Talk:St Matthew Passion structure

Author de

The main author of the FA (de equivalent) is Wikiwal who did an outstanding job, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "FA" mean? Basemetal (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Decorative images?

Should Wikipedia follow the tradition of purely decorative images in articles? At the beginning of the article there's a photograph of a painting by Cranach the Elder. A decorative purpose seems to be the only purpose for the presence of that photograph in the article. What do Cranach the Elder or his painting (of more then two hundred years before Bach's St Matthew Passion) really, specifically, have to do with the structure of Bach's work? The German version gives a justification of sorts ("Lucas Cranach d. Ä. deutet in seinem Bild Christus als Schmerzensmann (1515) das Leiden Jesu ebenso wie Bach realistisch und zugleich mystisch"). But seriously! This sort of speculation about vague connections between works of art, without any positive evidence that Bach ever even saw or knew of that painting, let alone that it had anything to do with the creative process that led to the St Matthew Passion (a fortiori its structure!) belongs in an essay, not in a factual source of information such as an encyclopedia. You might as well put a picture of Martin Luther with the "justification" that Bach's Lutheran faith "informed his life and music" or that Martin Luther must be "connected" to the St Matthew Passion because after all Bach used the text of his translation of the Gospel. Consider that a textual digression about Cranach the Elder's painting (or on Martin Luther) in the body of the article would never be considered justified. Images are documents and data just as much as the text. They should therefore be directly connected with and relevant to the subject matter of the article. When they're there just to prettify they're just clutter. The fact that almost all dictionaries and encyclopedias do it is not a good reason to also do it in Wikipedia. Basemetal (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That image is not decorative; it illustrates the subject of the article, the St Mattew Passion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You must be someone who believes confident reiteration can turn nonsense into sense. "A Cranach the Elder painting (ca. 1515) illustrates Bach's Matthäus-Passion (1727)". And, you don't see any problem with this statement, logicwise? Wow. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 19:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you read German? Four good reasons to have this image were given on the talk of the German article, including that Bach may have know this image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. German discussion here for those interested. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 05:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Referencing images?

One annoying problem with images (or other non-text documents: video, audio) throughout Wikipedia is: they don't carry fig numbers. Why don't they? Is this a Wikipedia bug or a "feature"? Was this done on purpose or was it just overlooked? It certainly makes referencing an image more awkward than it ought to be ("the photograph of blah blah blah in the third section of the article blah blah blah to the left, below the table of blah blah blah"). Is there no way to fix that? Basemetal (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Normal practice is to position non-text documents next to the text that deals with them, thus no explicit referencing is needed. If such referencing should be needed, it can be achieved as described at Help:Anchor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Instruments in Infobox

As discussed on Classical music (when the template was designed and again now), each individual instrument is important, for example no trumpets here, but oboe d'amore, speaking of love. "Instruments" appear at the very end of the box. Clicking on Scoring opens a table of the abbreviations, which are standard for publishing, well known, each with a link to what it stands for. Why should knowledge be limited to the level of those who wouldn't bother to look up what an abbr means? Please consider restoring the information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gerda! You had previously argued that infoboxes should be for those who know nothing about the topic. It would be very unlikely for such people to know anything about standards in music publishing. They would thus be very confused, even intimidated, to see "2Fl 2Ft 2Ob 2Oa 2Oa Fg 2Vl Va Vg Bc" in an overview. Sure, there are tooltips, but not everyone knows about or can easily use those. Listing the full names would be unwieldy. It's much clearer and more accessible to explain instrumentation in the article itself. After all, you suggested that we should keep it simple, right? Hope that helps you understand. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Trying to understand, but unconvinced, sorry. - Did you see where the link on "Scoring" takes you (or was it removed again as "duplicate")? Your quote above is a bit misleading, it said "two orchestras, 2Fl 2Ft 2Ob 2Oa 2Oa Fg 2Vl Va Vg Bc" (in the Mass in B minor it's "instruments 3Tr Ti Co 2Ft, 2Ob 2Oa 2Fg 2Vl Va Bc"), - I would think that people reading on a composition would get "orchestra" and "instruments" as "musical instruments", and those who know more get the details. Comparing to the the Mass, see the difference! A person who knows can almost hear that difference - if it is provided. Please note, that this is not the article on the St Matthew Passion, but its structure, addressing those who want to know the bit more. It's a work in progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if they'd get "instruments", then let's just say that and leave the details for where we can explain them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this discussion on Classical music where I read "If the reader is mystified, they can look it up later." Give those a chance who are not mystified but hear something reading the abbreviations, without an explanation necessary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are the people who read the article and want to know things like which section has which instruments, which can't be covered by an infobox. As you yourself argued, the infobox is not for the people who want that detail, but for those who want a broad overview. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, it's topic of the article which section has which instruments. However, if there are trumpets at all, or recorders, is information that the interested reader could see at a glance if provided, - information that wouldn't hurt the others, imho --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

