Talk:Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fact from Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
What is the note about "no time signature" trying to say? Why not also mention that it has no bar lines and no tempo marking? - Or drop all of this, because it was not done at the time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever translates "...ohne Taktgliederung..." (de:Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt#Melodie) correctly. I think the point is, most hymns with a text in a regular meter (like this one) are set to a melody with a more or less recognisable rythmical structure, which happens not to be the case for this one. Don't know exactly how to explain that (and haven't seen English-language reliable sources trying to explain that this is something specific for this hymn and its standard setting). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{edit protected}}
Found a source that might help explain:
Seems OK: please add the following section under the "Content" section:
Melody
For their hymns, Luther and the circle around him chose either to compose a new melody, or to borrow an older melody from Latin religious chant, or to adopt a melody from folk-song tradition. "Jesus Christus unser Heiland, der von uns" falls in the second of these categories. Characteristically for such melodies it did not fit easily in the then prevailing mensural notation system, leading to several rhythmic variants in the successive publications of the melody.[1]
2 variant of "Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt", as published in the second quarter of the 16th century in Wittenberg
Also for the pitch of the notes there are some variants. What all publications share is two opening notes with the same duration, the second a fifth higher than the first. Fifth and sixth note usually have half the time value of the opening notes (except when using no long non-melismatic notes like in Scheidt's 1650 versions). In Luther's time the earliest variants would have been sung at a quicker pace than the later variants: in Walter's 1524 publication ( tempo in mensural notation) the seventh and eighth note have the same duration as the first two notes, with the seventh note a major second above the first, while in the later Klug'sche and the Babstsches hymnals the tempo has slowed to 2, with the seventh and eighth note, both a minor third above the opening note, having half the time value of the opening notes. In modern notation Die Lieder Martin Luthers (kirche-bremen.de) p. 25 follows the first editions, while Wackernagel 1848 p. 12 follows the later variant.[1]
Some modern presentations of the melody go further back to the 1410 nostra salus version, e.g. the version of the Luther Gesellschaft, or wander from the original melodic line of the tenor, e.g. the 1993 version of Christian Worship: a Lutheran hymnal. Fitting the hymn's melody in a time signature according to modern music notation with bar lines leads to additional variants. To name only a few: Scheidt 1650 has eleven measures in , with a whole measure for the first two notes; BWV 363 has twelve measures in 4 4, with the first two notes taking half a measure; Bacon 1883 (p. 30) has fifteen measures in time, with in the third and fourth measure; Distler 1938 (p. 17) has the same amount of measures, in 2 time, with in the third and fourth measure.
PS, please stop the "...you..." addresses, seems a bit impolite to casual readers of this page. I hope the humor posted on the side isn't over the top to illustrate the point. removed, probably over the top, and certainly misunderstood. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the image is "Unclesamhumor" (bolding added) – the humor (which for that image is some sort of sarcasm) was misunderstood. Sarcasm means: the meaning is the opposite as what it seems to be at face value. So the humor was misunderstood. What I meant to illustrate: it's generally experienced as somewhat rude to address a general audience with "...you..." without specifying. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I didn't look how that image is named, nor what you wrote. It spoke (and told me to edit) ;) That is the function of a lead image. Will you restore the one in the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I didn't look (...) what you wrote" – message received. My advise is talk page decorum. Not mixing topics from one talk page section to another, at least look at what others say, etc.
The topic of this talk page section is the header of this section in the article. Are we OK on that one then?
