Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Bach cantata, again, his very original approach to set the Magnificat by using the German, partly paraphrased version and quoting the Gregorian chant tune, - the only time he did such a thing: write a "chorale fantasia" not on a rhymed hymn but the chant. He did so at the beginning of his most ambitious project, the chorale cantata cycle, of which the work is the fifth cantata. I took the liberty to expand a bit on that beginning, as I compiled the chorale cantatas on Luther's hymns for the previous FAC, [[[Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125|Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). (Other "featured" Bach cantatas have included BWV 172 and BWV 165.) Expanding the article was another attempt to focus on 500 years Reformation in 2017. The article received a recent GA review by The Rambling Man. Much more could be said in an article, such as comparing it to Bach's Latin Magnificat, and about the movements, - the sources are there, but I feel it might be too much detail for general readers. I am open to discussion. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

• Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([1]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:

  Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, based on Luther's German Magnificat. Consequently, the cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He composed it for the Feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724, which was the fifth occasion for a cantata of his second year in Leipzig. Like most of the other cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle.

  Advantages of this approach:

  • Less cluttered lead sentence:
    • The translation of the text incipit is not copyrighted – it is a standard English translation of the opening sentence of the Magnificat (like the opening sentence of the cantata is a standard German translation of the same), e.g. Wikipedia uses it without reference or copyright notice in the lead sentence of the Magnificat article (hence I linked to that article from the English translation for those who are unaware of the cultural reference of this English sentence): that translation has been around way before Dellal put it on her website in 2012, so the first numbered footnote with the reference to that website can be omitted from the lead sentence (it can be put in the section that talks about the text of the cantata if it isn't already there).
    • Less boldface (less frequently used synonyms don't necessarily need boldface)
    • No explanatory footnote: such footnote can (and should per WP:ACRO) be replaced by a wikilink for the first occurrence of the BWV acronym
    • Luther (i.e. last name only) would be clear to most readers in the context, and if not the first name (Martin) would probably not help much for those readers who don't know who this person is (link would need to be clicked anyway).
  • Luther(an) context clear from first sentence (which over-all, apart from the music being composed by Bach, is probably the most significant general aspect of the context of this cantata)
  • Next I'd talk about the occasion (Visitation) and the chorale cantata format (will try something that is better organised and readable than the current lead paragraph if nobody else does so with a solution I can sympathise with) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:

  • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
  • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
  • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
  • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.

  Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Re. "...you will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.

  I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  New proposal (the three paragraphs proposed here would replace the first two paragraphs of the current lead section):

  Johann Sebastian Bach composed his church cantata Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10, in 1724 as part of his second cantata cycle. Its title translates as "My soul magnifies the Lord", and is taken from Martin Luther's German translation of the Magnificat canticle ("Meine Seele erhebt den Herren"). The cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He wrote it for the Feast of the Visitation (2 July). The composition is in Bach's chorale cantata format.

  The Feast of the Visitation commemorates Mary's visit to Elizabeth as narrated in the Gospel of Luke, 1st chapter, verses 39 to 56. In that narrative the words of the Magnificat, Luke 1:46–55, are spoken by Mary. Traditionally Luther's prose translation of that biblical text is sung to a German variant of the tonus peregrinus or ninth psalm tone. The sung version of the canticle concludes with a doxology in German (a translation of the Gloria Patri), on the same tune. Bach based his BWV 10 cantata on Luther's German Magnificat and its traditional setting, working text and melody into the composition in a similar way as he did with Lutheran hymns in his other chorale cantatas.

  Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month into his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. BWV 10 is the fifth of 40 chorale cantatas with which he started his second year in Leipzig. The outer movements of the cantata are for mixed choir (SATB) and the full orchestra consisting of trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo (thoroughbass). Luther's translation of Luke 1:46–48 is the text of the first movement. The canticle's doxology is the text of the last movement. The five middle movements are a succession of arias and recitatives, with, between the fourth and sixth movement, a duet for alto and tenor accompanied by trumpet, oboes and continuo. Soprano and bass each have one aria, and the two recitatives are sung by the tenor. The text of the arias and recitatives is paraphrased and expanded from (Luther's German translation of) Luke 1:49–53 and 55. The text of the duet is Luther's translation of Luke 1:54. The melody associated with Luther's German Magnificat appears in movements 1, 5 and 7.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • It is unusual to not begin with the title, but let's try. --GA
  • I want to see BWV 10 bold, as an important redirect, and the part of the article title which distinguishes it from Luther's. --GA

    Re. "I want ..." – see more elaborate comment about "what I would do / I don't use..." below; also your own comment about maintaining a position in a FAC above. Imho it is about time to lose the idiosyncrasy in this instance, have the lead sentence conform to applicable guidance, and make it as inviting as possible for the reader (which includes removing clutter like footnoted explanations and optional boldface wherever such removal is allowed by applicable guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it's not helpful to introduce a complex concept such as the chorale cantata cycle before even a translation is given. --GA

    ? The "chorale cantata cycle" concept is not introduced before the translation is given? What does the cycle concept have to do with translation? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Forgive my sloppyness, please, it's "his second cantata cycle", - but the same applies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    As does the same question: "What does the cycle concept have to do with translation?". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I believe that we have to say that Luther's translation is called the German Magnificat. --GA

    Taken, worked it in the proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't understand mentioning Bach's chorale cantata format between the term Visitation (which many readers will not know) and its explanation. Probably Visitation should come sooner than even Magnificat, because it explains why Bach set the Magnificat, at least when the prescribed reading for the feast day is mentioned. --GA

    First paragraph of the intro is "summary of summaries", short sentences about the cantata's essential characteristics; characteristics that set it apart from similar compositions receive a bit more attention. I see nothing wrong with that approach: it is not possible to have it all in one lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Luther details (year of translation etc) seem too much detail for the lead (summary) of this article, - it would be appropriate in the body, perhaps in the lead of his German Magnificat. --GA

    Taken, leaves to be seen how this is mentioned elsewhere (body of this article and/or German Magnificat article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month ...",- also too much detail. If he didn't compose the cantata in one day, he composed it in June, - why mention any month? Perhaps: "When Bach composed the cantata ..." --GA

    The sentence says nowhere "composed", so I don't understand the last part of your comment. Early July refers to 2 July as mentioned in the first paragraph (when the cantata was first presented), i.e., without using the exact same expression which may be experienced as too repetitive in prose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The details (SATB, translation of continuo) of scoring are way too much detail for the lead, also the follwing, which voice sings with what instrument when. --GA

    The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis, movement by movement, of the composition: a summary, in half a paragraph of the lead section, of some 50% of the prose of the article seems appropriate. Also, the current summary of the same, " Bach structured the cantata in seven movements, setting the outer movements for choir, based on the psalm tone of the German Magnificat. He set the other movements for soloists as recitatives, arias and a duet. Using a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo, the music expresses the different moods of the text, illustrating God's force and compassion. [...] the cantata's fifth movement, [...] a duet for alto and tenor on the biblical text with the cantus firmus played by trumpet and oboes [...]" has more problems (including not linking on first instance, using specialist jargon that can easily be avoided, interpretations without in-text mentioning of the author of such interpretations) and is not particularly shorter. Example: "cantus firmus", a quite specialist concept, can easily be avoided in the lead section as the draft shows. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Please look up what's appropriate, 50% seems way to high. I've seen a FAC review (of a short article like this one) where a limit of 2 paragraphs was requested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Re. "50%":

