Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227/archive1
Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is about Bach's longest motet, with a complex text alternating hymn stanzas from "Jesu, meine Freude" with biblical text from Paul's Letter to the Romans. The music, in a symmetrical arrangement of 11 movements, displays various vocal scorings (from 3 to 5 voices) and compositional variation and finesse. For the longest time, the motet was believed to have been composed for a certain funeral, but recent scholarship questioned that. - The article has a long history, I came in late, Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, - I wonder how he could receive credit. It received a peer review earlier this year, with good comments by Amitchell125 and Aza 24. There is no similar article, because it's a unique artwork. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
In response to concerns of several reviewers, I changed two things substantially: I expanded the lead, and I tried to unite the two tables showing the complex structure of the work. Please check those two sections once more, see if your points were covered, and suggest further improvements. I'll go over the individual questions now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Jesu,_meine_Freude_(Bach)_Anfangstakte.png is tagged as lacking author info, and should include a tag for the original work
- File:Jesu_Meine_Freude_Praxis_Cruger_1653_-_extract.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review! GRuban, can you please help in a field I'm not sure I do the right thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I fixed the complaining templates on both pages, but not sure what "should include a tag for the original work" meant. It's a score of a Bach composition, do you mean you want a link to our page for the composition, meaning Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, this article in question? --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not a link, but a copyright tag, reflecting that the copyright of the work itself has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Done --GRuban (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I fixed the complaining templates on both pages, but not sure what "should include a tag for the original work" meant. It's a score of a Bach composition, do you mean you want a link to our page for the composition, meaning Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, this article in question? --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Laser brain
On first read-through this is very solid, with a cohesive narrative. It does a good job outlining what's of interest to the reader. I suspect I will have some nitpicks that I'll either correct myself or post here for clarity, soon. It's close to ready. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments:
- "Bach set both in a symmetrical structure" - I do not understand what this means without an explanation or context.
- What would you expect? --GA
- Please check new lead. ---GA
- Similarly in the second para, I don't know what "free setting" means.
- The other movements follow rather strict rules, but that one is free. How to say that? --GA
- Please check new lead. ---GA
- "the genre was regarded as antiquated" by whom?
- Nobody specific, the genre just wasn't as fashionable any more as it had been in the Renaissance and early Baroque. --GA
- "which at some point or another" is too informal and imprecise for this type of writing.
- That corner of the article was written by Francis. How can we say - what I think he intended - that there is great uncertainty for many works of the 15 if they really are motets by Bach (doubting "motet, doubting "by JS Bach", or both), but for a solid five, there was no question. Aza, can you help with this phrasing, perhaps? Split the sentence? --GA
- I changed it, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- "the large majority of his vocal church music" - similarly, this is imprecise writing. Use "a majority of" if it's more than half. If it's closer to 100%, then I'd recommend writing something like "most of".
- "most of" taken, talking about around 200 cantatas plus four-part chorale settings. I wonder if we should name the few 5-part works: Magnificat and Mass in B minor? --GA
- I added the two works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- "The hymn tune appears in two variants in the uneven movements of the motet." Is any more detail available? What kind of variants?
- That is clarified in the individual movements, and the dating. It seems to suggest that the composition wasn't written at one time. --GA
- The variant is small, in only one measure, but for musicologist, it gives them a clue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Article contains mixed American and British English (harmonization, analyse)
- I'll check. It should be British, - please feel free to just change when you see the other unless it's in a quotation. --GA
This takes me up to Movements. I will leave more comments soon. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking closer. The article was written by many users, which explains mixed spellings. I'll look, but have a few tasks with a time stamp first. The symmetrical construction of the whole composition, as pictured under "Structure and scoring", is the key aspect of it, and how could it be said to be understood by you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe I just needed to keep reading. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
More comments:
- Made some small edits for clarity and consistency.