I don't know what "over the top" exactly means, but I understood what "shut up" means, more clearly than words. Apology taken for the "humor" image. I shut up now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEADIMAGE has nothing of the sort. Lead images "...should (...) be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see..." I don't think that condition is met. Further, "Lead images are not required..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article, often as part of an infobox. The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic" - (bolded by me), that is what I said in other words: the condition is met. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's considerable difference between "(the) reader deserves to see an image ... in the infobox" and "... lead image ... should ... be ... (an) image ... our readers will expect to see ..." (bolding added). When disagreeing with the guideline, or failing to see the distinction, or failing to give any significance to it, concerns can be posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, but here is hardly the place to discuss whether guideline content has any value. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN the person changing the article has the burden to make their case, until that time the status quo, in this case, of the article creator, is maintained. Here, I see nothing that is not met per WP:LEADIMAGE, it is not shocking, it is appropriate, etc. Here, only two people are debating, one who created the article (and is thus the status quo)and one who is doing an IDONTLIKEIT reversion of an attractive image, replacing it with a blown-up, clunky-looking version in the article body text that is still too small to be the sheet music, and yet so big that it blocks the text. The image is a simple illustration here; a larger size is best viewed at Commons in the original. I fail to see why these huge images add anything more than does the modest and appropriately-sized infobox image does. (Actually, I think the infobox image is a little long, you really only need that first page, IMHO) This is a silly debate and Francis, you need to drop the stick. Montanabw(talk)23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A first choral setting of the hymn appeared in Johann Walter's 1524 choral hymnal Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn. Further choral settings were composed by Balthasar Resinarius (SAAB setting in Georg Rhau's Newe deudsche geistliche Gesenge für die gemeinen Schulen, 1544), by Joachim Decker (choral setting in Melodeyen Gesangbuch, 1604), by Michael Praetorius (SATB-SATB setting in Musae Sioniae, Part III, 1607), by Hans Leo Hassler (ATBB setting in Psalmen und Christliche Gesäng, 1607), by Melchior Vulpius (four-part setting, 1609)[1] and by Johannes Eccard (SATTB setting).
A small point, but in order to avoid the syntax becoming too repetitive you're both trying to find different words for "composed" and "wrote". There are one or two points where maybe "produced" might do the job and hold the reader's attention without distracting him/her from, the message. I know they're none of them precise synonyms. Nevertheless....
A first choral setting of the hymn appeared in Johann Walter's 1524 choral hymnal Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn. Further choral adaptations were provided by Balthasar Resinarius (SAAB setting in Georg Rhau's Newe deudsche geistliche Gesenge für die gemeinen Schulen, 1544), by Joachim Decker (choral setting in Melodeyen Gesangbuch, 1604), by Michael Praetorius (SATB-SATB setting in Musae Sioniae, Part III, 1607), by Hans Leo Hassler (ATBB setting in Psalmen und Christliche Gesäng, 1607), by Melchior Vulpius (four-part setting, 1609)[1] and by Johannes Eccard (SATTB setting).
The last sentence of the same section ("The Protestant hymnal Evangelisches Gesangbuch has the hymn as No. 215, and omits verses three and six of the original.") could be extended to something like this:
Around a decade after first publication Luther's hymn was included in the Klug'sche Gesangbuch. Michael Vehe, publisher of an early Catholic hymnal, Ein new Gesangbüchlin geystlicher Lieder (Leipzig 1537), provided a version in 22 stanzas intended for the feast of Corpus Christi.[1] That version has strong Counter-Reformation overtones. The Babstsches Gesangbuch (1545) contained Luther's version. Johann Leisentrit [de] included a version in eight stanzas (derived from Vehe's version but less militant) as a communion hymn in Geistliche Lieder und Psalmen (1567).[2]
In the 1568 edition of the Gude and Godlie Ballates the hymn was translated as "Our Saviour Christ, King of grace".[3]The Moravian Hymn Book includes translations under "Our Saviour Christ by His own death" (1754) and "To avert from men God's wrath" (translation by Christian Ignatius Latrobe first published in 1789 – a century and several editions later the first stanza of this translation was omitted from this publication).[3]
The hymn is included in 19th century German-language publications such as Philipp Wackernagel's Martin Luthers geistliche Lieder (1848)[4] and Wilhelm Schircks' edition of Luther's Geistliche Lieder (1854),[3] although adoption in hymnals was declining.[5] New English translations were published in the 19th century: "Jesus Christ, our Saviour" (1846), "Christ our Lord and Saviour" (1847), "Lord Jesus Christ! to Thee we pray, From us" (1849, 1880), "Jesus the Christ—the Lamb of God" (1853), "Christ who freed our souls from danger" (1854, 1884), and "Christ Jesus, our Redeemer born" (1867, 1876).[3]