But it would hurt those who can't understand it, and those who can would more likely care about the details. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how a string of characters following the word "instruments" could possibly hurt, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Because if you don't understand what the characters mean, you get confused; maybe you spend time trying to figure it out or maybe you just leave, but either way not a good experience for the poor reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I come to a different conclusion: the experienced reader can win specific information, I feel only mildly sorry for a mild irritation of the other. Please see the related discussion to explain the abbreviations better, and the documentation of the template, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen that discussion, and in it "those musical score abbreviations...[are] quite off-putting and I suspect totally mystifying to the general reader". We should of course fix the template documentation as needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Same discussion, quoting myself "In an article, I always use the complete names of the instrument. But in an infobox ... we have limited space." - I am afraid that the "poor" average reader (as you picture him, unable to look up an abbreviation) will have a completely wrong impression if all he gets to know is two orchestras". Why limit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You just answered your own question: we limit because we have limited space in an infobox. After all, per MOS, "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't read far enough: "two orchestras" is misleading. See also this comment, "I doubt I would have done it like this myself, but the abbreviations are likely to be known & understood by most people reading a relatively detailed article like this." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had indicated we could do without "two orchestras", but you had expressed concerns that this might confuse people into believing that the work is a capella. The statement you link suggests people reading these articles would be unlikely to have that confusion, but I respect your concern, so including "two orchestras" is a compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the comment quoited was by me, & applies here too. I see we have Shorthand for orchestra instrumentation, and a piped link there is enough for any readers who are puzzled, in my view. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks are a beautiful thing for the non-expert reader. Infoboxes need to not mislead through over-simplification any more than excess detail. Known abbreviations and links when needed work fine. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus' last words