    • "Context" topics: 7 paragraphs in one section (with 2 subsections)
    • Description of the composition: 10 paragraphs in one section (with 9 subsections)
    • "Reception" topics: 5 paragraphs in 2 sections

    So, calculated by prose paragraphs (which of course don't have the same length) it is somewhat under 50% (10 out of 22 paragraphs); by separate section titles it is way over 50% (10 out of 15). Devoting around 25% of the lead section to that content doesn't seem exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Formal note: "sixth movement" not "6th movement". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  A proposal for a replacement of the last paragraph of the intro, regarding reception-related topics, is still in preliminary stages and worked on at the article talk page: it is too dependent on how article content on publication/recordings/reception will evolve (see undecided suggestions below) in order too be presented here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Other suggestions:
    1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1 – comment 1; change 2 – comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral, Choralbuch, Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

       Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "... the German word Choral ..." (above), "... CPE regarded it as a Choralgesang ..." ([2]), etc.: I don't think we need to be solving the intricacies of (18th-cenury) German language here, but create an English-language narrative that is clear for 21st-century readers (whether they are experienced in the subject matter or not – understanding German is not a prerequisite):

       • Luther's "Meine Seele erhebt den Herren" (German Magnificat) is, in English, "not a (Protestant) hymn"; in German: "... kein (evangelisches) Kirchenlied ..."
       • The cantata's last movement, "Lob und Preis sei Gott dem Vater" (doxology), first published as "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren", is, in English, a "chorale"; in German: "Choral" (e.g. [3]).

       Afaik, in the context of modern Bach studies, "(Protestant) hymn" and "chorale" are used interchangeably

       I expect to see two things in the article, i.e. (1) clear, non-confusing terminology used throughout; (2) an explanation *why* Luther's German Magnificat is not a hymn/Kirchenlied (in other words: what did Bach do to turn something that was not a hymn into something that is a hymn – compare Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt where a 16th-century transformation of another "melody from Latin religious chant" to a Lutheran chorale is explained). For the second maybe an additional search for appropriate sources is needed. For clarity, "... the "chorale" tune ..." (currently in the article) misses the clarity I expect per (1) above, and lacks the explanation I expect per (2). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

    3. I suppose Spitta discusses the cantata somewhere? Maybe a summary of such discussion or at least a page number of where he discusses it (preferably of the English edition) would be welcome? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

       Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

       Spitta is probably the key to the (erroneous) "c. 1940" date of the LOC website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       (ec) Good point, I will use the sources you kindly provided, but not immediately (see below), - you are also welcome to do it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       Now two sources are added, and 1740 is not mentioned in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       Spitta's erroneous chronology is at pp. 89–99, and endnote 3 (p. 285ff.) in Vol. 3 of the English edition. In both cases BWV 10 happens to be the 25th of the listed cantatas. (for clarity this is neither of the sources Gerda mentions in her comment immediately above – this history of the chronology is not yet in the Wikipedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    4. [4] --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       (ec) What do you think is not complete in the sentence in "A critical edition was published by Carus in 2009", which is expanded by a clause on who edited, and another that it came with a singable version + the title of that version. Feel free to improve the grammar. - It would be more transparent (generally speaking), if you'd repeat your concerns here, instead of just a diff. - "non sequitur" - I understand it, but kindly use less Latin. I don't understand what doesn't follow, though. - Also generally: I appreciate copy-edits and suggestions, but please don't put too much in one edit, again for transparency. Thank you for striking the alleged edit-warring which was about one single revert as you say yourself below. - I would normally put such information for you and only you on your talk, but that was deemed "opened the same discussion in a fourth venue" and "forum shopping / disallowed canvassing" above. Can we try to stick to content? - This weekend, I have little time, - both "my" groups sing in a mass, + I will listen to a concert tomorrow. It's not that I neglect this, but also no rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       Sorry about the Latin... {{non sequitur}} is however the English Wikipedia name of the template that seemed most appropriate to indicate the situation (see template documentation by clicking the link). The half sentence tagged with that template is however not a continuation of the "Carus"-related sentence. That previous sentence ends with a period (followed by a reference), after which the "non sequitur" half-sentence starts without a capital letter. There is no apparent relation between the half-sentence and the preceding full sentence: they speak about different publishers (Carus vs. Bärenreiter) and different editors (Großpietsch vs. Uwe Wolf). The English translation seemingly mentioned in the context of the Bärenreiter publication ("Now my soul exalts the Lord"), is also not the same as the one mentioned for the Carus publication ("Magnify the Lord, my soul") --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

       Fixed, I hope. I must have inadvertently deleted the beginning of the second sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       I see in a hidden comment that you'd like more clarification. What I see is that Großpietsch is named editor of the Carus edition, which I think is no conflict to Wolf being chief editor, - the chief editor can't do everything. The later Bärenreiter clearly lists Wolf as the editor, but do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited? - Could you please raise questions here, not in a hidden comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited?" – I don't know, but it seems rather unlikely that Wolf, while being a Chief Editor at Carus, would produce a new critical edition for Carus' competitor Bärenreiter. My guess is that Bärenreiter recycled Wolf's 1995 critical edition of the score (I also don't suppose the English translation of the libretto was a new one for the 2015 publication), and published it with a new introduction (the introduction of the 2015 edition is not by Wolf), thus producing something that could be sold as "new". Now, none of this can go to Wikipedia's mainspace without references to reliable sources (the story might still be different from what I suppose it to be), but that Wolf would have produced "another" critical edition for Bärenreiter's 2015 publication, i.e. another one than the one he had produced in 1995, is currently unsourced (no reliable source seems to say that), and what reliable sources say seems to go in another direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       I tried it differently, making it a reissue. Where would we find if the first NBA had an English version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       NBA editions are in German exclusively (not a word in English before the NBArev sequel). Here's what usually happens: a NBA volume is, on first publication, a new critical & Urtext edition, usually containing several compositions (e.g. 4 or 5 cantatas). Shortly after that, Bärenreiter publishes (outside the "complete editions" series, so in this case outside the NBA set of publications) extracts (e.g. separate cantatas), performance parts, translations, vocal scores (i.e. voices with a piano reduction instead of the full orchestral score), etc. based on the new Urtext (they don't wait 20 years with that). I documented that for Bach's Magnificat (see Magnificat (Bach)#20th century, start of second paragraph of that section). I suspect the English translation of BWV 10 being published in the late 20th century, with maybe the only new addition to the 2015 publication being a new introduction (if such introduction contains some updates to the former critical commentary the whole publication can be sold as a "new" critical edition...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       I thought the "reissue" solved that problem, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       Yes and no: what we get now is a somewhat WP:WEASELy declaration that may or may not be correct: I "suspect" the English translation of the 2015 edition not being new at that time, but for a FA grade article I expect clear information: when was that particular English translation first published (still possible that Bärenreiter had a new English translation produced for their 2015 edition), and who was the translator? I suppose some footwork is needed, e.g. Anna-Lena Bulgrin's introduction of that edition may be enlightening (is there no way to find it in a library or so?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

