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
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
A fact from Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 March 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Please look (again) at Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191 - I tried to arrange the "Überblick" as a table and would like comments and recommendations: headings? how to make it look less sqeezed? how to list the prominent instruments (not repeating the strings and b.c.), here flauto traverso in 2? Once I find the book again I can indicate (how would I?) if "Duetto" was written by Bach himself or added later. - Also worth a look: Leipzig pdf (now under refs - or better source? external link?). - St. Thomas with music worth a trip! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't like putting movement-lists into tables. In my opinion, tables should be reserved for much longer lists where the sort features are more useful. No one would ever sort a list this short and it creates too small of a box for "remarks" which really belong after the list (where they could be fleshed out into full paragraphs if there a lot of remarks).
The guys in the Handel area differ with on that opinion, though. Everything is a sortable table over there. So take my opinion for what its worth. :-)
I don't think I'd worry too much about whether Bach wrote "Duetto" or if it was added later and the "Violin I/II, Viola, Continuo" is not overly lengthy. I sense you are worrying too much about some of the more trivial details like spelling and formatting. There's a couple of dozen cantata articles which serve as a solid guide for stuff like that. DavidRF (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thanks Gerda for this excellent contribution. I have made a number of changes to the article. I'll explain a few points here, instead of the article talk page, so folks like David can weigh in if they wish. First off, it is generally a good idea to provide proper scholarly sources instead of websites or album liner notes. Ad fontes as the old cry goes. You cite Butler 1992 for a "suggestion" that the first performance was in 1745 and not in 1743, but a review of the literature on the B Minor Mass suggests this is now canonical, so I have updated the language to reflect that. For instance, you cite Butler 1992, but provide as a source an Analekta link instead of G.G. Butler, “Johann Sebastian Bachs Gloria in excelsis Deo BWV 191: Musik für ein Leipziger Dankfest.” Bach-Jahrbuch, 78 (1992): 65-71. Second, the article should note the importance of the work to any larger debate, in this case the considerable scholarship around the Bm Mass. I have made a few observations (Ripieni evidence, etc... from Butt), but I am sure you can dig up further stuff. I agree with David that tables are unnecessary formatting (only three movements!), and have removed it from the article accordingly. (You may feel differently, so feel free to revert.) Eusebeus (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you two for good observation and especially Eusebius (in German, greetings from Florestan) for great scholarly contributions! I did not change back to a table for this short cantata but would consider one for others with more movements. I changed a few things, to be discussed. 1) Being a singer, not a scholar, I didn't keep "the cantata was played", smile. 2) The music is from the Gloria, but the words only in movement 1, therefore I moved the Link to the Gloria from the lead to where the words are explained. 3) I reinstalled the translation of the title, thinking that not every reader of en-WP knows enough Latin to understand. - Now to things I would like to change but don't know how: 3) I don't believe something can be "derived" from something that doesn't exist yet (first the Gloria, then the cantata, then the Bm), but lack a word . 4) I looked up the linked cantata and didn't find a hint at "surrounding the sermon" there - it should be added to that one or no link. To my understanding the source for cantata 191 states "post orationem" - that would be much easier. - A wish: the link to cantata is not very helpful - de-WP has de:Kantaten (Bach), - how about something similar explaining general facts that would not have to be repeated for every cantata? Thanks again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, Your changes are good, but the translation is a little idiosyncratic, so I'll go ahead and modify that. I think "derived" is probably the right word, since it is from a piece written in 1733 which Bach later used for the Bm Mass. one point about this cantata is it helps reveal something about the process in which the Mass in B Minor was assembled. So the Gloria of 1743/5 is an almost exact replica of 1733, the other two movements being parodic. Butt has the details at 11-13 of the Mass in B Minor monograph if you want to know more. Mit ganz herzlichen Grüssen! Eusebeus (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schöne Farben! Following the links to BWV 191 confirms the point above: Parodiebezug Übernahme aus BWV 232 I/4 & BC E 2 / 4, etc.... To your point above about surrounding the sermon, that's Butt, B Minor Mass, at page 13, who observes: "BWV was intended for Church performance is certainly indicated by its heading ... and the direction to divide it around the sermon." Sorry I misread your point and I am indeed mistaken. I have made the appropriate correction to the article. Eusebeus (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had not noticed that you had to follow links, happy you managed. The Parodie is not questioned, only the order of events in time. How to say in short words that 191 was derived from the Dresden Missa of 1733 and the Bm was derived from that Missa (or is equal, Kyrie & Gloria)? My math tells me this is not equivalent to 191 was derived from the Bm - that just didn't exist yet. I would like precision here BECAUSE it is part of the assembly of the Bm - that in my personal opinion is the summary of Bach's greatest music as his offering to God - not troubled by consideration of a performance on earth. - I'll look at the article again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and would you please look at the Mass in B Minor itself, I dared to rewrite the lead a bit - where would you place "monumental" there? - but gave up, reading "Bach produced four short masses (comprising [these two sections] the Kyrie and Gloria only) for liturgical use." Help, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
