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
About closing choral -- the "source" is already given in the fn.(6) to the paragraph with the edit you've reverted. Feel free to click it. Or you mean 'book source' only? Please explain. Olorulus (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now, however, do you think it changed Bach's composition? It would be more interesting in an article about the chorale, imo. - Also: some don't trust Bach Cantatas Website.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is a common practice in 'Bachwissenschaft' all over the world (not just 'your' country) to point to the sources of his contrafacta or parodies (choose the terminus technicus which you like better). For example, you may check a WP-article on h-Moll-Messe with the minute enumeration of prototypes, or Orgelbüchlein, with the most minute descriptions of the kind etc. As to me, these 'prototype trackings' in Messe and Orgelbüchlein are somewhat exagerrated, but it is common. Second, if you put in question (miriads of) links to Bach cantatas portal in this WP, you might want to duscuss its 'unreliability' elsewhere, not just on the talk page to BWV 73. Or even you might want to revert all edits with links to bach-cantatas.com, not just in my particular case? Olorulus (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third, to say "The closing chorale is set for four parts" is equal to say just nothing. You may safely add this 'statement' to dozens Bach cantatas WP-pages if you have enough time. Actually, no 'authoritative source' for such trivia needed. So, to answer your question, yes, the text you deleted, was compositionally specific, after your reversive edit it is not anymore. Olorulus (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I wrote the article Mass in B minor structure, you don't have to tell me about Bach's contrafacta. In this case, he took the melody of the chorale (not choral) wherever it came from, simply because it was used for the chorale. - I defend Bach Cantatas Website, but there are others. - Finally, I am on vacation, - go ahead, improve this article. I'll focus on those for the ninth Sunday after Trinity if I get the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Olourus, a melody can't be four parts ;) - For someone who would like Wikipedia without a single link to Bach Cantatas, see the discussion on the talk of Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The remark in brackets relates to "chorale", not to "melody", nevertheless thank you. I removed it to avoid ambiguity. As for secondary sources, alas, I don't have 3-vl.set Die Welt der Bach-Kantaten of Wolff and Koopman, but the melody of "Une jeune fillette" is recognizable immediately to a listener due to well-known Saval's soundtrack. Such listener will look for explanation in Wikipedia (as usually) or on Bach-cantatas site. If you have the above mentioned book set, I certainly don't mind to replace a reference to the amateur site with the reference to this respected work. Olorulus (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