No. 313 of Christian Worship: a Lutheran hymnal (1993) is a four-part setting derived from the Klug'sche Gesangbuch, with a translation of eight stanzas of the hymn as "Jesus Christ, Our Blessed Savior".[6] The Protestant hymnal Evangelisches Gesangbuch includes the hymn as No. 215, omitting verses three and six of the original. A new harmonization for four-part chorus and organ by Yves Kéler and Danielle Guerrier Koegler was published in 2013, on a French translation of the hymn.[7]
In 1524 Johann Walter's choral setting of the hymn appeared in Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn. Around a decade later Luther's hymn was included in the Klug'sche Gesangbuch. Michael Vehe, publisher of an early Catholic hymnal, Ein new Gesangbüchlin geystlicher Lieder (Leipzig 1537), provided a version in 22 stanzas intended for the feast of Corpus Christi.[1] That version has strong Counter-Reformation overtones.[2]Georg Rhau published Balthasar Resinarius' four-part setting of Luther's hymn in Newe deudsche geistliche Gesenge für die gemeinen Schulen (1544). Also the Babstsches Gesangbuch (1545) contained Luther's version. Johann Leisentrit [de] included a version in eight stanzas (derived from Vehe's version but less militant) as a communion hymn in Geistliche Lieder und Psalmen (1567).[2]
The Moravian Hymn Book includes translations under "Our Saviour Christ by His own death" (1754) and "To avert from men God's wrath" (translation by Christian Ignatius Latrobe first published in 1789 – a century and several editions later the first stanza of this translation was omitted from this publication).[3] The German original is included in 19th century publications such as Philipp Wackernagel's Martin Luthers geistliche Lieder (1848)[5] and Wilhelm Schircks' edition of Luther's Geistliche Lieder (1854),[3] although adoption in hymnals was declining.[6] New English translations were published in the 19th century: "Jesus Christ, our Saviour" (1846), "Christ our Lord and Saviour" (1847), "Lord Jesus Christ! to Thee we pray, From us" (1849, 1880), "Jesus the Christ—the Lamb of God" (1853), "Christ who freed our souls from danger" (1854, 1884),[7] and "Christ Jesus, our Redeemer born" (1867, 1876).[3]
In the 20th century Hugo Distler wrote a SAB setting. He also published a Partita (organ) and setting (voice and organ), Op. 8/3 No. 3 in 1938. In 1964 Kurt Fiebig produced a setting for three parts: soprano, alto and men.[8] No. 313 of Christian Worship: a Lutheran hymnal (1993) is a four-part setting derived from the Klug'sche Gesangbuch, with a translation of eight stanzas of the hymn as "Jesus Christ, Our Blessed Savior".[9] The Protestant hymnal Evangelisches Gesangbuch includes the hymn as No. 215, omitting verses three and six of the original. A 2012 performance of the hymn in Bremen reverted to the melody version of the very first publication of 1524.[10] A new harmonization for four-part chorus and organ by Yves Kéler and Danielle Guerrier Koegler was published in 2013, on a French translation of the hymn.[11]
I started this article, as hundred+ other articles about compositions. They have no fancy headers but simple and recognizable ones, typically "Structure and scoring" and "Music", here Tune and music. We should not talk about "change" but "restore". I don't believe that we should be inventive in headers. "Adoption" is a derived word for me, which I would never even use in prose, and certainly not in a header. That may be my limited English, sorry. Compare Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern and try to keep similar articles similar, as a service to our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose. I would not fight you to the death either way. It's largely down to taste. But "Adoption(s) of Luther's hymn" (unless "Adaptations..." works better) (1) tells me more about what is going on and it (2) encourages me to read what comes next. If the syntax becomes too smooth and scholarly you risk sending to sleep those of us who are neither Sorry. & Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current section header for now (if and when other aspects of the reception history end up to be added to the section we can see about which changes to the section title are desirable). Reasons explained above, see #Header about music?. I oppose creating a new talk page section when something is actively discussed in another. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Comment: "Adoption" seems an odd word. Should it be "Adaptations"? Also, what do all the selections listed refer to? Different music (than Luther's original), or different text, or both? If it's strictly musical differences, I would possibly call it "Later musical settings" or "Other musical settings" (not just "Musical settings", because they don't seem to include Luther's first setting). Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's the various musical settings, all of the same ten-stanza text by Luther, I'd say the section header should be "Musical settings" or something similar. Also, I think the first sentence of the section should read: "The first musical setting of Luther's text ..." and make it clear who wrote the music -- I can't figure out if you/it means Luther wrote that first setting, or Walter wrote that first setting. