whether a consensus has been reached to promote or not. I shall take an absence of comment to mean that any supports indicated above still stand. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still supporting. --Mirokado (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting—if the image issue is FS wanting to use the original continuo part instead of the solo violin part as the lead image, I could support that, but it's certainly not something I would oppose the entire FA nomination for. Aza24 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still supporting as well. ~ HAL333 21:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A month and half ago I removed the merge suggestion tags seeking to re-integrate the discography into the article. Due to recent developments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination) (that last one: a cantata with many more recordings than BWV 1 seems unable to garner solid support for a separate discography article). I'm not sure where this is going to end, while I also want to keep to what I said a month and half ago (i.e., "I don't want this to stand in the way of FAC proceedings"). I can only hope that if some broad consensus develops over whether or not separate discography lists for Bach cantatas are desirable, that this can be implemented without much ado post FAC (if different from the current arrangement), in the same way as the BWV 4 discography was split from the article post FAC. That being said, I'm having a closer look at the Recordings section of the BWV 1 article, and see an issue with its first sentence: "... Fritz Lehmann recorded Bach's cantatas with ... as his first recording with Deutsche Grammophon" (emphasis added). The Lehmann reference has two external links: I could not find confirmation for the "... first recording with Deutsche Grammophon" bit in either. Can this be clarified? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence of the same opening paragraph of the "Recordings" section: "The recordings of nine cantatas, ..., were released beginning in 1952" (emphasis added) – according to the jpc link in the Lehmann reference, at least one of the nine cantatas (BWV 4) was already released in 1951. All others were released in 1952. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the same paragraph: "Fritz Werner recorded around 50 of Bach's church cantatas ... in the 1960s" (emphasis added) lacks precision: what I can derive from the given source, and its companion ([6]), is that Werner recorded 39 Bach cantatas in the 1960s (other recordings date from an earlier or later decade). Please adjust prose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the prose, - the precise years are rather for the recordings article, while the years for the cantata article should give a rough idea of the chronology (To my understanding, saying "in the 1960s" doesn't excluded the 1970s", but I added "beginning [in the 1960s]" for you.) I doubt that at any time the detailed list of recordings will return to the cantata article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still not correct, as in: the source says something different. Also, you seem to have missed my second remark above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this, still support, though can't comment on the above remarks. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
,_1851.jpg)