       I don't believe that we need the name of the translator, nor the date of translation. Nice to have, when available, but not adding much, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "hidden comment":

       1. It is not "hidden", it shows up on mouseover (one does not need to go to edit mode to read it);
       2. Sorry, was in a hurry when I wrote it
       3. Nonetheless, I'll use tags and/or comments here whatever works most efficiently to make clear what a problem is (won't write a paragraph here when I see a straightforward issue that can be made clear with a simple tag) and/or will solve the issue myself when I have time to do it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

       I had no idea about the mouseover, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    5. "He performed it at least once more in the 1740s":
       1. This sentence is in the Readings, text and tune section: a first suggestion is to place this somewhere else in the article or, alternatively, update the section title while this information doesn't fit in the readings, text or tune domain. The same goes for the preceding sentence ("Bach first performed the cantata on 2 July 1724"): that information is already elsewhere in the article, with other references (so maybe this sentence can be removed from this section, and applicable references grouped with where this information is first introduced after the lead section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          Good point, a section "Performances" might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          For now, the performance on 2 July 1724 is mentioned early, and no other because doubtful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

          Currently the article provides the context of the Visitation/Magnificat compositions of 1723 (period of Bach's first cantata cycle) – maybe an idea to cast that "context" net a bit wider: Magnificats and Visitation cantatas associated with Bach which were performed in Leipzig before his first cantata cycle and/or after his second cantata cycle (if solid sourcing turns up for a 1740s performance of BWV 10 that can be added to the overview):

          1. 1715 or earlier: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV Anh. 21 (Nicknamed "Little Magnificat", BDW 01329, by Bach's predecessor Melchior Hoffmann)
          2. Visitation cantata (no date): Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 (the text of this cantata is a Magnificat paraphrase, its composer may be Bach or Hoffmann, and the cantata has audio files at Commons)
          3. Visitation 1725: Meine Seele erhebet den Herrn, BWV deest (BDW 01672, libretto extant, not certain whether Bach composed its music – if so it may belong to his third cycle)
          4. Visitation 1726: Der Herr wird ein Neues im Lande, JLB 13 (BDW 08303, performed by Bach, associated with his third cycle)
          5. Visitation 1728: Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn (libretto extant, third cantata of Bach's fourth cantata cycle)
          6. c. 1733 (Visitation?): second version of the Magnificat, BWV 243
          7. Early 1740s: Bach copies and modifies Caldara's Latin Magnificat for performance (the modified movement is BWV 1082, i.e. BDW 01268)
          8. Around 1742 Bach copies a Latin Magnificat for double SATB choir (BWV Anh. 30, BDW 01338)

          Not sure whether all of these need to be mentioned, but at least the Visitation cantatas of 1725 and 1726 seem interesting enough to mention (if we mention the Magnificat/Visitation cantatas of the preceding first cycle, seems only logical to also mention those of the ensuing third cycle). I'd only mention the early 1740s Latin Magnificats if a repeat performance of Bach's German Magnificat around the same time can be ascertained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

          Feel free to write that section, and be a conom. I thought that it was good to know what Bach had done before (not later). The readers interested can find most of the information in Church cantata (Bach) under Visitation. This article is for readers of this cantata. Again, what do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       2. Gardiner 2010, the only reference given for the 1740s performance, is a concert program (CD booklet of a concert recording?) that doesn't cite any research as basis for its assertions. I submit that a concert program or liner notes not citing any sources are insufficient WP:V-wise for this assertion (not even talking about the possible COPYVIO of the site that presents the PDF of this text linked to from Wikipedia). This ties in with "1740"-related issues probably based on obsolete 19th-century assumptions already mentioned before: sources contradict, and Wikipedia's current partial rendering of that contradicting information appears (at least) confusing to the reader and/or substandard for a FA candidate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          The information about a second performance "1740s" or "between 1740 and 1747" is found in many other sources, even distinguishing use of the CF instrument in #5 for both versions. I will look. Comment out so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

          Suggesting two more sources (mentioned at the Bach Digital Work page 00012):

          • Dürr Chr 2 (i.e. "Alfred Dürr. Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke J. S. Bachs, 2. Auflage: Mit Anmerkungen und Nachträgen versehener Nachdruck aus Bach­-Jahrbuch 1957. Kassel, 1976"), p. 16.
          • NBA I/28.2 – Critical report (1995), p. 67

          Alas I have currently access to neither, but they may be instrumental in getting the confusion sorted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

    6. "Selected recordings" section
       1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:

          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([5] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

             See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

             Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":

             • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
             • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
             • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
             • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([6]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. "...it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

    7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
       1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:

          {|
|-
...[table explanation goes here]...
|}

       2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival Ton Koopman presented three Magnificats (BWV 10, BWV 243a and a Magnificat by Bach's predecessor Kuhnau) in a concert. A video recording of that concert was released in 2004. Both the 2003 concert (e.g. Yo Tomita) and the recording (e.g. Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

       What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

    9. [7] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    10. Navbox collapse options (one of the idiosyncrasies I had in mind in this section's OP – I'm not sure whether the topic is part of a FAC assessment, anyway here it goes): the article currently has two navboxes, {{Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} and {{Bach cantatas}}. The first of these boxes is collapsed, the second is uncollapsed. The first lists the cantata BWV 10 in the context of Bach's second cantata cycle, so between the 4th and the 6th chorale cantata of Bach's second year in Leipzig; the second navbox lists the cantata in the context of the numerical values of the BWV catalogue, so between BWV 9 (composed a decade later) and BWV 11 (which isn't even a cantata, and also dates from much later). Currently the article goes in great detail about the first five cantatas of the second cantata cycle, linking to the four other cantatas of that series of consecutive cantatas. A reader who might be interested what Bach did next after the first five cantatas of his second cantata cycle (so the next cantata he composed after BWV 10) is not helped by the second navbox, neither is that cantata linked from the body of the article. For clarity: BWV numbers are completely random w.r.t. what happened in Bach's time and w.r.t. subgroups of cantatas by type, and moreover the latest published version of the BWV catalogue no longer collates all compositions according to their numerical value (case in point: in the latest printed edition of the BWV catalogue BWV 11, the one that follows BWV 10 in the second navbox, is now collated between BWV 249b and BWV 250 – see pp. 282–284 of the 1998 edition of the BWV catalogue – officially the number of BWV 11 has been changed to "BWV 11/249b->" to indicate its new position in the catalogue). The second navbox is probably of great use for Wikipedia editors who regularly edit articles on Bach's vocal compositions, but as far as I can assess of less use (or at least somewhat misleading in the context of current scholarship) to the average reader. My preferred option is to autocollapse both boxes. If, however, one of them should be preset to its uncollapsed state it should, imho, be the first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

        There are two navboxes, right. One is in every article on a Bach cantata, permitting convenient access to the other numbers. To have it open is another item of consistency. In order to see what Bach did before and afterwards, a reader can simply click on "show" in the other navbox, or - what I would do - don't use a navbox but read an article, such as Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata cycle, Bach cantata, - enough possibilities. All these articles are linked from the traditional basic navbox by number (but only when it is open), - I don't use the other nabox at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