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if two of the ten stanzas were omitted in the current hymnal (not uncommon; some hymnals do not have room for more than 5 or so verses), it's still the same text (80% of it). Which music or choral setting did it use? Anyway, the section seems to be about a lot of things: various choral settings or arrangements (unspecified how much they vary from the original melody, if they do) in various hymnals and in classical compositions (chorale preludes). The last sentence is an exception, and does not give the kind of setting. Could call the section "Arrangements and choral settings". Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... which still wouldn't cover "The Protestant hymnal Evangelisches Gesangbuch has the hymn as No. 215, and omits verses three and six of the original," which afaik is neither an arrangement nor a choral setting. Can someone provide more info on that version of the hymn? The current discussion on the section title seems premature, based on "possible" but not yet "actual" content of the section. I mean, the current section title covers the actual content, lets see whether we can expand/improve the content, and then revisit the question under what flag it should go (for which a !vote procedure seems a bit heavy-handed anyhow, I'm sure if the content of the section is the best we can give, the section title will follow quite naturally). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Adoption of Luther's hymn" is appropriate or clear at all. It's not even clear what it means, and is rather strange English. Could use "Usage and arrangements", which would cover all bases. Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we don't even speak of the same things and can have two paragraphs, one about musical settings, another about adoptions (confessing that I don't know what it means). A choral prelude is independent of the number of stanzas sung, a four-part setting is for all stanzas sung, and a cantata often uses only part of the text, and sometimes in different words. I would still say that a Bach chorale cantata is a musical setting of the hymn (in general - not this one). - The line about the Protestant hymnal doesn't belong in it but history, anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alfred Dürr, writing about BWV 68: "In the ... opening chorus, Bach adopts the melody by Gottfried Vopelius that belongs to the hymn,..." [2] (bolding added like in the following examples); Or Wikipedia in the BWV 117 article: "The central chorale adopts the ... text from the original hymn, ..."; Another: "...U2's adoption of Bach's distinctive suspended chords..." [3]; Adoption in hymnals: "... have become popular largely through their adoption in ... hymn books ..." [4]; yes it is correct to say, and generally understandable by an English-language readership, that BWV 1 contains an adoption of a Lutheran hymn (which can mean both the melody and/or the text of the hymn, etc), ... But quite enough on English vocabulary I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My vote: (1) If the section on mere use of the hymn is going to be expanded, then it should be separated out from the choral arrangements/adaptations into a different section. I still vote no on "Adoption", which seems too unclear, obscure, confusing, and possibly inaccurate. "Popular use" or "Usage" is the only clear unambiguous English way to cover use of the hymn, in my opinion. That section could (possibly best) be part of the "History" section, without need of a subheading (except possibly date ranges if necessary). No on "Luther's hymn": we are only talking about one hymn, the subject of the article; using the words "Luther's hymn" in the section heading only adds further confusion. (2) As for the section on adaptations/arrangements, I vote "Choral settings" or "Adaptations" or "Arrangements". PS: If there needs to be any checking of or comparison to other articles on hymns, I suggest consulting good wiki articles on hymns that none of us have substantially written, to avoid personality, ownership, or interpersonal issues. Amazing Grace is an FA hymn article; A Mighty Fortress Is Our God is not an FA but it's an article on a widespread standard. And so on. Softlavender (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Dissemination"? (compare: Amazing Grace#Dissemination) - Although I think content-wise "Adoption" is a better fit than "Dissemination" for this Lutheran hymn.
"Luther's hymn" – prefer to keep it in much as "New Britain" is kept in Amazing Grace#"New Britain" tune (the dozens of other tunes for the hymn are cursorily mentioned, but their reception is untreated in the article). In this case for the Hussite hymn which is described in this article, but the article seems hardly the place to elaborate on the reception history of the prior hymn (e.g. choralwiki:Jesus Christus nostra salus (Thomas Stoltzer)).
History/Description/Reception is the usual sequence for all of these articles, don't see why "Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt" should be any different.
With the "counter-reformation" content added to the proposal for the content of this section above (which is part of the reception history, not part of the adoption of the hymn in Evangelical and related surroundings), I've included a proposal to get rid of the section header there. Seems what I said before came true: work on the content of the article, section headers will hardly be a matter of contention after that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox has the following description of the melody:
by Luther, based on a medieval
tune arranged by Franz Tunder,
Johann Pachelbel and especially J.
