Talk:Chorale cantata (Bach)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Chorale cantata (Bach) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
WikiProject Germany  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

BG and other changes[edit]

The article looked like this until recently. Reception history was added, fine.

  • The numbers of the cantatas in the Bachgesellschaft-Ausgabe (BG) were added. I think it's good to know, but the table had already many columns. If in the same table, I don't think to have it before the cantata title and the BWV number is a good idea.
  • Instead of the titles of the chorales, the Zahn numbers were given. While I believe that many readers know their BWV numbers, I am less sure about these four-digit numbers.
  • (fixed 17 March, thank you) Some Zahn numbers are linked to the chorale article, some are red links, fine. Some are linked to the chorale which is a redirect to the cantata. That is confusing for a reader. A Zahn number has nothing to do with the cantata, and the cantata is linked in the same line before. I tried to remove the confusing links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
For explanation: when the hymn title links (now: linked) to the cantata, it wasn't because the cantata was considered a"primary" topic, but because at that time the hymn was considered no topic, therefore the cantata given the hymn title. When the BWV number was added, they were all moved, resulting in these redirects. We had a few hymn article on hymn with dab (chorale), but got rid of them because the hymn is the primary topic in the sense that all settings are derived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest to split the table in two, one about the cantatas, the other about the hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That might make sense, I'm not sure how to go about it, but columns 6-9 are confusing in design. Montanabw(talk) 05:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I have to admit the table is confusing and I don't see a good reason for the additional table of numbers with links that are kind of... random. Montanabw(talk) 01:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC) It also doesn't make sense to have two links to the same article in a line. Seems to me that if there is a consensus for Zahn numbers, they don't need to be linked, and if the need for them requires sorting. Saying "Columns 1–5 about the cantatas; Columns 6–9 about the related hymns (represented by their Zahn number when available)" makes no sense -- and "tune" -- perhaps "music" or "melody"? Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hymn tune appears to be the common name, so I've wikilinked "tune" to that article in the table's title row. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Now the content of this article was split to a listing which follows the chronology, and a table List of chorale cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. I see more problems:

  • The reader of this article (which is linked frequently) doesn't get a table, which means: doesn't get the opportunity to sort.
  • I wonder what the Ziegler cantatas have to do with Chorale cantatas, - other than that Bach counted two of them as part of the cycle.
  • I confess to find the K numbers confusing, and don't think they belong at the beginning of a line. An entry is now
  • Christ lag in Todesbanden, repeated again and again, doesn't even get an entry like that,only mentioning in the prose.
  • The reader is expected to understand without explanation that "Easter 2" means the second day of Easter, but Easter II the second Sunday after Easter.

I suggest, if this needs a split (I don't think so), to leave the table in this article, and create a History of Bach's chorale cantatas or however that maybe called, for specialists, not for people who come from a cantata and just want to know basics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

To make a link to the details in the list possible,you can like now like this:

[[List of chorale cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV 1|(details)]]: (details)

That is a long link. Can the table be moved to a more convenient name? At least a redirect? Also: you have to look fast, because after the initial link to the precise location, the complex table is formatted more, loosing the position.

This article about Bach's chorale cantata has at present no names of hymn authors and composers, - to establish the connection to them was about the most important motivation to write it. I have no time for a solution right now. The easiest solution would be to revert the split. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding: regarding revert of an example and the edit summary: yes, the details are in the cantata, but the overview of all chorale cantatas is now sadly missing from this article, and the information is one line of table is more concise than having to read the long article about the cantata, and should be available. If not "details", how would you call it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Chorale cantata (Bach) should be more than a redirect to List of chorale cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. It's not equal to the list, nor is it equal to Bach's second cantata cycle, nor is second cycle the common name. Please, Francis, revert the moves. (Need to ping, because with three article names, where would you look. KISS) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove infobox – keep lead image?[edit]

The only bit of information contained in the current infobox:

  • Performed   mostly 1724–1725 – Leipzig

is misleading, and somewhat nonsensical if one starts to think about it. I propose to remove the infobox, and keep the lead image. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That bit gives time and place of the article subject, - that's what I look for in an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's not start another round of infobox discussion. The infobox is in, and it should stay in. I would suggest that "first performed" might be a better caption than "performed." Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Look! the article has two infoboxes now, - the question was more about the information IN IT as should be, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
LOL. I stay out of the more esoteric discussions about content. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Completely unesoteric: do you think a a table like this (sortable by date, by liturgical funcion, etc.) would by good for the reader in this article (where it began)? (Compare the derived list, which is simply too much for me, also organized by liturgical year, which is not chronological, because Bach wrote one before, and then started in the middle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with Francis: "Performed 11 June 1724 – 27 May 1725 at Leipzig" still looks far too much like a caption for the picture of BWV 1. Sparafucil (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Tell Francis on his talk, it's his work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Split suggestion[edit]

Per split suggestions made higher up on this page, I proceded with developing both pages suitable for the split, as indicated in the split suggestion template I posted on top of the article. After the split, Chorale cantata (Bach) probably would best be made a redirect to the first of the two mentioned split pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I vote forsuggest three articles, a bit different:
  1. Chorale cantata (Bach): a very basic article about what a chorale cantata is, - well described in the present lead of the list, also that Bach composed chorale cantatas early, in the second cantata cycle, and later, - but for more detail referring to two other articles:
  2. The list as it,perhaps with less lead (see above)
  3. An article Bach's second cantata cycle, with all the details
My 2ct, - because the reader who just wants to know what is special about Bach's chorale cantatas, doesn't need the complete list, nor the details of the history of the second cycle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI, this isn't a vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, don't understand, I didn't even try to vote. I bet you can read the same thing above: Chorale cantata (Bach) is an article with a history, as is Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, - both should be no redirects, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, this isn't a vote: above you started your reply with "I vote for (whatever)" (emphasis added). Please try to be a little less polarizing in talk page discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry that (without much thinking) I used the offensive "vote" when I meant "suggest", "propose", "prefer". I think we don't need extra articles Chorale cantata cycle (Bach) or Chorale cantata cycle, - that can be handled by the other three. To make "second cycle" equal to "chorale cantata cycle" via pipe link, seems misleading. Better write "second cycle", - you developed the material well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • chorale cantata should explain what is specific about Bach's chorale cantatas, compared to chorale cantatas by other composers.
  • Taking the existence of the chorale cantata article into account: no we don't need four articles with major content fork overlap.
  • The chorale cantata cycle and the second cantata cycle overlap for over 80%: no it is not possible to give an extensive treatment of one cycle, without that being also an extensive treatment of the other cycle. This was explained before. It's only about the name for that page: chorale cantata cycle and second cantata cycle are largely used interchangeably in literature – a page explaining the minor differences between the two could go under either name. Afaik, chorale cantata cycle is most often used in reliable sources (also considering that that name was in use for about a century longer than the other name), so that's the one that should be used in principle.
  • Re. page history: the page history is easily merged. I don't care whether it is merged with the page that contains the list or with the page that focusses on the cycle info (which is relatively new to this page, and the extensive content on that was written by me: I don't care where that page history ends up). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)