- Thank you for those. I changed one, please check, about the last movement having the same music as the first. --GA
- Can you provide the passage(s) from Jones p. 203 that support the following text: "Jones noted that the tenor part is particularly expressive. The last movement has the same music as the different text of the last stanza, creating a frame that encloses the whole work"
- I'll have to look, but the tenor thing was again not written by me, and the same music of first and last is illustrated just below. --GA
- From what I can tell, this was derived from the following excerpt (from p. 203): "A1 and A6 are identical four-part chorales, creating an outer frame. [...] The musically identical outer movements, A1 and A6, are plain four-part chorales, albeit of great beauty and with an exceptionally expressive tenor part." DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dan, that's helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, this was derived from the following excerpt (from p. 203): "A1 and A6 are identical four-part chorales, creating an outer frame. [...] The musically identical outer movements, A1 and A6, are plain four-part chorales, albeit of great beauty and with an exceptionally expressive tenor part." DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll have to look, but the tenor thing was again not written by me, and the same music of first and last is illustrated just below. --GA
- Explanation needed for "rhetorical homophony"
- I wish I could ask Francis. --GA
- User:Laser brain, I began by grouping the sentences differently; the following sentence is perhaps an explanation. RandomCanadian, do you think you could help with the music, perhaps just of the soprano first line? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Homophony, as you must well know it, involves multiple voices (singing together with the same rhythm and usually same text; as opposed to polyphony). The explanation is already given in the previous sentence and in movement two. I'll try rewriting it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- "While the soprano sings the chorale melody, the lower voices intensify the gesture dramatically with word painting: 'weg' is repeated several times in fast succession." Is there some significance to this word? What is the translation?
- Yes, significant, and hard to translate. "away", and it's given in the first line of the paragraph. In the St John Passion, the text is "Weg, weg mit dem. Kreuzige, kreuzige ..." = Away, away with that one. Crucify, crucify ..." - Should there be more translation in this article? Or in the hymn article. How about English for the beginnings in the table of movements? --GA
- "Performers of Jesu, meine Freude have to decide..." The choir are the performers.. wouldn't a director or producer decide? The end of that long sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would break it up to more clearly articulate what the performance options are.
- Well, the intention is rather "whoever wants to perform it", and decision processes differ. Some small ensembles don't even have a conductor. The smallest group performing it are just five singers, because instruments are not prescribed (but would have been normal at Bach's time). Suggestions? --GA
- "based on the motet's first (=11th) and seventh movements" I'm not sure what the parenthetical is expressing.
- Again by Francis, and meaning again that the music of the first movement is the same as of the last (=eleventh) movement. I assume that CPE Bach rendered the setting without text. We can drop the (=11th) if it's confusing. --GA
That's all from me for now. It's in fine shape. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking closely, User:Laser brain. Sorry about not replying sooner, but I travelled over last days and managed only some of the most time-critical things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- No worries on the timeframe. I do have serious concerns, though, about how this can move forward without the involvement of someone who has access to and understanding of the sources cited. There are parts of this article that are somewhat inaccessible, although I understand a previous editor wrote them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, we talk about the most prolific editor for Bach's biography, list of works (98%), compositions, Baroque music in general. I wonder how far AGF goes for book sources on historic material. I'd call Mathsci, the other expert on Bach, if he wasn't in an interaction ban with Francis, so could probably be blocked for any comment. Sometimes Wikipedia is that crazy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it's unfortunate when user's behavior problems affect their ability to create content. I've seen far too much of that in my years here. Anyway, how do we proceed? I don't see how this can progress without ability to answer questions about the content and cited sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is Jones the only specific source at issue, or others as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- That specific source, yes, but there are also several places in the article where the writing is unclear (to me, anyway) and it's problematic that the principal author is not available for inquiries. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Noted, but where there is an issue with source interpretation IMO the solution is to get hold of the source, which Dan has offered below. That applies regardless of who originally added the source, and allows for issues of wording to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- In the Jones source, some pages are missing in the google version, but how about AGF there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of AGF. If I don't understand what's written here, I'd like to refer to the source so I can read it myself and try to improve the text. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm out for today, but think that we can check what exactly is unclear, and if it can we reworded, dropped, or a better source found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have institutional access to Jones 2013 and can send pages from it to anyone here who needs it. I replied to Laser brain's comment about the tenor part in the first movement. Happy to supply a longer excerpt if needed. DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, can I perhaps have all of p.203? It's cited several times and some of the passages are unclear to me (c.f. "rhetorical homophony" above); I'd like to read the source so I can improve the writing here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, sent via email. Gerda (and anyone else), let me know if you'd like me to email it to you too. DanCherek (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, can I perhaps have all of p.203? It's cited several times and some of the passages are unclear to me (c.f. "rhetorical homophony" above); I'd like to read the source so I can improve the writing here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of AGF. If I don't understand what's written here, I'd like to refer to the source so I can read it myself and try to improve the text. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- That specific source, yes, but there are also several places in the article where the writing is unclear (to me, anyway) and it's problematic that the principal author is not available for inquiries. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is Jones the only specific source at issue, or others as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it's unfortunate when user's behavior problems affect their ability to create content. I've seen far too much of that in my years here. Anyway, how do we proceed? I don't see how this can progress without ability to answer questions about the content and cited sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, we talk about the most prolific editor for Bach's biography, list of works (98%), compositions, Baroque music in general. I wonder how far AGF goes for book sources on historic material. I'd call Mathsci, the other expert on Bach, if he wasn't in an interaction ban with Francis, so could probably be blocked for any comment. Sometimes Wikipedia is that crazy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- No worries on the timeframe. I do have serious concerns, though, about how this can move forward without the involvement of someone who has access to and understanding of the sources cited. There are parts of this article that are somewhat inaccessible, although I understand a previous editor wrote them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking closely, User:Laser brain. Sorry about not replying sooner, but I travelled over last days and managed only some of the most time-critical things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Laser brain, please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Will do! --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Support on re-reading with recent revisions in place. It's in great shape. --Laser brain (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
This nomination is nearly at the three week mark and is showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments from GeneralPoxter
Should be leaving a review by the end of the week, but I have a lot of outside work on my plate right now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Lead/infobox
It may have been composed for a funeral, but scholars have come to doubt the dating (from 1912) to a specific funeral in Leipzig in July 1723, a few months after Bach had moved there.
I found the use of the parenthetical to be somewhat confusing in the lead. Looking further in the article indicates that it meant the dating was made in 1912, but I originally thought it meant the scholars began to doubt the dating in 1912. Maybe a better summary of the Time of origin section here would be to say that though some scholars considered the work was composed for a funeral in 1732, others have proposed alternative occassions and dates.- Rest of lead reads fine, and infobox looks good.
- please check the new lead ---GA
History
exceeding that of a standard SATB choir of soprano, alto, tenor and bass,
Isn't soprano, alto, tenor, and bass redundant since it's already implied in "standard SATB choir"? This explicit listing of voices also contributes to the number of commas in this sentence, which can be confusing to read.- taken with thanks! ---GA
- Would it be misleading to characterize Johann Michael Bach as J.S. Bach's "ancestor" since the two are not related by blood?
- Thanks for that catch, - what can we do? Is there a different word? ---GA
Around 15 extant compositions were recognised by musicologists as a motet by Bach (BWV 118, 225–231, 1083, 1149, Anh. 159–165), Jesu, meine Freude is one of only five (BWV 225–229) which have always been considered as a Bach motet.
Besides the comma splice (in red) and apparent subject-object disagreement ("around 15 extant compositions were recognised as ... a motet by Bach ", "one of only five...which have always been considered as a Bach motet") [should be "motets by Bach" not "a motet by Bach"?], "were recognised" just seems a bit ambiguous here, since it is not revealed until the end of the sentence that these works were not always considered motets. Maybe rephrase "were recognised" to something like "are now recognised" or "were once recognised" (depending on which is the case) to give the reader a better clue at the beginning of the sentence that this list of works were not always considered motets.- you are right, and let's think, - postponing for now, - perhaps a complete rewrite would be best, focusing on that BWV 227 was always a core motet ---GA
Compositions with five-part movements are the Magnificat, written in 1723 at the beginning of his tenure in Leipzig, and the Mass in B minor, compiled towards the end of his life.
This sentence could be better linked to the previous by prefacing it with something along the lines of "uncommon examples of five-part movements can be found in".- taken ---GA
GeneralPoxter, thank you for your comments, and please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
TRM
- Bach himself isn't linked in the lead which seems a little odd. In the prose (as well as the infobox).