S. Bach (BWV 665, 666, 688, 689)
My remarks:
too long for infobox
"medieval" not covered by article
"medieval" not covered by any of the sources used for the article (unless when I missed it checking these)
"by" Luther, likewise not covered in the article nor its sources (sources seem to indicate Luther "chose" it, nothing less, nothing more)
Selection of arranging composers questionable: why Tunder? Walter seems to be mentioned more often in sources; Pachelbel likewise not often mentioned while Rhau/Resinarius 1544 seems to be mentioned more frequently
Selection of listed compositions questionable: why four organ compositions? Is BWV 363 (which also includes the text) less important?
"especially" is the type of qualifier I'd avoid in an infobox, which should be a short overview of facts, not (unsourced) appreciations (note that the "especially" appreciation is covered neither by the article nor its sources)
Why include any reception history in the infobox? Seems rather unusual to me.
"nbsp" needed between "J." and "S." (if and when this is kept in the infobox)
I read in the German Wikipedia "Die melismatisch schwingende dorische Melodie ohne Taktgliederung ist, auch in der Fassung der Reformationszeit, unverkennbar mittelalterlich.Yves Kéler", which translates roughly to "The ... melody without bars is, even in the version of the time of Reformation, obviously medieval.", which tells me that it was originally medieval, and that a reformer modified it. This was Luther himself for most of his hymns, with help from Walter. - I am sorry not to read enough French to read all of the source, but understand that it refers to the 1410 print as the origin of the melody, and Luther's 1524 prints for the modified melody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In German Wikipedia the paragraph is sourced to a webpage that wouldn't pass WP:RS at English Wikipedia. If doubting this assertion this could be taken to WP:RSN. Note: I've looked for more reliable sources that would attest the same (or tell anything about the origin of the melody), but couldn't find a single one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt your assertion. We have other sources enough that say a melody was in the 1410 print (which could be called medieval just by the year, but "older" is fine with me) and that the 1524 prints are a modification of it, right? - I would like to say that here - as in several other cases - Luther tried to keep things, instead of inventing something new. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "We have other sources enough that say a melody was in the 1410 print" – no we haven't. If they're so easy to find (contrary to my experience), please provide one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't fit in the sections above, header restoration and melody. It's also not a vote. Parameters in the infobox have been criticised, I respond showing that they can be filled simpler. I see many infobox discussions, and the frequently repeated arguments: "no infobox because a parameter is wrong" or even "no infobox because a parameter maybe filled wrong in the future". - Potential to be wrong in the future is nothing special to an infobox, - it's part of an encyclopedia everyone can edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the "...by Luther..." part kept in the "Melody" parameter in the proposal in this talk page section (see discussion about it in the previous section)? Etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a misunderstanding. This section is to arrive at an infobox by discussion which an admin can simply take to the article without having to study the other lengthy discussions. Do you oppose to that procedure? - Is "adapted" better? - If you have another suggestion for parameter melody, go ahead and change. I would like to word that the "Older tune" is the tune of Jesus Christus, nostra salus, without repeating the full title. Can that be worded better? I tried by adding the year to both "based on " and melody". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"adapted" (by Luther): not covered by references or article text.
Re. "older tune = Jesus Christus, nostra salus" – looks like it, but none of the (current) sources for the article actually say it. The current sources focus on the hymn text, and are vague (to say the least) on the melody. So please, if anyone can find sources to back this up, this would be much appreciated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Current" and "on page creation" were rejected before (why waste space to list it again), 1 and 2 are correct but not informative, 3 leaves open which hymn (reader who just read about the Latin might be confused. Therefore I go with— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)
"(1410)" and "modified" not confirmed by article nor by its references (unless I missed something reading these). So, no, couldn't agree with this one currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree on this, but we don't agree in bothering an admin for every little bit of a change. An admin could replace the whole infobox by the one above, as a remedy for the clumsy mentioning of the related works.
No agreement on that last one (regarding the "related" parameter) per my above: "Selection of listed compositions questionable: (etc.)" – didn't change my view on that one, whatever the parameter used for it.