        (ec) – was still updating some of the text, underlined now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

        Re. "what I would do" – "I don't use ...": yes, as I said, this is about idiosyncrasies. In this case deplorable idiosyncrasies, e.g. neither Church cantata (Bach) nor Chorale cantata cycle nor Bach cantata has any significant information on the next cantata in the cycle. The first of these proposed links is particularly unhelpful for finding any information on the next cantata in the cycle: the 5th and the 6th cantata of the 2nd cycle are in entirely different sections of that very long page, separated by dozens of subsections. A non-specialist reader would have no clue where to look. Currently the presentation of the navboxes is skewed towards the specialist editor of these cantatas (i.e. an editor who knows that the BWV numbering is in no way a logical organisation of these compositions – which a non-specialist reader/editor would not know, e.g. [8]), and I propose to treat a non-specialist reader/editor at least on the same footing as a specialist (i.e. both navboxes collapsed: I don't propose to uncollapse the first – but if anything, per user-friendliness principles a non-specialist reader/editor should get precedence over a specialist editor because a specialist would find their way around anyhow while the same can not be presumed of a non-specialist, but as said, that's not what I'm proposing to implement: just treat the specialist and the non-specialist on the same footing).

        Re. "I still believe the article is better without this outlook to something created later ... under a header it doesn't fit" ([9]) – The cantata for Trinity IV of a cantata cycle which would have contained ideally over 60 cantatas, covering more than a calender year, and starting with Trinity I, is situated at the "Beginning" of the cycle. Unless you mean "by composition date" of the first cantatas that ultimately got inserted into the cycle: in that case BWV 4, composed over a decade earlier would be "beginning" of the cycle: that cantata is not mentioned, so there's nothing unusual when indicating the cantatas for Trinity I–V, and for the two feasts that usually fall in this period, as the "beginning" of the chorale cantata cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

        Can we move ahead with this now? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    11. Re. "... the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [10]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it." ([11]) – I too think that Mr. Oron's website is a great resource. However, in Wikipedia surroundings, it is not the most unquestionable of reliable sources:
        • The website hosts a lot of copyvio material. When using the website it is often a thin line not to cross the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy (e.g. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...")
        • As the website contains material copied from Wikipedia there's a danger of WP:CIRCULAR references to it (at least in one instance I had to remove material from Wikipedia while it was referenced exclusively to Mr. Oron's site, where it was referenced exclusively to Wikipedia...)
        • Mr. Oron's website isn't always clear about its sources (e.g. "2^nd performance: 1740-1747 - Leipzig", see suggestion No. 5 above). Some of its content is referenced to discussion pages (see next point)
        • The website's discussion pages are somewhere in between of "peer review" (which would indicate reliability) and "user-generated content" (generally insufficient to be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia) – it is not always clear which one of these applies foremost.
        • Its original content is generally "self-published" (Mr. Oron being as well author, editor and publisher of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page) – WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy governing the use of self-published sources, indicating that original content of the Website can not be used in Wikipedia (unless in some cases where Mr. Oron writes about himself)
        • The website occasionally contains inaccuracies (if not errors), which I found out by consulting reliable sources and comparing these to the website's content.
        • PS: the reason I don't usually "write to Mr. Oron" is that I'm foremost a Wikipedia editor, not wanting to create more WP:CIRCULAR content on the other website. Each their own responsibility: the more Mr. Oron's website becomes reliable without our help, the more we can use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Short answer: I don't speak about the website as a whole, but selectively the recordings. I know no other sources going after such details about instrumentalists, places of recording, liner notes etc. For biographies, I only reference the site (usually as a second ref, not a single) because it's English, which is more accessable to readers of the English Wikipedia than the German Großes Sängerlexikon, for example. Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata? I will only reply to questions about the cantata article from now on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata?" – Yes, please. My suggestion above was so elaborate because you kept bringing up "In previous FAs on the topic, ..." or similar procedures not relating to this cantata (the last time in connection with M. Oron's website: [12]). I don't care how many GAs or FAs passed with references to other pages of Mr. Oron's website: these other GA/FA procedures are not a justification of whatever. That being said: whether or not, and if so under which circumstances, http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm can be used as a reference for Wikipedia's BWV 10 article is entirely within the confines of this FAC deliberation. E.g., linking to that webpage is linking to a website (and page!) that contains copyvio material – no amount of "previous FAs" will make that risk of infringing on Wikipedia's copyrights policy via the BWV 10 page go away. Now is the time to assess that risk. Similar for the other points above: only the second bullet doesn't seem directly applicable to the BWV10.htm page at Mr. Oron's website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          In the last FAC, I was asked to mention similar articles as a help for new reviewers ("Well, that's what I was looking for - if there are other FA Bach cantata pages"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Fair enough. At least partially explains why some of the more unfortunate idiosyncracies have become so difficult to root out in this collection of FA articles. Can we return now to the assessment of the use of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page in the BWV 10 article? My reply to your latest suggestion regarding the discography section depends on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. ... In the last FAC ... (please click the link, it is not the same "In the last FAC" as above) – Allow me to compare to another FA: Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4#Bach's early cantatas is a much more elaborate context section than what I'm preparing now. Even after the content of that section was spun out to another article, it appeared impossible to condense that Bach cantata article section WP:Summary style-wise. In sum:

          • I'm still all but impressed by "former GA/FA" type of evidence: it can go in completely opposite directions; "Fair enough" in my comment above refers to not holding the nom accountable for these rampant comparisons, not to me having changed in any way as to how little impression these comparisons make on me. My assessment in this FAC is based on my own insights regarding what would be best for this article, insights which all things compared seem much closer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than assessments merging an amalgam of fortunate and less fortunate "habits" from one FA to the next.
          • If and when this article would be FA approved its content on how it relates to nearby Magnificats and Visitation cantatas should have about the same depth whether or not a separate article on that topic exists: once it would have FA status I suppose it would be nearly impossible to fundamentally change the breadth of the coverage of these relations to other compositions. I'm working on a treatment in around three paragraphs, which would absorb some content now elsewhere in the article (the net expansion of the article maybe not more than one paragraph). My objective is that once inserted into the article such paragraphs wouldn't need fundamental change, like neither Bach's church music in Latin#Magnificat settings nor Magnificat (Bach)#Other Magnificats by Bach? nor Church cantata (Bach)#Visitation would need to be fundamentally rewritten, in the eventuality of a separate article exclusively devoted to these relations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "...liner notes..." – two (potential) problems:

          • The BWV 10 article currently links directly to several PDFs of such liner notes hosted at the BC-website. Might be a copyright problem. I expect this to be cleared by those more experienced in guarding over whether or not Wikipedia crosses a line here that should better not be crossed copyright-wise, before we continue to provide these links.
          • In articles on Bach-compositions liner notes might not pass WP:RS (I had some nasty experiences at WP:RSN in that respect), even when written by established Bach-scholars. I understand the advantage of them being generally in English, and not in German, like much of the high-end scholarship on Bach. Nonetheless, content of the article should imho preferably be referenced to writings with a solid scholarly publication process ("peer review" is generally missing for liner notes, and more than often when a German scholar writes liner notes the English translation of these notes can be quite mangled, they may be unclear as to where the material derives from—as I already mentioned in suggestion 5.2 above—, etc), whatever the language of the more solid source. Liner notes can be mentioned (even linked if copyright-cleared per the previous point) in addition to the sources with a more solid publication process. The easiness of linking to liner notes sometimes prevents looking up in more solid sources (I did a few suggestions above but see no reaction to these suggestions yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