- Please see below under Wehwalt who had the same question. --GA
- I don't see why Bach wouldn't be linked. Simple. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Projects Classical music and Opera have a convention: when a piece is linked, no link to the composer, because whoever doesn't know him can be sure to find him in the piece's article. Mozart's Requiem. Same for a group of pieces, no? - But I'm open for a solution linking motet without Easter egg and Bach also if you have one. Or should we accept that Easter egg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- But this is FAC and this article could end up on the main page where readers are not members of Projects Classical music. We shouldn't be beholden to arcane project rules to the detriment of the general public. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Projects Classical music and Opera have a convention: when a piece is linked, no link to the composer, because whoever doesn't know him can be sure to find him in the piece's article. Mozart's Requiem. Same for a group of pieces, no? - But I'm open for a solution linking motet without Easter egg and Bach also if you have one. Or should we accept that Easter egg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see why Bach wouldn't be linked. Simple. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Bach is linked in the new lead. ---GA
- Please see below under Wehwalt who had the same question. --GA
- "for SSATB choir" this is unexplained (albeit linked) so it is intractable to most without clicking on it. And should it be choirs? or "an SSATB choir"? Right now it doesn't read correctly.
- I guess that most readers coming to this article know what SATB means, so will be able to understand SSATB choir, and it's one. There are many things I'd like to see in the lead, but not an explanation of a common abbreviation if we can avoid it. We say: "for cello", not "for a cello". --GA
- It's not a common abbreviation for all readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Of course not, therefore we have the link. BBC is not a common abbreviation, but we'd still not spell it out or explain, no? I added a bit: "a five-part (SSATB) choir". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, I think BBC is far more common than SSATB (which I have literally never heard of). We shouldn't be demanding readers click away from the article to get even a clue as to what this means. That you have to expand it in the article indicates its relative complexity, and we don't really ever expand "British Broadcasting Corporation" because it's almost universally known as BBC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- As long as our article name is SATB, and linked on around 1000 pages, I conclude that we don't have to write an explanation (beyond "five-part") in the lead. ---GA
- Um, I think BBC is far more common than SSATB (which I have literally never heard of). We shouldn't be demanding readers click away from the article to get even a clue as to what this means. That you have to expand it in the article indicates its relative complexity, and we don't really ever expand "British Broadcasting Corporation" because it's almost universally known as BBC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Of course not, therefore we have the link. BBC is not a common abbreviation, but we'd still not spell it out or explain, no? I added a bit: "a five-part (SSATB) choir". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a common abbreviation for all readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I guess that most readers coming to this article know what SATB means, so will be able to understand SSATB choir, and it's one. There are many things I'd like to see in the lead, but not an explanation of a common abbreviation if we can avoid it. We say: "for cello", not "for a cello". --GA
- motet could be linked in the lead as well. In the prose I mean.
- The link supplied for Bach's motets leads to an article with a link to motet. Again, most people reading about one of Bach's 6 motets will already know what that is, plus motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. --GA
- I disagree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Compare BWV 1, a recent FA: link to church cantata, not to cantata. - Again: motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. Sending someone there seems a needless detour, prepared or unprepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think technical terms should be linked. If the target article is sub-optimal, that's a different matter. This article needs to be accessible to all readers, not just music project members. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Compare BWV 1, a recent FA: link to church cantata, not to cantata. - Again: motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. Sending someone there seems a needless detour, prepared or unprepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is linked in the new lead. --GA
- The link supplied for Bach's motets leads to an article with a link to motet. Again, most people reading about one of Bach's 6 motets will already know what that is, plus motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. --GA
- "1723 , a " no space after 1723.
- fixed --GA
- "Romans 8:1–2,9–11" space after that comma.
