Talk:Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4

Correct title

I don't quite understand why this article was moved from "Christ lag in Todesbanden" to "Christ lag in Todes Banden", since the former seems to be the correct designation. I don't have any knock-down argument for this, but the former name gets 45,000 Google hits and the latter merely 900; also, "Todesbanden" seems to accord better with German grammar. 85.74.143.144 14:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was moved, either, but I never bothered to move it back. I'll do it now. Microtonal 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Both seem to be widely used. "Todes Banden" sounds nicely archaic, but "sounds nice" is perhaps not a sufficient reason (so I just reverted my last move). I have matched the lead section to the title - if anybody moves it again, please don't forget to do that. Kusma (討論) 17:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article in the German Wikipedia uses "Todes Banden", but the German edition CD I have doesn't. Gramatically "Todes Banden" is definitely correct. I've added a comment that both spellings are used. I've also corrected the title of this section :-) Groogle (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong external links

I'm not sure how to change it, but the external links on this page relate to BWV 2, not this cantata, which is BWV 4. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRyanEinfeldt (talk • contribs) 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I can't believe no one caught that until now. :) Fixed. Microtonal 15:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aria and duet?

The article makes a few references to the aria and duet movements, but there is no indication exactly which these are. —Dgies^t c 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

links to video or audio of work

As someone who is greatly musically challenged, I find the bot revision eliminating video or audio links distressing. I first heard the music at church Sunday and was immediately interested. This comes from someone who generally doesn't sing or participate in music. I emailed our choir director, looked online and found both this article and a youtube and a google video of the music. I've listened to both several times and arranged to borrow a book on the topic, and then posted the links here to share with other neophytes. After the automated revision my attitude is that anyone interested can simply repeat my research, something that will greatly decrease the value of the wiki as the first one stop shopping place when you need something now..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmwilliamsjr (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FA plans

Some editors agree that this article would make a good TFA on Easter 2016. All help welcome. One improvement will be to change the references to harv, as in other FA articles on Bach cantatas, such as BWV 172. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give this a review JAGUAR  11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "when Bach held the position of Thomaskantor" - I've seen this italicised in some articles. Does this need to be italicised here?

italic now, --GA

• "He incorporated the work into his second cycle of Leipzig cantatas, the so-called chorale cycle based on Lutheran hymns, begun in 1724" - this might sound better as In 1724, Bach incorporated the work into his second cycle of Leipzig cantatas, the so-called chorale cycle based on Lutheran hymns

please try again ;) - the cycle was begun in (the middle of) 1724, but Easter was only in 1725 --GA

• "This cantata fits the cycle in the sense that it is based on a chorale, but its style is different from the others and it is generally accepted that it was originally composed much earlier" - this needs a citation

This is kind of a summary of what follows, but I double the Dürr ref --GA

• "However, it is possible to draw conclusions about which composers influenced the young Bach" - this sounds informal, is this part of a direct quote? "Young Bach" should be removed as it sounds unencyclopedic

I think, reading it again, that we don't need the sentence at all --GA

• " If he ever composed any other cantata for Easter Sunday it didn't survive" - informal; did not survive, remove "ever"

done --GA

• "It stresses the struggle between Life and Death" - why is Life and Death capitalised? Unless I'm mistaken and if it's taken out of the bible, please ignore!

look at the translation of the verse in the Dürr ref; it's like allegorical figures, such as Hope and Providence in other cantatas, --GA

• Second paragraph in the Scoring and structure is mostly unsourced

that's a job for Thoughtfortheday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Citation needed tag in the Publication section

sigh, - dropped, --GA

• Third paragraph in the Selected recordings section unsourced

The recordings are all sourced like the table, I doubled the ref. Of course the cantata is included in the five sets of complete conductors who made complete recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

On hold

I'm sorry if I took this review too early! I spotted a couple of things that can easily be rephrased, and a couple of paragraphs that need citations. Other than that it's very comprehensive for an early Bach work and I hope this GA review helps it on its way for a FAC! I'll leave this on hold. JAGUAR  22:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for good comments. It's an article with a long history, which explains some unevenness, and it's possibly Thoughtfortheday's first encounter with GA reviewing and requirements, - let's allow some time please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Why is the publication section so short and unsourced? Best to merge it and source it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What kind of source and more do you expect? It's in the free scores, first under Sources. All major Bach cantatas were published inthe Bach-Ausgabe and the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, - we often don't even mention that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added the second publ, from the other two sources. Help in making that inline welcome, I have no time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For GA no section or paragraph should be unsourced. Jaguar knows that too. Anything not attributed to a source looks like OR. If its just free scores that should go in the external links section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Trying again: it is sourced to the Sources: the free score of the mentioned publication, and collections from bach-digital for the two versions. How to make that inline citation, if you really think it's needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I will go ahead and start converting the refs to Harvard as I would have done for FA anyway. I have many other things to do right now but don't see a different solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

All paragraphs must be sourced at least once in order to meet the GA criteria. I've just took another look at the article and it seems that it's improved now, with some choppy sentences being merged and everything needed sourcing has now been sourced. This article is also comprehensive and generally well written, if you plan on taking it to FA I wish it luck! For now it meets the GA criteria so I'll be promoting. JAGUAR  22:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

HIP

Harnoncourt was the pioneer to make the first recordings of Bach's cantatas in historically informed performance, this cantata was in 1970 on the first volume of the complete cycle. What kind of citation beyond that do you expect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bach cantatas (Teldec) has four references for the fact, but I really hesitate to copy it to every single cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Small comments

Lead, end to next to last paragraph: "The lost scoring of the earlier performances was perhaps similar." Is this too weak to be worth saying?

Don't know. It's a summary of what is said below: that the custom of having the voices doubled by instruments is 17th century tradition which Bach kept (in his motets - see BWV 226: one choir doubled by strings, the other by winds, and) here, - therefore - although the music is lost - we have good reason to believe it was originally similar to what is extant of performances 16+ years later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Background, second and last para: "to the questionable leadership" - definite article "the" needs specifying whose leadership, or maybe use "to ... questionable" Marlindale (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Under "Movements", "Unlike Bach's later cantatas, all movements are in the same key"

There is a grammar issue here. One could write "Unlike in Bach's..." or "Unike Bach's later cantatas, all movements of this one are in the same key"

Thanks, tried to fix both, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Todes Banden vs. Todesbanden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ngram — consequently I moved the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't go by popularity, but by the edition of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, consequently move it back, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: We don't have to copy Amazon's mistake, compare their title and the picture, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Dürr also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

After waiting for several hours, I moved it back to the version published in the 20th century. The free scores follow the older publication, no wonder, because only they are free. Admitted: Amazon and Bach Cantatas have Todesbanden, but can hardly be described as reliable sources. I am not familiar with your ngram query, but it seems not to differentiate hymn and cantata. If you feel to have reasons to still prefer the 19th century style, please follow the move request procedure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, ngram – this is an accumulation of reliable sources (reliable in the sense of an application of WP:AT). The ...Totdesbanden variant has kept currency manyfold what the ...Todes Banden ever has been, despite what some of the very reliable reference sources do. The original argument stands. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What I read at WP:AT is: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Please follow and move back to the stable version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:UCRN ("... Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above ...", with "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable ... sources" demonstrated by ngram) is of course a "good reason to change". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that this is true if you pick a new title, not for an article that had a name for 10 years, and for a good reason, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect – I'd appreciate if you check before making statements. The article exists since 2005, so it has been Totdesbanden longer than Totdes Banden. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Further, the former page move (away from Totdesbanden) had a flawed rationale, it said "title in NBA" – now NBA is a single German-language source, while what counts for UCRN is "... prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources..." (emphasis added), so:

• never a "single" source, even if that is a very reliable one: when there are many reliable sources, these should be compared for the article title discrimination;
• generally: English-language sources, not German-language sources. Native English-language authors, such as J. E. Gardiner most often write Totdesbanden.
• in sum, that previous page move was moving away from an article title that had "been stable for a long time" for "no good reason" – which is a no-no for WP:AT.

Please get accustomed to basic English-language Wikipedia policy, I'm sure many of these discussions can get a lot less time-wasting then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about not checking that it was stable "only" since 2011. It has never been Totes anything, please check your facts also. I understand that you (and others) think that Wikipedia policy is against calling a piece its published name, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Asking the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the td typo (German isn't my native language either), corrected above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Simple summary of Gerda's view: use published title

• The cantata is based on a hymn by Martin Luther, Christ lag in Todes Banden.
• At Bach's time, both versions were used.
• In the first complete edition of Bach's works (19th century), it was Christ lag in Todesbanden (no BWV number at the time, introduced later).
• In the second complete edition of Bach's works (20th century), it was Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4.
• In the "bible" on the Bach cantatas, by Alfred Dürr, translated by Richard D. P. Jones, it's Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4.