            The liner notes by John Eliot Gardiner and Klaus Hofmann have been regarded as reliable in the past. Compare this GA review by Drmies who recommended to follow Hofmann. - I could avoid the link, but think it's a disservice to the reader to not supply what the author wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

            Was that before or after liner notes were rejected for use in articles on compositions by J. S. Bach at WP:RSN? Also, GA is not FA: I expect that by the time an article goes from GA to FA that its complete content can be verified to high-end scholarly sources (whatever the language they are written in). I'd keep the more accessible/popular sources too (contrary to what was suggested at the "nasty" RSN on this topic), but that doesn't diminish the need to have the complete article covered by more solid sourcing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

            I don't talk about liner notes in general, but these specific ones, by a conductor who performed all cantatas, and one of the authorities on Bach [13]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

            Yes I know. Maybe the best way forward is to take this source, with all the content referenced to it in the BWV 10 article, to WP:RSN? Then there will be no discussion afterwards, when an incompatible idiosyncratic approach would board the article later (there are two opposing idiosyncratic approaches: one that references large portions of Bach composition articles to liner notes, and an opposing one that doesn't accept a single one of such references: I'm in the middle, i.e., apply WP:V as elsewhere, and if you're not sure whether a source is used correctly, then take it to WP:RSN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

            Source reviews have been performed in recent years:

            • BWV 172 by Nikkimaria, who saw Bach Cantatas Website as a convenience, to be better replaced by the original, which in BWV 10 I did for Gardiner.
            • BWV 22 (2015) by Prhartcom.
            • BWV 165 (2015) by Nikkimaria.
            • BWV 4 (2016) by Brianboulton.
            • BWV 161 (2015) by Wehwalt.

            A source review is likely to be requested for this nomination as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

            @Gerda Arendt: please discontinue selectively pinging editors who supported your earlier FAC nominations. If you'd have listed the earlier FAC archives without pinging these editors I could have continued to just be unimpressed for the reasons I explained above: the added pings leave me negatively impressed. I'd advise against any partisan notifications regarding this FAC assessment. It is not because my earlier mentioning of this same point regarding this same FAC was worded too strong that its message would have been invalid. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw

Comments unrelated to review

Comment: I will do a FAC review on this article when the above issue settles down, but I find the above discussion a bit of a red herring, as the "oppose" !voter made a set of substantial changes in the article and then !voted after he was reverted. Thus a clean hands problem exists. It is inappropriate for an "oppose" !vote to be made by someone who has made a substantial contribution, particularly a large set of edits right before his !vote, particularly where the same editor had only made three edits to the article prior to it going up for FAC. Here any claim of "edit warring" fails spectacularly because the party responsible for creating this problem is also trying to poison the well with his !vote --particularly in light of also removing admonishments about NPA from his talkpage. Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC) ? – none of my "substantial" changes were reverted (only one of the "minor" ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Poor grammar. Three minor changes way back appear to have been kept, but when your group of massive changes were reverted, then you !voted. Can't have it both ways, cannot both make a bunch of contributions and vote -- you're involved. Montanabw(talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC) @Montanabw: please recuse yourself from performing a FAC review on this article: You continue to contend that my "group of massive changes were [sic] reverted" (FYI: poor grammar, "group" is singular), which is not what happened – your judgement seems clouded I've shown my willingness to improve the article, and I've, for instance, received multiple "thanks", not only for the improvements I operated on the article in mainspace, but also for my suggestions for further improvements. Your indication that such improvements are not appreciated pollutes the air and stifles further work, which remains necessary to get this article to FA grade Until the current issues are sufficiently addressed I think I'm perfectly entitled to oppose promotion to FA, and I'll continue to collaborate positively in whatever way I can to make that promotion possible. Also, please note Gerda's invitation above: "Can we try to stick to content?", so I suggest to discontinue this discussion of whodunits, which, as you may notice, has been continued by you only in these last few days. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Francis Schonken Your suggestion that I recuse is ridiculous; I have never edited this article, and all I pointed out is that first you made a bunch of edits to an article you had barely touched before, then when you were reverted, you !voted "oppose." That was rather WP:POINTy of you. One can edit the article, or one can review, one cannot do both. You have no neutrality in this matter, and if anyone should recuse, it is you. So, you want to close this matter, you are welcome to recuse yourself. Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Magnif.jpg: what is this being transcribed from? A previous notated version? A recording? Memory?

The text is applied to the given psalm tone, - always the same melody, just a different distribution of the syllables. It's a 2010 image I took from Tonus peregrinus, which quotes the German Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that the image is there, but how was the image produced, specifically? From what source was the specific distribution of syllables used here derived? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We discussed the content of that image some time ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example. That discussion contains two external links afaics, maybe one of these (or both) could be used to demonstrate that the content of the image is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In that discussion, the source was given as "Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch, Nr. 529. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530". Could someone who knows how add that to the commons? (I corrected Evangelisches to Evangelische.) I looked in the current EG but can't find it, only in a regional edition of Thuringia. The Catholics have a different German version, and a similar tune, but simplified (beginning with F G instead of A C, and the second line right on G without the preceding A C, - so much less joyful, and not what Bach used), GL 631/4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I just changed the "source" parameter at commons:File:Magnif.jpg from "Olorulus' personal library" to "Olorulus' personal library, from 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelische[s] Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530 (see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example)" – @Nikkimaria: does this cover all of your concerns regarding the use of this image in the FA candidate article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg was improved by Rabanus Flavus, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: for clarity File:Magnif.jpg has now been replaced by File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg by Rabanus Flavus ([14]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to find a freely licensed performance that could be sampled? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Where would I look? - I guess everybody interested would be able to find YouTube versions, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas:

1. I performed a check of Commons as thorough as I could, not finding any audio file that would be remotely eligible for use in the article on the cantata :(
2. scores:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)#Synthesized/MIDI has a synthesised (trumpet/organ) version of movement 5. It is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (is that compatible with the Commons licensing policies if one would want to upload the file there?) – whether or not it could be legally uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia I'm personally no fan of such synthesised audio for vocal/orchestral music. The IMSLP page where that audio file is available is linked from the article's External links section, so not sure whether we should do anything if we want to have at least one audio file on or linked from the Wikipedia article.
3. Similarly, CPDL has a midi file of the closing chorale at choralwiki:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Johann Sebastian Bach) – copyright: "Personal"; here also the CPDL page is linked from the external links section
4. http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/detail.php?ID=BWV0648 is a page on James Kibbie's Bach Organ Works website with audio files of an organ performance of the Schübler Chorale based on the cantata's fifth movement. Maybe this page could be linked from Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#5, to give at least an aural impression (non-synthesised) of the cantata's music (otherwise at least a link from the external links section might be possible?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   It is possible but belongs in the (linked) article on the chorales. I am sure that people who want to know how the cantata sounds will find a way outside Wikipedia. I hesitate to place external links, because it would be my biased choice. - MIDI is no alternative, awful, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• I added a link to downloadable audio of the entire cantata, to the "External links" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Can we have a few score extracts (examples from the cantata)? I'd suggest, for instance:
  • Movement 1:
    • Start of the cantus firmus in the soprano part (situated in the orchestral/vocal matrix)
    • first measures of where the alto takes over the cantus firmus
  • Movement 5: some measures of the interplay of the singing voices with the cantus firmus melody
  • Movement 7: four-part chorale setting of the non-hymn tune --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Yunshui

Just a quick review of the text:

• with the exception of verse 54 which he also kept in Luther's wording - I'd suggest " with the exception of verse 54 in which he also kept Luther's wording."

taken --GA

• a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo - maybe link continuo as I for one had to look that up... it's linked later in the text, but who reads past the TOC these days?