- not sure because couldn't that mean verses 1 and 2 of chapter 8, plus chapters 9 to 11? (I found that and copied, really not sure) --GA
- Yes, that's exactly what it would mean. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- and that's wrong because it should concern verses from chapter 8, the first, second, ninth, tenth and eleventh. I guess it's the normal writing for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, a space after the comma is normal writing for this. It's no different to a page range where you might say pp. 34–35, 38–40. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- But you misunderstood it then, no? ---GA
- No, a space after the comma is normal writing for this. It's no different to a page range where you might say pp. 34–35, 38–40. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- not sure because couldn't that mean verses 1 and 2 of chapter 8, plus chapters 9 to 11? (I found that and copied, really not sure) --GA
- "Unique in its complex..." this is only unique within Bach's canon, according to later in the article, that isn't clear here in the lead.
- Then we should fix the article, because it's unique, period. --GA
- I mean this very article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I meant the same. Bach's are the pinnacle of motet writing (which would need to be mentioned and sourced), and this motet is his pinnacle within. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- This article says " is unique in Bach's work in its complex symmetrical structure" so it needs to be generalised per your comments above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's now "Bach's work", and general can come later, or not. ---GA
- This article says " is unique in Bach's work in its complex symmetrical structure" so it needs to be generalised per your comments above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I meant the same. Bach's are the pinnacle of motet writing (which would need to be mentioned and sourced), and this motet is his pinnacle within. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I mean this very article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Then we should fix the article, because it's unique, period. --GA
- "sacred cantatas" link cantatas.
- as for motet: cantata has a very broad meaning of which little applies to Bach's specific cantatas. Church cantata (Bach) was linked the previous sentence, and that article includes these wedding and funeral cantatas. We could link to its section §Occasions outside of the liturgical year if that helps. --GA
- But non-experts reading this would appreciate a link to a complex word whether it was 100% directly relevant or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sacred cantata is a redirect, and not to cantata. Wouldn't that be a dupl link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- used now redirect to the specific section ---GA
- But non-experts reading this would appreciate a link to a complex word whether it was 100% directly relevant or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- as for motet: cantata has a very broad meaning of which little applies to Bach's specific cantatas. Church cantata (Bach) was linked the previous sentence, and that article includes these wedding and funeral cantatas. We could link to its section §Occasions outside of the liturgical year if that helps. --GA
- ",[5][6][7].[8] " remove comma, place last ref before full stop.
- that seems fixed already --GA
- "scored for SSATB voices" this is overlinked.
- It's common to link in lead and body, and in this case also in the scoring section where it matters. --GA
- It's overlinked in the body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Intentionally so, yes. Please compare BWV 1 again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- it's no longer duplicate as PeneralPoxter made me remove the first occasion ---GA
- It's overlinked in the body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's common to link in lead and body, and in this case also in the scoring section where it matters. --GA
- Bible verses appear to be linked in the Movements table but several appear in the preceding prose/table.
- Do we have to switch the tables? Because the links make more sense with the text beginnings, while the other is more an overview (which I inherited) --GA
- Links normally appear on the first instance. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I know, and am in a dilemma. The overview shows the basics, but we also need a relation to the text, or it remains abstract. I found no solution to have both in one format. I believe the overview is better as the first thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Links normally appear on the first instance. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- solved by combinung the tables, please check ---GA
- Do we have to switch the tables? Because the links make more sense with the text beginnings, while the other is more an overview (which I inherited) --GA
- "the cantus firmus in" what's that?
- good catch, link added
- "two soprano parts (S or SS), alto (A), tenor (T) and bass (" each of those is overlinked.
- As said just above, it's common in compositions to have the links duplicate in the scoring section where readers may arrive from the TOC. --GA
- These terms are already linked in the main body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but for composition FAs, we have it also where it's more relevant, compare BWV 1 again, or any other of several cantata FAs. - This is the first motet, but that should be consistent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- These terms are already linked in the main body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- as before, no longer ---GA
- As said just above, it's common in compositions to have the links duplicate in the scoring section where readers may arrive from the TOC. --GA
- "Rom. 8:1" etc, both before and after you don't abbreviate Romans but you do here, suggest consistency.
- "you" in this case is Francis, and he has a point because if we consistently spell it out then also in the first table which would be wider. What should we do? --GA
- There doesn't appear to be an issue with width, so I don't see why the full term shouldn't be used. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- as before, no longer ---GA
- "you" in this case is Francis, and he has a point because if we consistently spell it out then also in the first table which would be wider. What should we do? --GA
- Why is the fifth (light blue) column in the Structure and scoring section smaller top and bottom than the other columns?
