Talk:Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 01:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary remarks

Woohoo, Bach. I love Bach, especially Catherine. Gerda Arendt, allow me to make some comments, and then in conversation we can address what I think needs addressing before I put up all the different criteria and the colorful little check marks. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, thanks for looking! Please keep in mind that this article was started before I joined the project, so is a mix of styles, - as you observed. It's also useful to compare to similar articles on the level, such as Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12. --GA

Style, copy

Our title is in italics, with translations in parentheses in quotation marks. That strikes me as very correct, though I do not know if this is common practice in the articles on these...eh, songs. But the hymn "Nun lob, mein Seel, den Herren", also mentioned in the lede, is not italicized. In the History section, however, it's in quotation marks, whereas further BWV tunes in that section are italicized. As far as I'm concerned (being blissfully ignorant) these should all be italicized. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The titles are italic, as the titles of books and longer pieces, whereas the titles of hymns, songs and poems are in quotation marks, and then not made italic on top, because the idea of visibly differentiating them from text is fulfilled. Translations should not be in quotation marks, unless they are titles in English: then they should be italic ;) Most translations of Bach texts are one of many possibilities, then of course they must be in quotation marks, to mark where one ends and the next begins). --GA

I see now that in the "Music" sections we have something altogether different--bold print in quotation marks. If that's common in our articles and in scholarship, that's fine, but what seems very inconsistent to me is that the parenthetic translations are not in quotation marks, and I think they should be--for consistency, but also because that's the way to go elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bold print of the movement name is in place instead of a paragraph title. We found it easier to link to a movement number than to a long German line. As for now quotation marks for a single translation see above. --GA

"In 1726, the Sunday had been Michaelis, the feast of St. Michael, therefore a cantata for the occasion was missing in Bach's third annual cycle": this "therefore" is a non sequitur for me. Either explain or rephrase with something with less logical weight. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we explain for this cantata (which has nothing to do with St. Michael), that in Leipzig the saint's feast day was celebrated if it fell on a Sunday (different readings, different cantata, several for St. Michael)? --GA

Well, you need to explain something. Right now the logical value of "therefore" is something like "Bach hated Michael so he didn't write a cantata for that occasion". Also, "therefore" needs to be preceded by a semicolon. But I suggest recasting that sentence to get your point across: right now I don't know what your point is. Also, I don't understand why "third" is in there; it also does not follow from the previous, unlike "annual", which clearly points at the liturgical year. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will try here, and ask you to shorten it to proper English, much of it is background which should not be repeated every cantata, it's in Church cantata (Bach) and elsewhere: Bach tried to compose complete cantata cycles for all occasions of the liturgical year. He wrote the first one in 1723/24, starting the first Sunday after Trinity. He wrote the second one, of mostly Chorale cantatas, a year later. He began the third - getting sloppy - only the 9th Sunday after Trinity and kept missing several Sundays later including the 15th. He filled voids for the third cycle another year later, now 1726, starting strong the first Sunday after Trinity, and would likely have written one for the 15th, but that year that Sunday fell on St. Michaels which had to be celebrated "more", so still no cantata for the 15th. Finally, he assigned a cantata to the 15th Sunday for the third cycle in 1730, - one that was possibly written before and good for any day. On the anniversary of the performance ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked based on what you said here, but the problem now is that none of the sources discuss Michaelis (with the possible exception of Durr and Jones: I cannot see page 540 of that book). The only reference there is to Hofmann. So unless Durr and Jones mention it and you can cite them for Michaelis, I suggest a tweak based on Hofmann, with Michaelis left out. I also note that Hofmann comments that the reference to 15th Sunday is a later addition--but this controversy (maybe too big a word, but there's a fundamental lack of knowledge here, I gather) gets no mention in the article. Again, unless Durr and Jones have something to offer, I think you should consider staying close to Hofmann. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will look but there must be some calendar routine saying that the Sunday fell on 29 September, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about simply saying that Bach didn't compose a cantata for the Sunday in 1725 nor 1726, without discussing why, because it has not really to do with this one? (which again it seems like he didn't exactly compose (!) for the Sunday, just assigned it to the occasion) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel happy with whatever is explicitly supported by Hoffman who--I think--is the only one to address it with any kind of specificity. That is, if you can summarize what he says in the section "For Bach scholars...later addition", then I'm very happy. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "ogni tempo" in the lead is italicized, but in the History section a comparable phrase is in quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, the text is English, the italics only say: different language. Later, the text is a quote in several languages, without a translation because it has all been said before, - I still find it interesting - and hope some readers do - how post is Latin, ogni tempo Italian, and how Bach abbreviated. --GA

The quotation marks indicate quote, italics indicate "not English"--please italicize. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not italicize in the quote from the autograph, because if I did I would also have to italicize Dominica, violino and much more. It should be as close to Bach's writing as tolerable and will be understood. Compare Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir, BWV 29. ---GA

"The cantata was written during a period when composed church cantatas irregularly, some to complete his earlier cycles": this sentence needs to be repaired. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tried by using active voice, sorry subject was missing --GA

I hate "it is known that" and suggest removal. (Sorry) Drmies (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removed --GA