An admin protected the page, so I suppose admins would be taking their responsability, whether a minute typo correction or a major overhaul of a section, and anything in between. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect Francis. The responsibility which must be taken here is for editors to not edit war to begin with. — Ched : ? 13:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 1524 ''[[Erfurt Enchiridion]]'' presented the melody and the ten stanzas of Luther's hymn on two pages:
<center>[[File:Enchiridion geistlicher Gesänge 21.jpg|350px|border]][[File:Enchiridion geistlicher Gesänge 22.jpg|345px|border]]</center>
I think File:Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt (Erfurter Enchiridion).jpg unsuitable while (1) not having the look and feel of the original publication (it is a cut-and-paste job merging two pages vertically); (2) the height of the image (as compared to its width) doesn't work very well; (3) low resolution whatever the magnification: what is going on at the beginning of the second stave is unclear even when clicking a few times to display maximum file size. File:Enchiridion geistlicher Gesänge 21.jpg does not have that disadvantage. Visually preferring the non-authentic lower-definition image seems like an insufficient argument imho.
When the variants of the melody are discussed (see above #Time signature?) it is best to have the examples of the melodic/rhythmic variants that can be displayed in Wikipedia at close range of that description in order to understand the explanation (there's already a lot of clicking/scrolling to be done to see the external examples), and also displayed and legible in all versions/formats of the Wikipedia article (clicking is not even an option in printed/PDFfed versions).
As with any song, a hymn is words and music. The lead needs to state who wrote the music to this hymn, or otherwise identify what the melody is. If that melody has changed over time to an entirely different one, then the lead needs to indicate what the melody was (and who composed and/or adapted it, if identifiable) that Luther used when he wrote the text; and also what melody (and who composed it) is in current use, if there is a standard melody in current use (and also how long the current standard-use melody has been in use). Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can only say the little we know, and if it's too little, perhaps better be silent. The melody of the 1410 publication is anonymous, Luther seems to have made only minor changes, - not really lead information. A later publication showed also an alternate melody [8], but that is not even yet in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need to state at least briefly what is known. We can't just have a lead about a song or hymn that only mentions the text; otherwise it's not a hymn, just a text. The lead needs to mention at the very least what music Luther (or the first publication) used. There is no mention of a 1410 publication anywhere in the article. (Oddly, I can't view the page of that GoogleBook; I guess it cannot be viewed from a U.S. IP.) The hymn does have a current standard melody, correct? That also needs to be described somewhere and mentioned in the lead. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good information -- should state all of that in the article and summarize it in the lead. If the hymn is rarely sung nowadays, should state that somewhere, and add when it largely declined in usage. Also, this brings up an important point: In the section that is currently called "Adoption of Luther's hymn", do those compositions by Bach, Pachelbel et al. refer merely to usage of Luther's text, or adaptations of previous music? If the former, the section title should not read "Adoption of Luther's hymn" but "Adoption of Luther's text" (that is, unless it gets changed to a better heading). Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "do those compositions by Bach, Pachelbel et al. refer merely to usage of Luther's text, or adaptations of previous music?" – Many of the these compositions, i.e. the purely instrumental ones, typically chorale preludes for organ, refer to the melody exclusively. Since the title of such compositions would be Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns or some such, they refer to Luther's hymn (not the prior Hussite hymn with the same melody). Its about the adoption of Luther's hymn in Evangelical (Lutheran) church practice, as such organ preludes were intended to precede the singing of Luther's hymn (not the Hussite hymn) by the congregation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not confirmed however that Luther did anything else with the melody than borrow it.
It also doesn't confirm where or when the melody originated.
