Talk:Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 18, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
November 8, 2018	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 14, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Bach composed Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a in 1719 as a congratulatory cantata for the court of Anhalt-Köthen?

Current status: Featured article

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article 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.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!

Purge this page

GA Review[edit]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I'll review this - comments later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of unsourced ends of paragraphs, I've tagged these.

"where he worked for the court of Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, in 1718 as a congratulatory cantata for New Year's Day of 1719" - this sentence doesn't seem to make sense; it implies that Bach worked as a congratulatory antata. Maybe it should be split into two sentences?

More later.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put clause in parentheses for clarity. Jmar67 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie and John, thank you!

The article is at a strange state, was developed by several users, and is supposed to be FA soon, for its 300th anniversary. Sorry for being late. Referencing is tricky, because I tried to avoid the so far mostly used ref, Julian Mincham (now external links), because I know it will not pass the critical look of the FA-people. Will do what I can to please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The music remained in manuscript form" - what other form would it be in? I'm confused.

It could have been printed, but the list of works by Bach printed during his lifetime is short. One of the sentences I found and didn't have the heart to through out ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed it to clarify that - can you double check that's correct? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up the other issues I spotted during the review directly; I think they're all pretty minor things. I don't see an issue with passing this, unless Jmar67 has any other comments. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with most things but not the revert ("weirdness") of first saying that it's a work by Bach, before a load of German, a longish translation and two catalogue numbers, and their refs. Compare Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, a FA which was TFA this year. The BWV numbers got more complicated this year, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "weirdness" was because I had the article open in two windows and edited the wrong one. As it now stands, we've got "Title (translation) (notes) is an 'x' by 'y','z'", which is generally what you want as the lead sentence - to give a brief description of what the whole article is about. I just looked at the last five articles I happened to edit (Topsy Kim, Pet Shop Boys, Camden Town tube station, Severn Bridge and Blackpool Illuminations), and they all follow this pattern. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only the examples don't begin with something long in German, followed by a long translation, and some abbreviated things BWV (one - with a link - sending you to one of the longest articles we have, instead of just explaining the abbr) before we FINALLY get to know it's by Bach. - Sure, in 95% of composition aricles I follow the normal pattern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's ask @Jmar67: - do you prefer the opening sentence like this or the opening sentence like this? Then we'll take whatever he says as consensus and run with that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that puts a burden on John? - I recall this (2017), can't find where Francis introduced that, but came to like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I lean toward having the page name first, but it is not that critical. See my other changes for things I thought were important for flow. Jmar67 (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the better flow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Well, I think arguments about what should come first can come outside the scope of the GA criteria, so I'll pass the review now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copy edit[edit]

(contemporary opera) That sounds like modern-day opera but is linked to Baroque. I think you mean opera of that period. Do not see it mentioned in reference. Jmar67 (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another word for the latest fashion in opera of his time? Modern-day opera can't influence him, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word you want is "contemporaneous". I prefer the existing expression "opera of that period" in this case, however. Jmar67 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(composition of new recitatives to the 1724 text) You would set music to a text but compose it for, or based on, a text. Jmar67 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

understand --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cöthen[edit]

Should we say - and how - that it was Cöthen at Bach's time? See image of Leopold. We could render the complete inscription of that image, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated footnotes. In the inscription it looks like "Cothen". The article for Köthen refers to the original name "Cothene". Jmar67 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "original name" was much before Bach's time. - Fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inscription is clearly Cöthen, with two little dots. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday and New Year[edit]

At some point I understood that this was written for his birthday but not performed until the new year. Now it seems another one was his birthday present. Hope I was wrong. Jmar67 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What made you think it was for his birthday? Because that should be clarified ;) - The lead has New Years's Day, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have to look at older version. When I first started editing, that was my impression. May just have been a false assumption due to the fact that 10 Dec and the new year are close together. Jmar67 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not for Bach ;) - In Leipzig, he would have composed a cantata for each 25 Dec, 26 Dec, 27 Dec and possible a Sunday between that and the New Year, and that New Year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently also inferred that the congratulations were for his birthday. Wishes for the new year would not strike me as being congratulatory in the same sense of "Congratulations, Leopold, on being a year older". Interesting point. Let's not spend too much time discussing it. Jmar67 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even before you said that, I removed one "congratulatory" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the cantata for his birthday (just put expanding it on my to-do-list), it says that Heaven considered Anhalt's glory and fortune by Leopold being born, no less. [1] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]