I think I need to be convinced that the red and green backgrounds for those orchestras don't follow from original research. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a compromise to leave out the one red, - Gewandhausorchester, I hope people know without a click that it is a symphony orchestra? I would like to spare readers the six clicks to find out what kind of orchestra it is, in this case all period instruments. (Readers were used to have the recordings listed in three groups, by 1) Modern instruments, 2) Period instruments, 3) One voice per part, until I made the list sortable. The colours are trying to substitute for the former order.) Thanks for diligent reading, looking forward to responses! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, sorry, but that all goes over my head. Here's a solution: ask someone who knows this stuff, some experienced editor, who can say "yes what she did here is fine" and I'll check it off. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe that it goes over your head to see that formerly the recordings were grouped by orchestra as described (example), but now - thanks to Alakzi - in the better articles they are sortable by many parameters (same example). - How is comparing to FA Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 or GA Schauet doch und sehet, ob irgend ein Schmerz sei, BWV 46? Ping to frequent Bach cantata GA reviewer Jaguar? ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the colours should be fine to leave in the article, let alone the numerous FAs and GAs of Bach articles can be used as "barometers". I think I've reviewed a couple with the same issue in question. Are the colours themselves the problem, or the sources? JAGUAR 15:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, the problem was the sourcing for the colors. If you say this coloring (and the reason for it) is not OR, then that's fine with me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring for other cantatas: citation required? Do you think we have to copy the respective sources from the linked articles? If you look at the list of the cantatas you see the scoring. Sort by solo voice, you get the set with only soprano (S) together and see that there's only this one with a trumpet (Tr). Every single entry in the list is sourced, - not even in FAs did we so far copy it when we mention a work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for another delay, but I felt I had first to finish today's cantata. - This cantata has a history, as said before. The first entry in 2005 had major points, and already mentioned some other cantatas for soprano, red links then. The sentence about the "only cantata for soprano and trumpet" was added by Voceditenore, one of my models when it comes to sourcing. Nice sunny day, therefore rewording of the text using more Hofmann hopefully later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forsooth, I have been pinged. I did add "The work is Bach's only church cantata scored for a solo soprano and trumpet" to the lede but it was already lower down in the article in a paragraph referenced to Durr which I took on faith. I merely repeated it in the lede because at the time the lede was quite sparse. I can't see the page in Durr in the Google books preview where the original assertion is presumably referenced (probably page p. 540). However, if you need yet another reference for that assertion try this or this. I'm sure there are many more. Voceditenore (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, do you mean the "The scoring is unique" phrase? I assume that's the scoring of soprano and trumpet--if that's the case, that's fine. Yes, I can't see that page either, unfortunately. Tell you what, I'll try to get it through ILL and see if there's anything exciting in it. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see it: it's on page 541, to that's settled. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On reading through this review, I'm very puzzled by Drmies assertion that the choice of colours for the orchestra cells in the Discography might constitute original research.???? This is no different to the choice of colours in quote boxes (coloured quote boxes abound in FAs) or the choice of stripe colours in infoboxes, It's a simple format decision. The orchestra cells could just have easily been pale green and pale blue. Or are you asserting that the characterisation of each orchestra as either "period instruments" or "symphony orchestra" constitutes original research? Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course that is what I was suggesting. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, Drmies... "Of course" isn't a terribly useful answer to an "Or" question. But I take that to mean you are concerned about the characterisation of orchestras as either "period" or "symphony" and not about the colours. In general with recordings, its not a bad idea to add a cite to a review (if available) or to at least list the OCLC numbers, since all the information will be in the liner notes. The reference doesn't have to be online. Voceditenore (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's standard practice for the Bach cantatas - I inherited that from my predecessors on the topic - to take the recordings from Bach-Cantatas, which is referenced (now, at least on GA and FA level) on top of the table. It doesn't reference that - to give an example - Harnoncourt's Concentus Musicus Wien is an ensemble playing on period instruments, and I don't think it is needed to place a reference for this ensemble playing period instruments on every cantata they played, same for the other groups with Leonhardt, Koopman, Gardiner, Suzuki, Leusink, Herreweghe, four of them having conducted the complete cantatas. I rather think it would be clutter. - Repeating from above: some discographies were grouped by orchestra type (without any reference), - the mentioning of it is (only) trying to help those used to it, and those who don't know. I guess that most readers getting so far down in the article may know anyway that Concentus Musicus Wien was a pioneering group on period instruments. -I remember being struck by accidentally hearing the beginning of their Mass in B minor on radio, and interupting everything for listening to the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gerda, having done some more research, I'm beginning to think that Drmies has a valid point. I started looking for material on Concerto Amsterdam, since it didn't have an article, and find that at the time of the recording (1963), they were not a period instrument ensemble. They used modern instruments albeit in an "historically aware" way and didn't make the transition to period instruments until 1969. See here and here. Given that readers who are interested can simply click on the articles for the orchestras, or more likely are already specialists and are familiar with the ensembles, perhaps simply leave out the "Orchestra type" column. The extra benefit to the reader is pretty minimal, and there is a danger of introducing inaccuracy based on assumptions rather than published sources. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for pointing that out, - should have noticed myself just by the year, - that can easily be fixed case by case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but there's a bit of a problem with that whole "Orchestra type" column, which makes me think it would be better off to leave it out completely. You now have blanks in the column for the first 2 recordings. What is the reader supposed to make of that? It implies "Unknown" rather than "Symphony" which had been the original designation. But even then, that can be misleading to the non-specialist. For example, they weren't recorded with a full symphony orchestra, just the strings and (presumably) a harpsichord, which is not a standard symphony orchestra instrument. What that column is really trying to tell the reader is what type of instruments were used—modern vs. period. If you really don't want to eliminate the column, perhaps rename the column to "Instrument type" with designations as either "modern" or "period" and preferably provide an inline cite for each designation. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Ooops! I see you have sort of explained the coding and what it means in the prose preamble to the table (after the lengthy list of sopranos who have recorded it). So it's probably OK as is. It's up to the reviewer if inline cites are required for the "period" designations. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: