Talk:Gott ist mein König, BWV 71/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will give my comments by tomorrow. Best, Ya sh ! 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"He composed it in Mühlhausen for the inauguration of a new town council on 4 February 1708." - mentioning the date here goes off topic. Additionally, the same is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead. I would suggest rather to include when it was composed which according to the prose is between 1707-08.

Why go unprecise when we - for a change! compare all the other early cantatas - know exactly. It's a standardfor the Bach cantatas to mention the date as precisely as we know in the first paragraph. --GA

"...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time connects to the political occasion" -> "...and free poetry by an unknown poet of Bach's time which relates to the political occasion"

good, thank you --GA

The quote sounds odd in the current sentence. Also, much better if it is written out in your own words.

you are right, but if I'd say "four separate instrumental choirs" it would by close paraphrasing, no? --GA

"only this one time" -> "only for this particular event"
"Stylistically it shares features with Bach's other early cantatas." - in "Music" and "Importance" it is mentioned that it is different from early works. Perhaps this lead sentence needs to be revisited.

It shares much more than what differs, --GA

Include a summary of "Importance" in the lead. Isn't the "printing" importance enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History and words

Ref for the first paragraph?

doubled (sorry,missed that when splitting the paragraph) --GA

"the organist of one of" -> "the organist at one of" - 'of' repetition makes it sound off. ;)

yes ;)

"BWV 131" -> "Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131" - since that is how BWV 150 is written and is better to write the full name.

yes --GA

"speculated" by?
"thought" by?

both questions: I didn't write that, Thoughtfortheday did (who just made the cantata mentioned above a GA yesterday). We could say that Alfred Dürr reports that it has been speculated, but Werner Neumann thought that ..., - but after the result (one sentence later) is open: is it necessary to make it more complicated? --GA

"in other words" - best to not mention that.

tried --GA

"but it is lost" -> "which was lost".

somehow seems not strong enough for the disappointing fact that half of Bach's cantatas printed during his lifetime was lost --GA

Theme

Ref for the first paragraph and the text in bullets?

First paragraph: let's ask Thoughtfortheday. The bulleted text is the biblical text is the cantata text, - no source needed, I'd think. --GA

"and thus" -> "thus".

yes ::GA

The translated text is in two different paragraphs which looks odd. Perhaps have the first translation after a "-". For example: "Verse 12: "Gott ist mein König von Alters her, der alle Hülffe thut, so auf Erden geschicht." - God is my Sovereign since ancient days, who all salvation brings which on earth may be found (ASV: Yet God is my King of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth).

I tried it differently, please look, --GA

"have been seen" by whom? Perhaps could be rephrased.

I removed the sentence entirely, and boldly moved the two refs to where they were missing at the beginning of the paragraph. --GA

"suggested" by?
"The importance of "borders" may be an allusion to Charles XII's invasion of Saxony in 1706, and who, in 1708, represented a threat to Mühlhausen." - ref?

probably another one for Thoughtfortheday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full stop should not be inside the quotation if I am not mistaken.

moved --GA

Structure and scoring

Why is it disputed? Do explain in the article.

We don't do that even in Featured articles. We just have to mention that it is not sure that we see Bach. --GA

Can we have the duration?

will search, - Dürr book is offline for those pages,- could look at recordings --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music

"A model for such "theatrical splendour" we oratorios" - not sure why there is a "we" in this sentence.

fixed typo --GA

"the psalm" -> "Psalm 74" - or am I missing something?

no,-do you think it needs to be repeated? --GA

"Another psalm verse" - shouldn't "p" be in capitals?

no, Psalm 74, but the psalms, a psalm verse, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

Ref for the first paragraph?

made it one,and dropped some repetition, - it's more a summary than something new --GA

Link Leipzig.

not again ;) (hesitate to link to present-day Leipzig in Bach articles anyway)

"fifteen" -> "15"

no longer there

"for not more than one repeat performance" -> "solely for one performance" or "for only one performance" or anything else that you'd like.

not sure, - I read that one repeat was planned, which would make it two, - not sure because again, I didn't write it,and perhaps you understand better what was meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref #2 - needs proper formatting.

[http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Rec-BIG/Gardiner-P03c[sdg141_gb].pdf] Can you fix those []? I forgot which code helps it. --GA

Ref #5 - same as above.

What do you mean? --GA

Ref #14 - same.

What do you mean? --GA

Also, the above mentioned three are dead.

#2 looks dead because of the problem in the url, #5 is offline, #14 works for me? --GA

That would be all. Gerda Arendt, Happy Holi BTW! :) Ya sh ! 18:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easter was so great that I missed this on my watchlist, sorry ;) - 28k+ views for a Bach cantata in one month is new! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have got involved with a few points. As to the question of how many performances there were, I'd say probably 2, but as we are not sure perhaps we could skirt around this issue. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for not getting around soon enough. I am happy with the article - it is a good read. Thank you for all your efforts. Best, Ya sh ! 18:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]