Talk:Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"two solo violins (the second one only introduced in a later performance)" This bit of the lead is confusing; from the discussion of the tenor aria No. 4 it sounds like the designation "solo" was added to an existing part, which might or might not have been played tutti at first. This highlights the need for a discussion of sources: were completely new materials prepared for an unspecified performance after 1724, or was "solo" written in what appears a later hand? Sparafucil (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know more (yet) than what the source says, - not if in a different ink on the same sheet or a different copy, but don't think it matters too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it at all in the Emanuel Church reference given below in the mvt 4 paragraph. I'm happy to save the source material discussion for FA nomination, but maybe the parenthetical remark had best be dropped for now? Sparafucil (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will look (probably tomorrow) where I read it. In the Weimar version we have one, for movement 1. The two are in the tenor aria,movement 4, and I can imagine that in the intimate Weimar space perhaps only two violinists played, - no need to specify solo. OR, I know, but we see on the picture that there was not much room on the organ loft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - many are not related to the GA criteria explicitly but I thought I might as well note them, now I'm here.

"first performed it" did "he" first perform it, or was it "first performed" on that date? Minor quibble.

Both, he played violin, conducting the ensemble. More specific now, --GA

I am happy to take advice, but is it worth considering linking some of the other technical terms like "librettist" and "stanza"?

librettist yes, - stanza is unlinked for five years now, even in the FAs. Some say "strophe" which seems to be taken right from the German. --GA

I always prefer to use expansions before abbreviating them, e.g. SATB...

drop abbr at all in lead --GA

Bible references need en-dashes for page ranges.

fixed, I hope --GA

Relinking, is there a strategy? For instance you relink St John's Day, but don't relink Leipzig.

the second St. John is a different link, - I hesitate to link Leipzig at all, - what has today's city to do with Bach? --GA

"He did not refer to the Gospel that relates to the birth of the baptist, nor to the baptism of Jesus, but is focused as the song..." maybe I'm tired but this doesn't read quite right - "He did not refer ... but is focused as..."?

My lack of English perhaps? Can we say it simpler? The gospel is the birth (and circumsicion) of the baptist. The librettist didn't refer to that. One might expect, looking at the title, that it is about the baptism of Jesus. He didn't focus on that. Both song and libretto focus on Luther's ideas about baptism derived from the gospel about the baptism of Jesus. Sorry ;)

Hi Gerda! It's not clear whether "He" refers to Luther or the librettist. I reworded the lead a bit; is it correct that Luther's verse 2 corresponds to the bass aria, verse 3 to the tenor recit. and so forth? It would be really interesting to know if the paraphrasing changed any emphases! Otherwise one could just say something like: "like Luther's hymn, the cantata is concerned with the implications of Christ's baptism for the believer, rather than with the the saint whose birth and circumcision are the subject of the prescribed readings." Sparafucil (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wording. "He" refers to the librettist. - Yes, the verse - movement relation is correct. - Paraphrase: In case we get to FA some day in a distant future, the comparison between hymn and paraphrase could be done, but perhaps better not by me. I would be very careful with theological statements such as "the implications of Christ's baptism". The German article on the hymn has more details, the focus is more the implications of the baptism of a Christian than that of Jesus, - sorry, difficult ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still struggling to see how this is grammatically correct English right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simplified, - look if too much. More on the topic of the song should probably be in that article, linked in other settings, not in the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could link "common time".

done, thought it is common ;) (and reads rather complicated)

I'm not really convinced of the utility of making the table of movements sortable.

you could sort by instruments, for example, - it's a new format, was developed for sortable, I would have trouble to make it not so ;) --GA

The movement headings, I think I'd prefer to see "Movement 1" or "First Movement" rather than simply "1".

Compare FA BWV 165 and others, - we are in a series, --GA

"cantus firmus" is swiftly overlinked in Movement 1's section.
I unlinked it for you... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see that Menschenkinder is translated as "humans" rather than mankind, I'm not an expert, just interesting!

Literally it would be "children of humankind" (vs. Son of God), - the translator - a woman - probably tries to avoid "mankind", --GA

"of the number 3 as" again not an expert, but why not "of the third movement"?

It's not the third movement but - the number 3: 3 beats to the measure, each subdivided in 3, 3 sections etc, - all symbols of the Trinity, - compare Mass in B minor#Et in Spiritum Sanctum, --GA

"when human beings" again, isn't this more likely to be "mankind"?

same as before, --GA

Other than these mainly subjective comments, I have no major issues. I'll put it on hold and allow the discussion to continue a bit. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for careful reading and detailed questions, - looking forward to more discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had a re-read and I'm satisfied with the updates, so I'll promote. Good work Gerda. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]