To me it seems OK to replace the last sentence of the intro paragraph ("Luther based the text on a Latin model which he believed to have been written by the early reformer and martyr Johannes Hus.") by "Luther based the hymn on "Jesus Christus nostra salus," the text and melody of which can be found in an early 15th century manuscript and are linked to a Hussite tradition.[1]" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we say, for instance, "Luther based the hymn on Jesus Christus nostra salus", then we need to say "Luther based the hymn's text and melody onJesus Christus nostra salus" (emphasis mine), because, again, we need to identify both the text and the melody in the lead. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Re. "we need to identify (whatever)" (emphasis mine): we can do no more identification than the reliable sources allow us. The missing pieces of the puzzle should not be created by Wikipedians, per WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously no WP:OR, but the hymn, like any song, does have a melody, and which melody it is (and has been) needs to be identified in the lead, as for any song or hymn. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Luther based the hymn on "Jesus Christus nostra salus," a late 14th century hymn embedded in a Hussite tradition, on the theme of Eucharist. He borrowed its melody,[1] and provided a German text treating the theme of Eucharist from his own theology."? (maybe this would require some additional re-arrangement of the lede, avoiding to double the Eucharist-related info) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That source only literally states that the Text (T) is (partly) based on Jesus Christus nostra salus. For the music, it says "M[usik]: Hohenfurt 1410, Erfurt 1524". Still vague, as it's not a sentence or paragraph, but only the T & M notations in a hymnal of sorts, and it gives no elaboration whatsoever. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, additional sources are needed to connect the dots, e.g. John Julian A Dictionary of Hymnology, Volume I, p. 598: "Jesus Christus, nostra salus ... in a MS. cir. 1410, belonging to the Abbey of Hohenfurth"
Another limitation of what we should do in the lede is the WP:BALASPS policy: if the reliable sources give so little attention to the melody (and "connecting of dots" is needed for verification) that is maybe hardly lede material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to find a way to formulate it:
The models for the text[2] and the melody[1] of Luther's hymn existed in early 15th century Bohemia. The text of the earlier hymn, "Jesus Christus nostra salus," goes back to the late 14th century. That hymn was embedded in a Hussite tradition.
I think I found a better source for the "early 15th century Bohemia" statement regarding the melody. As this is what everyone seems to want, requesting the edit:
{{edit protected}}
Please, following the above discussions, replace the last sentence of the lede ("Luther based the text on a Latin model which he believed to have been written by the early reformer and martyr Johannes Hus.") by these three sentences:
The models for the text[1] and the melody[2] of Luther's hymn existed in early 15th century Bohemia. The text of the earlier hymn, "Jesus Christus nostra salus", goes back to the late 14th century. That hymn was embedded in a Hussite tradition.
I think it also safe to replace the last sentence of the "History" section ("From its first publication in 1524 the hymn was combined with a{{which|date=February 2015}} pre-existing tune.") by
Luther presented the hymn with several variants of the melody that had been associated with "Jesus Christus nostra salus" for over a century.[2][3]
Luther wrote hymns to have the congregation actively participate in church services and to strengthen his theological concepts.[4] In Lent of 1524 Luther was explaining his views on Eucharist in a series of sermons.[5] "Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt", probably written around the same time, contained many ideas he had been developing in these sermons, taking the older Eucharistic hymn as a model: he kept the meter, the number of stanzas and the first line of "Jesus Christus nostra salus", but shaped the content to reflect his own theology.[5][1]
In Luther's time "Jesus Christus nostra salus" was attributed to the church reformer Jan Hus (a "Johannes" like Jenštejn).[5] Luther saw Hus as a precursor and martyr. Early prints of "Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt" came under the header "Das Lied S. Johannes Hus gebessert" (The song of St. Johannes Hus improved).[5] Luther presented the hymn with several variants of the melody that had been associated with "Jesus Christus nostra salus" for over a century.[2][3]
The earliest extant copy of "Jesus Christus nostra salus" (text and melody) is found in southern Bohemia, 1410.[2][3] The earliest extant prints of Luther's hymn (both editions of the Erfurt Enchiridion and Johann Walter's choral hymnal Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn) originated in 1524.[5] Later versions approved by Luther (since he wrote the foreword to these editions) are contained in the Klug'sche Gesangbuch (1529/1533) and the Babstsches Gesangbuch (1545).[2][3]
While "Jesus Christus nostra salus" is focused on the presence of Christ in both bread and wine, Luther added that the Eucharist means the "surety of God's grace in forgiveness". He deals with the Passion (in stanzas 1–2, 4,6), with the faith necessary to properly receive (3, 5), the invitation, based on scripture (7, 8), and the love of Christ (9, 10) as the "fruit of faith, to be extended to others".[5]
2 variant of "Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt", as published in the second quarter of the 16th century in Wittenberg
, with a whole measure for the first two notes; BWV 363 has twelve measures in 4
time, with
Done — Ched : ? 11:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done I've put the comma outside the quotation marks, as that is usually what is recommended by MOS:COMMA. If there's a special reason that they should go inside, ping me and I'll change it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)