Then I'd also to have to link violin etc, - there are all linked in Baroque instrumental ensemble, and then Baroque violin, not any violin. Please compare other articles mentioned in the intro. --GA

Fair enough - as I mentioned, it is linked later on anyway. 雲水

• 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 - "He was employed by the town of Leipzig in this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training" reads more easily to me.

It's probably something coming from German, where you'd first be employed, then have the position. Ideas? --GA

How about, "He was [offered/granted/given] this position as part of his employment by the town of Leipzig"? 雲水

Well, it was not offered, the town had hoped for a better man for the job, but their first two choices were not available. (Compare BWV 22, with details of the application. The sentence should clarify, that the term Thomaskantor could lead to the assumption that he was hired by a church, but instead he reported to the town, and was responsible for four churches. Would you have a better way to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think what Kirk's done in this bit is a good solution. 雲水

• The gospel is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes, a biblical episode that is often represented in art - surely not the entire gospel; I assume this is meant to mean the Visitation?

You are right, not the whole gospel, just the passage mentioned as prescribed gospel reading for the day. I though that was clear. Ideas how to clarify? --GA

I'd just replace "gospel" with "Visitation" (and maybe include the link) - "The [[Visitation (Christianity)|the Visitation]] is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes..." 雲水

I think it's "bad enough" that Visitation links to the Feast once, then to Bach's works for it, let's not introduce a third. I tried it differently, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just adding "reading" is enough here, I think. 雲水

• At Bach's time, the German Magnificat was regularly sung in Leipzig in vespers - should be "In Bachs time..."

taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the docology - presumably that last word should be doxology?

yes --GA

• is kept in the Library of Congress since 1948 - "has been kept" agrees better with "since".

taken --GA

• Johann Andreas Kuhnau, the composer and Christian Gottlob Meißner. - I'd use an Oxford comma here, but that's more a matter of taste than correct punctuation (at present, it can be read to mean "the composer named Johann Andreas Kuhnau, and some guy called Christian Gottlob Meißner").

right --GA

• The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of he Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA) - "The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA)"

fixed --GA

Haven't checked refs, media etc, this is just looking at the text itself (which is generally pretty readable, if a bit technical in places). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for good points. Could you explain by one example what you think might be less technical? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can skimp on the technical stuff - the Movements section is a good example (lots of other articles that need looking up in order to fully understand it) but without that information there wouldn't be much point in having that section. All the things that would need to be linked are linked, but just as an example, in the Movements #1 section, I would have to look up the following terms: chorale fantasia, doubling the violin, rhythmical propulsion, measures, cantus firmus, polyphony, melismas. As a non-musician it's not a super-easy read, but I would imagine the general reader of this article would have more musical knowledge than I do anyway! Yunshui ^雲_水 09:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess if such things should be explained, it should happen on a higher level, such as Bach cantata and Chorale cantata, not in every individual such work (around 200 cantatas, around 40 of them on chorales). Some of the terms I think even explain themselves, such as chorale fantasia (fantasy on a chorale) and cantus firmus (firm chant), even polyphony if you know other words starting with poly- (polygon) and ending with -phony (symphony, cacophony). Some of our readers would be bored if we try to explain measure and melisma. It's one of the great ideas of the Wikipedia links that a reader who needs it can dig deeper but the one who knows already can move on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I linked "measure" now. "It is a trio of the violins and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violin, and the viola filling the harmony." that sentence tries to explain why the many instruments play a trio (three voices): the oboes double the violins, which means they play the same thing (voice) as the 2 violins, the viola plays (only) a supportive role, leaving the bass (= continuo = a group of players) for the third voice. How would you say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something like: "It is a trio of the violins, viola and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violins, and the viola filling the harmony." That makes the three voices of the trio clear (violin, viola and continuo) and then explains why the oboes aren't included in that list and what the viola actually does.

Sorry, I was not clear: the three voices of the trio are the two violins and the bass, while the oboes play the same as the violins, and the viola has no independent melody, just fills chords. Don't support too soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyhow, now that the above fixes have all been made, I'm happy to Support on text. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

About half done, no real issues. Some quibbles so far:

• " Composed for the Marian feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724," there seem to be words missing after "Visitation". Some grammatical connection would seem called for.

That was changed (perhaps compare how the lead looked when I nominated), - I tried to fix the changed version now. --GA

• "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Book of Isaiah the prophecy of the Messiah " I would say that there should be a comma in there after Isaiah.

yes --GA

• "The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the doxology." Two things, I would change the first "translation" to "rendering" or similar to avoid the repetition, and I think you need a "on" after "and" to avoid ambiguity and possible confusion.

I opened the piped link (to avoid the same word twice), and added "on". --GA

• "He used the original verses 46–48 for the first movement, verse 54 for the fifth movement, and the doxology for the seventh movement. He paraphrased verse 49 for the second movement, verses 50–51 for the third, verses 52–53 for the fourth and verse 55 for the sixth movement, the latter expanded by a reference to the birth of Jesus." Your use of the serial comma seems inconsistent.

Commas are different in German and English, and sometimes I miss one, as here, thanks for pointing it out. --GA

• There is an uncited sentence at the end of "Readings"

ref doubled --GA

• "adding "Luther" for the movements kept in his translation, and "anon." if the unknown librettist elaborated on his translation. " I would avoid the repetition, possibly by changing "elaborated on his translation" to "added his own elaborations" or some such--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Help welcome. "Elaborated" was introduced by Francis, in the table, where I found it too long when repeated for four movements. I'd usually say "paraphrased". Feel free to apply your wording skill, please. "added his own elaborations" would suggest - to me - that Luther also added "elaborations", but he only translated, in his free style of translation, of course.

Maybe "added elaboration"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "..."Elaborated" was introduced by Francis..." – no, it wasn't. I wrote "elaboration of ..." which (at least according to my dictionary) does not mean the same as "elaborated on ...". I don't agree with what is currently in the article, nor with the "added elaboration" suggestion: the librettist partly paraphrased and partly expanded the original text. That is an elaboration of the original. "added elaboration" only captures the "expansion" part ("expanded" is a less cumbersome way to say the same), not the part where the text is paraphrased. "Paraphrased" is correct, but doesn't really capture the expansion part. So I'd go back to "elaboration of", or, alternatively, go to "paraphrased and expanded". --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, "paraphrased and expanded" taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for careful reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• "but with the cantus firmus in the alto, because the text "Denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen" speaks of the "lowly handmaid"." The logic here is obscure. Are altos more likely to be handmaids? Or lowly?