- I don't find what you mean, sorry. --GA
- On my screen, the fifth column isn't the same size as all the other columns. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not what I see, sorry. Others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- How would it look on a mobile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going by what I see on my desktop browser. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- On my screen, the fifth column isn't the same size as all the other columns. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't find what you mean, sorry. --GA
- "Jesus – Romans 8:1).[15] " this now links to the Bible passage, but in earlier prose sections you didn't link. I'm not clear on the strategy.
- The "strategy" - well, I thought that the translator might have used a different translation than the King James Version of the Bible but found (earlier today) that she used exactly that one. I dropped the Romans now. --GA
- "supply vivid lines" this feels like someone's opinion on the lines.
- Could you offer a synonym that sounds more neutral? "lively"? For language fine-tuning, I really need help. --GA
- Either way, it's opinion, who is saying it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's description. Jones (the source given) says "the soprano continues to deliver the plain chorale melody, but the lower parts are more elaborate than usual, often in the interests of text illustration." Which we could quote, or paraphrase, which I thought I did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Either way, it's opinion, who is saying it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could you offer a synonym that sounds more neutral? "lively"? For language fine-tuning, I really need help. --GA
- "Bible text,[63] regarded" this sentence feels like it needs "and is" before regarded to me.
- added --GA
- ". "BWV 227.1=227.11"" should that really be an equals sign?
- too bad we can't ask Francis. The music is exactly the same (while the text is not). Would you know a better option? --GA
- I am just asking why that's an equals sign, is it a range? It would be en-dash not equals if it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- All it should say is that the first movement's music is equal to the last movement's. I'll think about it, but - after failing to bring RD article Hilmar Kopper to ITNN format, I'm too tired right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am just asking why that's an equals sign, is it a range? It would be en-dash not equals if it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- this appears now only in a ref header ---GA
- too bad we can't ask Francis. The music is exactly the same (while the text is not). Would you know a better option? --GA
- " "Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) / Motets"" en-dsash for year ranges. At least a couple of these in the sources.
- sorry, I'm still blind for those, tried --GA
- Ok, well you can get scripts which address this issue in one click. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please help me to it when I'm less busy ;) ---GA
- Ok, well you can get scripts which address this issue in one click. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- sorry, I'm still blind for those, tried --GA
That's a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your keen eyes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
TRM, prompted mostly by your concern, I rewrote the lead and united the 2 tables, please check. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Amitchell125
I found this be a well-researched and informative article, but I have concerns about the quality of the prose, the links, and other details. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are:
- The image that follows "creating a frame that encloses the whole work" seems to be far too large (it's much smaller than the infobox image).
- That is not an image but a lilypond rendition, by RandomCanadian. I don't know if the output is flexible. In the infobox (which covers only the first two measures), I can't read the text. --GA
- Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is not an image but a lilypond rendition, by RandomCanadian. I don't know if the output is flexible. In the infobox (which covers only the first two measures), I can't read the text. --GA
- In the lead section, I would: put (Jesus, my joy) in bold and in italics; link motet (List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach) and theological (also unlinked in the text); amend in E minor to 'in the key of E minor'; change a 1912 dating to a specific July 1723 funeral, as it sounds as if the text was being dated to 1912; replace to that town with 'there'; amend eleven movements to '11 movements' (it occurs elsewhere); introduce Christoph Wolff; copy-edit for education in both choral singing and theology to improve the prose; add a comma after complex symmetrical structure.
