Talk:Allein zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 33/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 12:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 06:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I am going to review the article. I am surprised that it has been such a long time since nomination, especially considering Bach's importance to music history.

Let's dive in!

Thank you for reviewing, BigChrisKenney, - nice to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Intro

You may wish to cite your source 2 listing at the end of the intro.

I am used to no references in the intro unless for quotations and facts not referenced in the body. --GA

I made some edits you may wish to review.

thank you, done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

History and words

"That year, Bach composed a cycle of chorale cantatas, begun on the first Sunday after Trinity of 1724"

• This reads weird. I would reword it as: "That year, Bach* began composing a cycle of chorale cantatas on the first Sunday after Trinity of 1724," or something similar.

  This was accepted in other GAs. (There are around 40 cantatas in that cycle.) Trying to understand what you find weird, because English is not my first language and I try to learn. My view: He didn't "began composing" on Sunday because it had to be performed on Sunday ;) --GA

  • Yes, I believe I understand now. I would then reword it as "That year, Bach composed a cycle of chorale cantatas that began on the first Sunday after Trinity of 1724." - This is more clear. In your original sentence, the comma after 'year' and 'cantatas' make the phrase 'Bach composed a cycle of chorale cantatas' read like an apposition or an interrupting phrase both of which should be able to be omitted with the remaining words able to constitute a standalone sentence. If we were to do so, that would leave "That year begun on the first Sunday after Trinity of 1724," and, to my understanding, that would not be factual. However, if other GAs accept the original phrasing, then its use here should be accepted as well. --BCK

    taken --GA

"The cantata is based on the hymn by Konrad Hubert which was published in Nürnberg in 1540[2] with an added fourth stanza."

• I would recommend to include that fact that this cantata shares the same name as Hubert's hymn.

  I hesitate. The 40 cantatas have in common that their titles are the same as the hymn, and both are no real titles, but just the beginnings of the text (incipit). I think telling someone who can read that the two lines are the same is taking them for stupid, no? --GA

  • I see your point. I would then recommend "...based on a hymn by Konrad Hubert..." --BCK

    while I understand, I thought that "the" (vs. "a") clarified that is was this specific one, mentioned before in lead and infobox. If it had an article I'd link to it, piped to "the hymn" but it's just a redirect (so far). --GA

"The poet connected to the Gospel in..."

• What did the poet connect to the gospel? Is the poet referencing the gospel? It is not immediately clear.

  Perhaps you can help me word it. In Bach's first cycle, the cantatas were related to the Gospel. In this second cycle, they were related to a hymn, and the text was a mix of original text and paraphrased text. In the paraphrased text, the poet made a connection to the Gospel which the hymn didn't supply. (Background: they had the same prescribed readings, including Gospel, every year in Leipzig at the time.) --GA

  • It may be as simple as replacing 'connected to' with 'referenced.' BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

    good idea! --GA

I made some edits you may wish to review.

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Music

Good

Table: Good

Movements

"... Bach had composed for the same occasion Du sollt Gott, deinen Herren, lieben,..."

• I would switch these two around as in: "Bach had composed Du sollt Gott, deinen Herren, lieben for the same occasion,..."

  I guess that's my German training ;) - It's a long passage in an unknown language until the reader gets why: because it was the same occasion. --GA

"Bach set the words "Güte" (goodness) and "in der Ewigkeit" (in eternity) richly,[7]..."

• The word 'richly' does not appear in the source. I would reword the phrase or define the word as non musicians may not understand.

  And here I thought I found a word that makes some sense to non-musicians ;) - I try not to use exactly the same words as in the source to avoid copyright problems. Everybody can see in the music supplied (with the possibility to listen) that there are many notes for these two words, and Gardiner explained it in detail, which follows. Would you know a better term for a summary? --GA

  • I see your point. Perhaps going the other way would be better? "Bach set the words "Güte" (goodness)[1] and "in der Ewigkeit" (in eternity) in a melismatic manor,[7] described by Gardiner as "an admirable ... interweaving of all four vocal lines at cadential points".[6] but perhaps I am being nitpicky. BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

    I see your point, but "melismatic" is only one aspect of several ways to emphasise these two words (and thus too narrow), and perhaps "emphasise" would work, - trying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

    "Bach emphasised the words "Güte" (goodness) and "in der Ewigkeit" (in eternity), described by Gardiner as "an admirable melismatic interweaving of all four vocal lines at cadential points"."

    I think your latest effort is spot on! BigChrisKenney (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I made some edits you may wish to review.

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Manuscripts and publication

"It likely came to the attention of Felix Mendelssohn through Pistor's sister Elisabeth; Mendelssohn probably showed the score to his teacher Carl Friedrich Zelter, who clarified the text in the final chorale with dark red ink.[13]"

• I don't like the word 'likely' here. I know that the source also does not say for certain: "It is probable that Mendelssohn saw and studied this manuscript,..." and uses the word 'probable.' A direct quotation would be better in my opinion as it would chase away doubts of conjecture made by you, the article's author.

  I didn't want to use "probably" twice in one sentence, so said "likely" for variety. Don't you think that would be long quote for something where the personal wording of the author is of little importance. How could we say that all this history is "According to White", said in its first sentence? --GA

  • I see your point yet again and agree with you. --BCK

    you may have seen that I tried by a semicolon, and the reference only after the second part of the sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"In the Neue Bach-Ausgabe it was published in 1958, edited by Werner Neumann, with a critical report following in 1959.[2]"

• Rewording this as "It was published in 1958 in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe and was edited by Werber Neumann with a critical report following in 1952," would make it clearer.

  I feel that the NBA is key, and am willing to have a U.S. comma ;) - It seems to come too late in your suggestion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • It seems so! BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Recordings

Perhaps this section is still under development.

What would you want? --GA

• I am understanding the feild a bit more and "A list of recordings is provided on the Bach Cantatas Website and on Musiekweb," might suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigChrisKenney (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You reference a list on the Bach Cantatas website and source it, but then you provide muziekweb as a source too. Is there a reason?

explained next section --GA

Table: The table title is different than the article title? Nimm von uns, Herr, du treuer Gott is BWV 101 and Allein zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ is BWV 33. Also, there is a column called 'Choir Type' but there is nothing listed.

good catch, both, that's what I get from copying ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

1-15 All Good

16 I am not sure why this is here

While the Bach Canatas website has an old layout and was shocking to look at, it holds a lot of information.

While I agree with you, others don't, Francis Schonken and Nikkimaria (among others) won't accept BCW because of it being self-published, but Nikkimaria accepts Muziekweb (16). Going for FAC always gets BCW thrown out, and for some works (BWV 1, BWV 4) we even made the recordings a separate article, just to avoid the problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood, sustained! BigChrisKenney (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope these comments help. Let's get this article to a GA status!

Thank you again, - your turn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Final Assessment

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):
   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2024 (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.