Is the erroneous "asabthani" (for "sabachthani") in the German Bible or is it peculiar to Bach's score? Contact Basemetal here 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Und um die neunte Stunde schrie Jesus laut: Eli, Eli, lama asabtani? Das heißt: Mein Gott, mein Gott, warum hast du mich verlassen? " – Luther's Bible uses "asabtani" (without "h") in Matthew 27-46 as it does for Mark 15-34. I'm not sure there's only one correct transcription of a piece of text which is a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew. I understand that Jesus quotes Psalm 22-2 which was written in Hebrew and would be transcsribed as "Eli, Eli, lama asabtani", but Jesus didn't speak Hebrew but Aramaic which was then written down in Greek which would be transcribed as "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacht(h)ani". Other German Bible translations use these words which are no doubt closer to what Matthew and Mark wrote, but "asabtani" is closer to the term quoted from the Old Testament. The bibleserver mentioned above (which is used in the German Wikipedia article) lets you explore and compare a large number of translations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok "erroneous" may not be the right word. I meant "sabachthani" more accurately transcribes the Greek Ἠλί, Ἠλί, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί;. Oddly Bach does use "asabthani" with an "h" (as you can tell from the manuscript in the article). Was he trying to correct Luther? Are you sure Luther himself wrote "asabtani" without the "h"? What the server you mentioned seems to give you is a 1984 edition of Luther. Could it be that what you're familiar with is actually a modernized spelling version of Luther? As you can see this Bible server http://bibeltext.com/l12/matthew/27.htm which gives you a 1912 edition of the Luther Bible does have "asabthani" with an "h". I'm unfortunately not familiar with the development of German spelling or with the Luther Bible. This said "asabtani" does make more sense without the "h" if one transcribes directly from the Hebrew אֵלִי אֵלִי לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי, bypassing Matthew's Greek transcription of the Hebrew altogether. I had not realized Luther was bypassing Matthew and going directly to Psalms for that quote (pretty audacious of him! but I'm sure, knowing the little I know of him, he would have been able to defend that choice most vigorously!) and that's why I used the word "erroneous". I thought someone had somehow garbled "sabachthani" into "asabthani" which looking back at, I agree, was indeed very unlikely. But then what would seem to make even more sense in that case would be "azabhtani" (the "b" is a "soft b" hence "bh" and it's "z" not "s"). Now there are no doubt a plurality of factors at work here such as German spelling habits of the early 16th c. (e.g. Germans seem to pronounce "z" as "tz"), the actual Hebrew pronunciation that Luther used or was familiar with, etc. to figure out an explanation for Luther's actual spelling whatever it was. Contact Basemetal here 14:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Table 1

Shout out to whoever did this table. It is excellent work! B0cean (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Structure

The new paragraph adds little - the older one already said "can be divided", meaning that none of it is by Bach, different scholars will arrive at different schemes - but presents detail ("Wahrlich") before general. Please rethink the placement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Was just a start, had already expanded by the time of the above comment. Divisions in scenes is a "structure", so how scenes are delineated is part of the content of this article. Before only "chorales" were mentioned as scene dividers: added arias and turbas who are equally used to delineate scenes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I think you misunderstood. Chorales were not said to end a scene, but that when they are used they often end a scene. Next question (ec): "the action has been described"? The action is acted, as in a drama, please find a better term. Program notes for a performance I was in asked us to realize that we are in all the characters, - "described" seems way too distant for immediate action (the listener being "in the middle" of it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "misunderstood" – On the contrary, I understood, but it isn't obvious either, e.g. (if my counting is correct) Part One uses seven chorales, only two of them concluding a scene (both scene divisions currently in the article taken into account).

Re. "action described" – the action is described in the Gospel, the Gospel is sung (not acted). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wahrlich: to say that is turba is misleading as in the gospel it's only one speaking, - Bach, letting many sing, interprets. Preparing the performance mentioned above, the conductor said the piece could end there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, choosing "turba" instead of "soliloqui" for the musical expression of the statement is a choice by the composer. Just needs a reference still for the interpretation of why the composer chose to do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that we - any scholar - can read Bach's mind. I tried to word neutrality what is in the score: the scoring for that movement is like in the chorales: both groups form one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"the piece could end there" is such an interpretation of why the composition is the way it is (or: why Bach wrote it down as he wrote it down), either we find a verifiable source for it, or I'd remove the last paragraph of the musical structure section again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove that para, - I hadn't seen it, sorry. "Could end there" was not to go to the article, just understanding ;) - Wahrlich is the heart of the piece, source or not, but doesn't have to be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesus in Gethsemane

The part of the structure for "Jesus in Gethsemane" should include all of "The Agony in the Garden". Dgljr5121973 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you doubt what is printed in the Archiv booklet? In that booklet the "In Gethsemane" title is printed before No. 18 (NBA numbering)/ No. 24 (old numbering); as subtitle it says "St Matthew 26, 36–56", and that section of the Passion starts with the Evangelist: "Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane..." (bolding added). They can't be in Gethsemane before coming there, can they? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)