Two popular sites stick with the old version, Bach-Cantatas and Amazon, Amazon even presenting the image of the different title on the printed edition next to it. I don't think we should follow (that mistake), also think the combination of Todesbanden and a BWV number is anachronistic, but will listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: I think the most significant source for Bach's works and sources is Bach-Digital which has in English the early version and the later version, no surprise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Re. the early version – "in English" is of course a relative understanding with content such as "1. Fassung (verschollen). EA wahrscheinlich 24. April 1707 anlässlich der Organistenprobe in der Kirche Divi Blasii zu Mühlhausen (Wolff 2000, Zehnder 2009). Keine Originalquellen überliefert. Über Besetzung, Werkgestalt und Stimmtonhöhe kann nur gemutmaßt werden; möglicherweise wurde der erste Satz mit dem Text der letzten Strophe als Satz 7 wiederholt."

Re. later version – similar, a sample of the "English" at that page: "Leipziger Fassung 1724/1725. Posaunenchor war wahrscheinlich erst in 1725 hinzugefügt."

Without prejudice against the content of all that, Bach digital is no authority on English expressions. Somewhat similar to BWV^2a, with its English introduction, which has "Todesbanden", see below.

And all of this is quite irrelevant for the article titling issue, as said already multiple times, what Gardiner, Novello, Kalmus, Schirmer and more recent editions in English-language realms (and many more sources as explicited by the ngram) do, see below, has more relevance for the article title, per WP:AT, than the "Denglish" sources. Or do you propose we write "leipzig" (as it is in the title of the English "later version" page at Bach digital) henceforth, instead of "Leipzig"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Last version of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis ("with an introduction in English"): Todesbanden
• A 2012 publication of the cantata's score: Todesbanden
• English-language authors such as Gardiner commonly use Todesbanden (see above)
• Please stop quoting German-language sources such as NBA, these have no effect on article titling issues (see above)
• ngram in the WP:AT logic, as explained above
• The 2011 page move was not covered by relevant policy, as explained above
• If WP:CANVASSing about this, please limit yourself to allowed types of canvassing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Please don't use names of editors in section titles on talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bold redirect

Regarding this revert: BWV 4 is a common redirect to this article, as has been discussed inconclusively, and should be bold, also explaining to the reader who may not understand German the recognizable part of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"inconclusively" means that no change to the applicable guidance was convened; on the contrary, a follow-up discussion at the lead section guidance talk page led to removing of the ambiguity that would have allowed that guidance to supersede WP:ACRO. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Help my memory: link to the "applicable guidance". - It's guidance, not binding, right? I see the need to bold a redirect (which doesn't work right now) as higher than the link to a very common abbreviation, which is not crucial for understanding the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:FAR?

Maybe about time to take this to WP:FAR?

• Instability (page name, layout)
• Pending discussions about the article basics (see above)
• Unbalanced, not well-researched, etc. (see tags in article). Summarizing some major issues:
  • The "Background" subsection focuses on the *start* of Bach's tenure at Arnstadt, while the cantata is linked to the *end* of that tenure, and the transition to Mühlhausen. Accidently, when looking at the Divi Blasii naming issue, I encountered quite some reliable sources about those later stages of Bach's stay in Arnstadt, and the transition to Mühlhausen. So it's not as if there wouldn't be enough material to give that section more balance;
  • The "Performances" subsection is relatively short on the best known performance of the work (1725), doesn't explain very well the differences between the performance versions of the cantata, etc.
  • The "Publication" section doesn't mention the major publications in English-language regions such as those by Novello, Kalmus and Schirmer.
• Disruptive behaviour (unallowed forms of canvassing)
• etc. (will give more if needed)

Other editors interested in helping out here? I'd do more if I had more time (that is calculating in the enormous amounts of time apparently needed for back-and-forths and long-winded talk page discussions for the smallest steps of improvement). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

How much of that instability and disruption is of your making? Allegations of canvassing are not a matter for FAR, but for ANI, where the actions of all involved parties are examined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

With the counterproductive forms of canvassing going on it seems unlikely consensus editing and stability will return soon, so probably it will take some time to resolve the issues indicated with "unbalanced" tags (yes, the posting and explaining of these tags are "of my making" – do you suggest these aren't valid?); the second step explained at WP:FAR seems a very reasonable next step, under the conditions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)