- I adjusted the lead, rewording the sentence to get to Bach sooner. I am reluctant about making "Jesus, my joy" a title, because it's just a translation of the meaning, not a title that would be used (which would be Jesus, Priceless Treasure). I believe that "theological" is a common word. I think that we say "Mass in E minor", not "Mass in the key of E minor", and believe that it is widely understood. I took "there", and tried a different wording for the funeral dating. I don't see "11 movements" elsewhere. The Bach scholar is now introduced as such. Sorry, can you reword the "education"-phrase, because it was the best I could come up with? I am not sure about the comma because the juxtapositioning makes the complexity. --GA
- See here and here for two examples of where the title is in English, not German. See here for a FA with the style (bold, italics) that I would adopt. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- None of the two says it's performed this way. I looked around for the phrase, and found this dissertation, which might be good to use as a ref. The phrase appears only in the translation of the movements, not as a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, the title of the work, whilst usually in German, can also be in English, as these sources show. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could be, but the publisher may also just make it palatable in English. I can't read the title page of the Peters which Boosey wants to sell to an English audience, but I saw Schott: while the "title" is English but no title case, the cover has it only in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, the title of the work, whilst usually in German, can also be in English, as these sources show. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is up to others to decide if theological is a common word, i would link it as being relevant and helpful within the context of this article. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- For 11 movements, see the infobox (eleven occurs twice in the lead, once in the History section, once in the Structure and scoring section). Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- In the infobox, the number of movements is usually numeric, even 3 and 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I know, and I would also have the word put numerically in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I normally follow spelling it out up to twelve, but if it pleases you I can make an exception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I know, and I would also have the word put numerically in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here for two examples of where the title is in English, not German. See here for a FA with the style (bold, italics) that I would adopt. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I adjusted the lead, rewording the sentence to get to Bach sooner. I am reluctant about making "Jesus, my joy" a title, because it's just a translation of the meaning, not a title that would be used (which would be Jesus, Priceless Treasure). I believe that "theological" is a common word. I think that we say "Mass in E minor", not "Mass in the key of E minor", and believe that it is widely understood. I took "there", and tried a different wording for the funeral dating. I don't see "11 movements" elsewhere. The Bach scholar is now introduced as such. Sorry, can you reword the "education"-phrase, because it was the best I could come up with? I am not sure about the comma because the juxtapositioning makes the complexity. --GA
- There are duplicate links: SSATB; soprano; alto; tenor; bass;
- We commonly repeat them for the scoring section, for readers who jump there, where they are most relevant. --GA
- OK, but are the last four needed? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- define needed, - strictly, they were already linked before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- OK, but are the last four needed? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- they should be gone, please check ---GA
- We commonly repeat them for the scoring section, for readers who jump there, where they are most relevant. --GA
- In the first part of the History section, I would: amend was regarded as antiquated to 'was already regarded as antiquated'; put in E minor like his ancestor's into a separate sentence, and improve the quality of the prose; explain figural music (or Figuralmusik) in a note, as it appears to be a uniquely German term; link continuo (Basso continuo).
- "already" added, but I'd rather drop the "in E minor" than separate it (but then explaining the connection). With the hymn in E minor, it's actually not a surprise. Figural music: Francis planned an article. Perhaps we better do without (tried, please check). "basso continuo" was linked in the previous paragraph. --GA
- In the Epistle text and chorale subsection, I would query: why italics are not used for "Jesu, meine Freude" in the caption, and why "in the flesh" and "according to the Spirit" are shown in quotes; introduce Franck as "the theologian Johann Franck" at the beginning of this subsection, not later; improve the prose where it says addressing Jesus as joy and support, against enemies and the vanity of existence, which are expressed in stark images; look again at The hymn adds a layer of individuality and emotions to Biblical teaching. - another strange sentence, as how can a hymn add a layer of emotions?
- The image is of the hymn, not the motet. "living in the flesh/spirit" is a theological phrase (or concept) by Paul, no normal language, - would you know a better way to say that? "theologian" now comes sooner. I tried to clarify the individual position of the believer saying "meine Freude" (my joy) and other very personal emotional things, - better wording wanted. The images - "old dragon" and such - come later in the movements when mentioned, - this is just a summary, as in the source. --GA
- In the 20th and 21st centuries subsection there is an unaddressed 'citation required tag'.
- Will look, but have to jump right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- ref added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
My comments were made because of my concerns about quality of the prose, amongst other things. Instead of making further comments, which I would if I had the time and energy, I instead suggest the article is checked over by an experienced copy-editor. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Amitchell125, in the meantime, Wehwalt, TRM and GeneralPoxter improved the prose. Please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Aza24
- Currently reviewing GP's article. Please ping or let me know when some of the above comments have settled down, and I'll look through. I think the coords will be more lenient now that there are more commitments to review. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Wehwalt
- "This Biblical text, which influenced key Lutheran teachings, is contrasted by the hymn" How is it contrasted? I'm not clear on what this means.
