Talk:Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2014.
WikiProject Classical music / Compositions 
WikiProject icon Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Scoring[edit]

The article mentions that the scoring includes cello and oboe (or, in later versions, oboe d'amore or organ), however sources [1] and [2] don't seem to support that. Is there a source for those instruments being used? cmadler (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Source 1 has the cello in movement 5. But a violin to play the chorale, not an oboe. ??? (shouldn't be called a source, well, it's free)
Source 2: go to scoring Mvt.5: "Ob, Vc" (oboe, cello - and don't ask me why it is missing in the general scoring)
In my Bärenreiter edition Mvt. 5 looks like is (I tried ...):
Soprano
Alto
Oboe
ossia Organo obbligato
Violoncello
obbligato
Other than Mvt. 5 the cello is part of basso continuo and not mentioned. The oboe played only in that movement in 1714, but doubled the violins in Mvt 1 in 1724, so writes Dietrich Kilian, the ref for the repeat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Konzertmeister" given as "court organist"[edit]

Isn't this equivalent to concertmaster? I guess in that period it might well have been the keyboard player (harpsichord or organ), but it seems misleading to simply call it the court organist, unless it's an older use of the term? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not concertmaster - not at the time - but I'm lacking a precise English equivalent. de-WP has this: de:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Weimar - Konzertmeister meaning higher in hierarchy than court organist (more money, monthly compositions) - but lower than Kapellmeister. That is supported here but no English term given, and the source is not online. Konzertmeister appears untranslated in some bios such as Johann Gottlieb Graun. I'll ask classical music. (But I have a request open there - no fast answers.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the new text explains it well. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Four commas?[edit]

Why are four commas used in the title? Is there a source for this? --Kleinzach 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge the Bach cantatas take their titles from the first line of the words, - three commas there, this is Baroque. The fourth comma is the one between the words and the BWV# (that I voted against, with no success). I didn't invent this title - it came from the "List of cantatas ..." - A "!" instead of the fourth comma could be justified, to make it look even more interesting, smile. - btw I hope I found an improvement for the Konzertmeister q, - a title that Mozart also held. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I moved to three commas - as in Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn! BWV 132 - and installed redirects to BWV 172 and Erschallet, ihr Lieder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Will review within 72 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Wondering why Thomaskantor and Konzertmeister are italicized. I gather this is the convention in your articles but I was wondering why?
  • I understand that all foreign language terms should be italicized. I don't do it for things in quotation marks, such as the titles of hymns, but the titles (first lines) of the movements.
  • "Christoph Wolff suggests that Bach may have studied in Weimar musical settings available in the court library" do you mean books about musical settings?
  • No, musical scores, if I understand the source right.
  • Delink second instance of Gospel of John per OVERLINK.
  • Done. However, the links to verses will always be blue.
  • In scoring you use words for number but use "movement 5", was this intentional? Ideally they should be consistent of course!
  • I looked at it and hope I consistently use now "first" and "second" as words, but "movement 5".
  • Any reason why F major isn't linked in the table and C and A minor are? I'd link it there and remove the links to A minor and F underneath in the text.
  • Only reason: the table was created the latest ;) - done as you said.
  • Can you add a few citations to the recordings section? Ideally the red links should be filled too ;-]
  • all Bach cantatas, ref added, - I know someone who fills red links ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good job, looks adequate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

The cantata is an early work in a genre to which Bach contributed weekly for several years in Leipzig about ten years later. I cant parse this; I think its is trying to say too many things, or is misplaced as the openeing sentance in the lead 2nd para. Gerda can you take a look please. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to place it at the beginning of background. Perhaps you can word better what I want to say: that Bach is known for his cantatas, but most of them were written in Leipzig, weekly (and faster if their were additional feast days), - but this cantata is ten years earlier (and of course 1714–2014 made me think of improving it now), and it is a model for many features found in later works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. Ceoil (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

The IPA pronunciation given is that of an upper-class Englishman who speaks German carelessly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John W. Kennedy (talkcontribs) 11:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't look at pronunciation - ever - since Dieterich Buxtehude, pronounced both Danish and German (now, after we found out that we talk about different things). The best help is listening to a recording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A "1714 cantata" and 2014 cheesy journalese[edit]

Too bad to see two examples of the cheesy low-journalese use of a date as an adjective, displayed on Wikipedia's front page. A cantata written in 1714 is invariably a "1714 cantata" in mediocre journalism: see it everywhere at Google News, as a kind of cheap shorthand that easily becomes a coarse mannerism under the fingers of lazy writers. Good editors will avoid such an impoverished trick. Outstanding editors will quietly smooth away such defects/-Wetman (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It was introduced in March, and not questioned in the review. English is not my first language, I didn't argue with a native speaker whose "flow" was praised. Feel free to change the blurb, the article was already changed. I guess the idea behind the change was to present the year sooner, to mark the "anniversary". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see the horror of this "trick." The meaning seems quite clear. Brutannica (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-issue. But if you want, go ask User:Eric Corbett. Montanabw(talk) 20:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
(linked, understand I need to sign that or it won't ping) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
ps: when he edited, it was not yet in the article, - I would interpret 1950s American automobile culture as an indicator that it is not unthinkable even in a FA title --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)