It's the lower voice, - do you think that should be added? It seems a bit like saying a child is younger than its parent. --GA

(don't know whether this catches what Wehwalt indicates above:) The sentence containing "... cantus firmus in the alto, because the text ..." (emphasis added) seems WP:OR: the sentence is referenced to a translation that nowhere claims a causal relation: "cantus firmus" isn't mentioned in the reference, which voice sings the phrase isn't mentioned, leave alone that that reference somewhere would have intimated a causal relation between one and the other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the "because" by "when", and would be willing to repeat the translation of the whole incipit if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Still leaves the first half of the sentence unreferenced: only the translation, and nothing about "cantus firmus" or "alto", can be referenced to the source that is currently used for the entire sentence. Maybe split in two sentences, with an appropriate source for the cantus firmus related content?

"... second verse ...." (in the same sentence, before the part of the sentence that was quoted above by Wehwalt) is confusing. In Luther's translation (as in the original) it would be the third verse of the biblical text. I suppose somewhere between when Luther published his translation in 1722 and when the text became associated with the tonus peregrinus melody Luther's German translation of Lk 1:46 and 47 became merged into one "verse" of the sung version, but that is nowhere explained afaics: until such explanation is provided "second verse" is confusing terminology: it may apply as well to Lk 1:47 as to Lk 1:48.

Dellal's translation doesn't seem too faithful to the German original in this instance. The original Greek word ταπείνωσις means abasement, the Latin (Vulgate) translation, humilitas, could be rendered in English as "humility". In the libretto of the cantata the same word is translated as "elend" (miserable, wretched). Most English versions of the Magnificat use "lowliness" for this part of the text, and more modern German versions "Niedrigkeit". In this instance (she translates Elend as wretched elsewhere) Dellal seems to fall back on a standard English translation of the Magnificat rather than on the specificity of the German libretto of the cantata. "... the text ... speaks of the 'lowly..." seems a bit flawed... it doesn't really: it speaks of "elend" which is more appropriately translated as miserable or wretched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just one remark: the word "elend" changed meaning in German more than once, compare Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist, and to look at translations seems more appropriate in the article on the German Magnificat. What would you call a faithful translation: of the meaning at Bach's time, or ours? Can we agree that translation often has more than one "faithful" option, and sometimes not even one? - Back to what brought us here: having the cantus firmus split this way happens only in this one chorale cantata, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, [Dellal] translates Elend as wretched elsewhere: BWV 75 is Bach's cantata for 30 May 1723. I don't think the meaning of the word elend/Elend would have changed in the 13 months between BWV 75 and BWV 10. For BWV 75 Dellal translates Elend as wretched ([15]), which I think a more faithful translation: it is certainly "the meaning at Bach's time". As said, I understand her choice for "lowly", but that seems rather inspired by KJV-like standard translations of the Magnificat, than by the intricacies of the actual German libretto of the cantata at Bach's time. KJV is old, and not a translation of Luther's German, so I'd rather avoid it in the context of this cantata (see also below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Remark 2: the thorough analysis of the Oregon Bach Festival (external link) has this: "At the third entrance of the chorus, however, Bach gives the Gregorian chant to the altos. This change of voicing is related to the text denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen [He hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden]. A low voice now takes over the cantus firmus." I use now the more idiomatic KJV instead of Dellal, and count the verses to three. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My point was that it may not be obvious that the handmaiden would be given to the alto voice, if you are not knowledgeable about music. But I gather there is a musical convention about such things, and that's acceptable given this is not a basic-level music article. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well in this case there is no such musical convention, and the former content of the article was wrong to suggest it. The Oregon Bach Festival interpretation seems exceptional and should not be rendered in the article without in-text attribution of the author (which is a bit difficult as it is apparently an anonymous text). There's a lot that speaks against this interpretation. The verse goes from "low" to "high" in feeling (The second half of the verse speaks about being blessed for ever). Affektenlehre thus would suggest to go from "low" notes to "high" notes: if that is performed by the same (group of) singer(s) there is no voice type that is particularly indicated. In his Latin Magnificat Bach composes this verse for the highest of two sopranos (with the chorus joining in on the last two words). Explanations by established scholars about voice type used for the cantus firmus in the first movements of cantatas 1 to 5 of the chorale cantata cycle (this one is the fifth) speak about the succession being built on soprano→alto→tenor→bass, leading to soprano→alto in the 5th cantata (nothing to do with text). Also the "elend" word of the libretto carrying less of a connotation of being "low-placed" than the conventional Latin "humilitas" and other variants (see discussion above) seems to confirm that the Oregon's explanation is rather to be regarded as an over-interpretation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. KJV – I'd prefer a 21st-century translation. Also, a translation that is not tied to a denomination. Let's not link to or quote from "doth" and "hath" type of translations, which sound particularly stolid in 21st-century ears: such older translations can be found in the Magnificat article, linked from the lead paragraph, for those who savour them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• "the duet Et misericordia (And your compassion), in both cases expressing mildness and compassion." Even though it is a translation, can the repetition be avoided by a synonym? Possibly mercy?

Good point, but I don't know a synonym for compassion, with passion in it. I'd rather change the translation, literally misery [felt by the] heart, but its clumsy. Any synonym for that? --GA

No idea. I had thought of misericordia as meaning "mercy" but Latin is not my language. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• "All wind instruments and violin I support the soprano." I imagine "violin I" to be a technical term.

So far, in the whole article, it is "two violins". If an instrumental group is divided, yes, you say technically numbers from I (one), like Part I. Do you think we should say "the first violins"? --GA

• "It has been held from 1948" I would say "since", not "from"--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Meets the criteria. I'll leave the technical discussions on German language to those who will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw

OK, it looks like others have reviewed and notwithstanding the discussion above, here is my review, based upon the article as of this revision. Most of what I have to offer at this point is wikignoming to help the non-expert understand the article a bit better.

• Lead:
  • I'd put the English title (My soul magnifies the Lord) in quotes: ("My soul magnifies the Lord"). Italics are fine too, but either way, not plain text.

    • It's not a title, just a translation. Few cantatas have an English title, such as Actus tragicus, - well, that's Latin ;) --GA

      • I see it is consistent style throughout and seen in other articles. I still think it needs to be in quotes. But also not a deal-breaker. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • put "also known as his German Magnificat" before Johann Sebastian Bach. The paragraph is a wee bit choppy

    • perhaps review an earlier version, which didn't know any "German Magnificat". I am tempted to ask "known by whom" and think it's no lead material, but it's debated. Whatever the outcome of that debate: Bach should come rather sooner than later. --GA

      • The problem is putting like concepts together... put the names (all of them) before composer. One way or the other. No position on inclusion of "German Magnificat", only a comment on paragraph structure... if it's in, put it before composer, up with other boldface titles. If it's tossed, no worries, I don't care. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

        If it is kept in the lead, it should be mentioned much later, and with an explanation, not before Luther's German Magnificat was mentioned. - The concept of "all names first" is fine, but in case of so much foreign language, we should get to the composer soon. ---GA

        • My suggestion is either, "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a], also known as his German Magnificat, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. It was composed in 1724..." (which I'd prefer) or, at least "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a] is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. Also known as his German Magnificat, It was composed in 1724..."
          • I will go over the lead, probably later today, see Ceoil below. ----GA
  • A few more modifiers in "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented in his second year in Leipzig." same reason -- just smooth it out a bit, perhaps something like "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented during his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig."