- The detail comes later, but at this point, we know already that we have older text (Bible, 1st century) and newer text (hymn, 17th century), and we have teaching (third person) vs. emotional emphasis ("Jesus, my joy", first person). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- " to Bach's Leipzig years.[26]" It might help the reader if you say when this was, although you do say about when he started in Leipzig. Similarly dating might be helpful for the Weimar period and for Bach's death when mentioned.
- There's now a link to where it's covered in the bio (as Weimar already had), and the years for both. Is that too much, perhaps? - I'm reluctant about the death, because the precise year is rather less important (and same as end of Leipzig period) than saying that the two other 5-part works are one from early in Leipzig and one from late. I wonder if we should add that both are exceptional works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- " was documented for event." This could use greater clarity.
- "the" seems to have been missing, and I changed "event" to "funeral", although repetitious - perhaps better than unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" Should "which" be "who"? Given that we are discussing humans, or at least their souls, "who", commonly applied to human beings, seems more appropriate than "which". I also see translations of Romans 8:1 that use "who".
- That's all correct, only: Wikipedia's source is the KJV (King James Version), linked to, which has "which", and the translator referenced seems to have used the same. Should we go as far as finding and quoting a different translation, or rather leave it as historic language? The German is also sort of old-fashioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why is Bach not linked in the lead?
- Sigh, he was until a reviewer wanted a link for "motet". As motet is very general, I thought that List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach was better, but how to indicate the difference? My solution was to include his name in that link. If you don't like it, we could copy what the infobox has, but it's a bit of an Easter egg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've made a number of hands on edits, please feel free to revert any you do not like.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking, and I'll check your changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the copy-edits, mostly great improvements! I'm not happy - has nothing to do with your change! - with the corner about the continuo accompaniment. Roughly: for centuries, choirs tried the "noble" unaccompanied singing because there was no continuo part; only when looking into sources more did musicologists find that two of the motets came with a continuo part, as was usual at the time. I wonder if that could be clarified, perhaps even naming those two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied by the responses. Support.--Wehwalt (talk)
- Wehwalt, kindly check the reworded lead and the table of the structure, combining the former two --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The first paragraph is a bit long for my taste, but I'm not going to make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, kindly check the reworded lead and the table of the structure, combining the former two --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied by the responses. Support.--Wehwalt (talk)
- "This Biblical text, which influenced key Lutheran teachings, is contrasted by the hymn" How is it contrasted? I'm not clear on what this means.
Comments from Mirokado
I've read through this, copyediting en passant.
Structure and scoring, the diagramwhat does "free" mean in the chorale 3 box?there is some numbering confusion here, we have unlabelled numbers 1–6 for the chorale stanzas, but in the final two boxes we have "similar to [movement numbers] 1, 2" so the "2" has different meanings within the diagramapart from those occurrences, the movement numbers don't appear in the diagram, which makes flipping between introductory text, diagram and table a bit confusing. I appreciate that we don't want the diagram to get too cluttered, though.- I dropped the first diagram completely, adding it's info to the other table, please check ---GA
Movementswl incipit. I read this without noticing the first time, because I studied Latin a bit at school, but I have not so far come across the term in active use. Since we have a nice article about it, I think we should provide the link.- done ---GA
Movements : 4although the quoted "rhetorical" in §Movements : 2 is explained nicely by the subsequent text, "beatific" here is not. It is quoting the word used by Jones (2003 p. 205) but on first reading it looked like "I will let you work out what I mean here" quotes. Perhaps link to beatific, where the meanings blissful, heavenly apply.
--Mirokado (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking and the copy-edits, - I'm too tired now and hope for tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Mirokado, thank you for the suggestions, and all taken. I expanded the lead a bit, and combined the tables, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Support: thank you Gerda, the updated lead and table look fine. --Mirokado (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)