    • split in two sentences --GA

      • OK.
  • the Magnificat -- should also be italicized and linked to Magnificat in the lede, not just lower in the body text

    • Magnificat became a word of English and should not be italicized. It is linked in the lede. --GA

      • Not according to the title of the Magnificat article, which is italicized. OK on link Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • That article is wrong, but going to fix it seems like a battle I would not want to enter. Compare Requiem. ---GA
          • • OK, not our circus. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • wikilink continuo to Basso continuo and clarify, somewhat obscure phrasing for people outside the classical music field (the other instruments are commonly known) people may not know the word.

    • There's a link to Baroque instruments, - otherwise we'd have to link trumpet and get a sea of blue. - Compare other FAs such as Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 --GA

      • Hmmm, I see no reason not to link the specific instrument somewhere... where no sea of blue... everyone knows what a trumpet is, though if I am wrong, a small sea of blue is not harmful.  ;-)
        • They are all linked (even violin) in the Structure and scoring section. In the infobox and lead, it would be two seas of blue. (I should make some "frequently answered Q&A.) ---GA
          • OK, I can live with that. Consider saying "basso continuo" in lede, to match link lower down, but not a big dea. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Background:
  • May want to put in the actual date he took office, non-Churched individuals may be unfamiliar with the Liturgical year, even though it's linked in the lede.

    • Well, we say already 1724, and second year, no? --GA

      • I'd encourage adding month also -- a supplement to "liturgical year". Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The month of performance comes later in the same sentence, and the month of composition we don't know. ---GA
          • • No, I meant to note when Bach took the position: "In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. " Because non-Christians have no clue what that means, I suggest stating something like, "Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on 30 May 1723, the first Sunday after Trinity."
              • Sorry for misunderstanding. I reworded, - please check. ----GA
  • I'd be OK if you linked "Latin Magnificat" together to the name of the actual work, that or say "Magnificat in Latin" to avoid the "Sea of Blue" problem

    done, good idea --GA

  • In the chart, Overview of the first cantatas in Bach's chorale cantata cycle, I'd wikilink the items under "Form" that have not been previously linked -- not everyone knows what a motet is.

    • It's linked just above. --GA

      • OK. I personally like redundant links in charts and infoboxes, but that's just my quirk, not FAC or MOS.
  • Is the final entry for "Form" in the chart intended to be blank?

    • yes, just a "normal" chorale fantasia --GA

      • Hmmm... maybe link that? Not sure, just would balance chart visually. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • But all five are chorale fantasias, - I'm afraid it would be confusing. ---GA
          • In the chart, the others have different labels... I am rather confused now... ? ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
            • I thought chorale fantasia in the style of a motet was clear enough, but now inserted the passage about the chorale cantatas in general from the last FA. Is that helpful? ----GA
  • I am unclear about "unknown librettist retained some parts of Luther's wording, while he paraphrased other passages" -- do we know when or why? It's kind of a random fact sitting out there. Was the librettist's wording used in the original performance or added later?

    • The libretto (booklet) is written before the music. It was the format/program/idea/concept of the chorale cantatas: rewording part of the hymn in (then) modern words. --GA

      • Maybe a modern clarification? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The concept is explained in chorale cantata. "Clarification" seems strange, because for our taste, the Baroque language is rather less clear than the straightforward gospel or chorale ;) ---GA
          • • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe explain (perhaps in an endnote) what a " traditional 9th psalm tone" is

    • The 9th psalm tone is pictured ;) - "Ninth" repeated now in the caption. - I don't think we should explain the concept of reciting tone and its variants in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

      • Perhaps add a helpful wikilink to the concept for those who can't read music??? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Link in caption repeated, and now ninth not 9th, to make the connection. ---GA
          • • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Music:
  • "based on the chant melody." --which? Clarify

    • The Ninth psalm tone, said before, - I tried to not be too repetitive. --GA

      • Maybe a minor rephrase? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • How? ---GA
          • • Maybe a wikilink would work, possibly "The first and last are set for choir, and are based on the chant melody." ? Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
              • That link seems like an Easter egg, I'd rather link to Gregorian chant again, but very reluctantly. ----GA
  • Wikilink recitatives and arias on first use, for the non-classical music expert.

    That is done, but happens in Readings, text and tune. --GA

    • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Manuscript and publications:
  • Clarify what an "autograph score" is -- signed by Bach?

    "written by Bach", as the link says. I'd hesitate to explain what a book is ;) - Should we link score? --GA

    • Yes, that might work. Autograph link goes to "autograph" main article, perhaps link to subsection? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Main article has nothing about music, - the lead is all that is useful for those who don't know the term. ---GA
        • Meh, someone, somewhere should do a small def of why an autographed score is better than... whatever else ... but I guess also not our circus. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have an article on Johann Andreas Kuhnau? Christian Gottlob Meißner? Should we explain who they are?

    Not even the German Wikipedia has articles on them. They helped Bach producing performance material from the score, - only few of his works were printed during his lifetime. They are nothing special for this cantata, - should their work be mentioned in Bach cantata? --GA

    • Perhaps. All is well. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikilink Library of Congress

    done --GA

    • OK
• Recordings:
  • "seems to have been recorded first in 1963." -- awkward. Suggest rephrase to "seems to have first been recorded in 1963." or "seems to have been recorded for the first time in 1963." -- or something similar to smooth the phrasing

    second one taken, thank you --GA

    • OK
  • Might want to link "Chamber" and "Period" in the chart on first appearance.

    • I dropped "chamber", but period instruments would have to go to Baroque instruments, linked before. --GA

      • Again, I favor repeating links in charts, but that's just me. Your call there. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't want to link period several times, nor recitative twice in the table above ;) ---GA
          • • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Sourcing, formatting, images look OK to me, and others appear to be going over them in detail. Overall, I am ready to support once we make the prose flow a bit smoother and clarify the technical language with more wikilinking and the occasional explanation for the benefit of the non-aficionado. Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking from a different perspective! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Most improvements OK, a few with additional comments, none of earth-shattering significance, just think over. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Thank you! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Fixed some more, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

I cant parse and on the melody to which that German version of the - can you restructure please. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the question. - All other chorale cantatas are based on a strophic hymn, but this one is based on German bible text in prose, (traditionally) sung in Gregorian chant (or reciting tone), specifically the ninth psalm tone or tonus peregrinus). Can you word it better? - In German, both these things are called Choral, in English, however, chorale seems to mean only the strophic hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I understand the terminology around chorals. But its not explained properly as of yet in the lead; the phrase I highlighted above needs to be clearer. Impressed so far, bty. Ceoil (talk)

I will go over it, there are also (outdented) good suggestions by Francis above, - look at the rest first, please, the lead will follow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)