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
"twelve parts for singers, and ten for" → "12 parts for singers and 10 for" per MOS:NUM, but are you sure the body sources 12 parts or did I just miss it?
"played a significant role" → "played an important role" to avoid repetitive wording with the body
"19th century: at the time" → "19th century; at the time"
"customary in Bach's Weimar." → "customary in Johann Sebastian Bach's Weimar." because he is not the most recent person of this surname to be mentioned
[3] should be solely at the end of the para due to backing up both of the last two sentences
"the transcription of" → "with the transcription of"
"Missa" is a name variant, that is the Latin translation of "Mass" (in English); "Messa" (in Italian) and "Messe" (in German): I added a reference that uses the Latin name variant to the lead image caption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. capitalization (or not) of mass/Mass: I'd say "the Liturgy of the Hours is a liturgy ...", and similarly "the ... Mass ..., BWV Anh. 167, is a mass composition ..." but I'm no authority on whether that is a correct (or at least an acceptable) capitalization or not. If someone can explain me how it should be capitalized I'd be all ears. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the recording and the (scholarly) re-attribution are quite unrelated (except for happening in the same century), so I addressed this somewhat differently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to comment that I was thinking the capitalisation should be there because you wrote "mass composition", also the numbers issue is prevalent because you use 22 in that sentence. --K. Peake12:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I was thinking the capitalisation should be there because you wrote "mass composition"" – I don't understand this rationale. It's not because (in some circumstances) "Symphony" is capitalized, that therefore symphony orchestra (as a descriptive term) should be capitalized. So no, unless someone can explain this, so that I know how to apply this as a rule in the future, I see no reason to capitalize here, with what I know about English grammar. If you question my approach in the matter or would like to know what should be in Wikipedia's guidance about this, please raise at WT:MOS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? Not sure what you suggest now. As I said, Weimar (the city) should be mentioned and linked: that's where Bach worked. The period Bach worked there is known as the composer's Weimar period (not as his Saxe-Weimar period). I see no reason to link the duchy article, nor to mention the duchy anywhere outside what is linked to the duke's article. To all extents and purposes, the duchy is a side-topic to this article, so remote that it does not need to be focused on here as far as I'm concerned. Why do you keep insisting on linking to this remote side-issue from this article, and mention it a second time outside the link to the duke's article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It reads awkwardly writing "these in Weimar" at the end of the sentence when you have already used the name before this point. --K. Peake16:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now applied various adjustments to the paragraph, including splitting of sentences, etc, and would like to hear whether or not that suffices to address the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved one further down in the article (20th instead of 19th century), and another into the sentence, leaving four refs (all of which mention at least one alternative composer) where they were. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page XL of the "Vorwort" (preface) of Vol. 41 of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe has (where speaking about this composition) "... die Messe in G beginnt und mit ihren einzelnen Sätzen wie am Letzten Ende in G schliesst ..." – the linking to IMSLP for the "Vorwort" is not so straightforward while the linked page has all prefaces of all BGA volumes, and giving a direct link to any of these is not a stable URL. I recently discovered that another website (MDZ) has scans of BGA volumes too (without separating the preface from the rest of the volume), but searching for a precise BGA volume on that website is a rather haphazard undertaking. Anyway, the reference is correct, but may require going to a library if the current linking is too enigmatic. Don't know what you mean by "... I click on the page for BWV 167"? For clarity, BWV 167 (of no relevance to this page) is a composition unrelated to BWV Anh. 167 (the composition discussed in this article). If I've got some time left after the first pass through these remarks I'll see whether I can find the BGA volume on the MDZ site, or another reference that confirms the key of G major for all movements. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See #2 above: the referenced content is indeed on the indicated page of the reference. BMV is of course even more unrelated.
(as a consequence of previous changes [21] became now [20]) – same solution though as explained in #2 above, except that the "Vorwort" is now of Vol. 11.1, and XVII the page containing the reference for the content.
The reference has (Kirnberger's note): "Bey dem zweiten Chor sind zweimal vier Singstimmen, sie / sind aber nicht verschieden, sondern nur als ripienstimmen, die zur / Abwechslung und zur Verstärkung des zweiten Chors da stehen." (emphasis added), which covers the referenced content , paraphrased from Kirnberger for better understanding by less specialized readers. I added a reference to the score, for those who read music and want to verify the contention as explained in different wordings.
No. See above about redirect links, and next point why in this case that would be particularly confusing (and in fact: incorrect)
Both Kammerton and Chorton are now redirects to specific sections on these pages. Should not link to either page directly (with a pipe), while that would imply that Kammerton = concert pitch = 440Hz = A440 (pitch standard) = Chorton, while they are of course not identical. Preferably Kammerton and Chorton would both become separate articles (instead of redirects), explaining this a bit clearer than the less-than-perfect summaries in both current pitch related pages. And you should really stop suggesting to avoid redirect links: when those articles would get written, the pipes you suggest would continue to lead to the wrong places (with the rather incomplete explanations) instead of the more to-the-point new pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(see above reply re. "Structure and scoring", #2): last paragraph on page XL of the reference from "Das Gloria tacet in der Handschrift ..." to the end of the page covers this. Also here, like "Structure and scoring", #11, rephrased for better understanding by a less specialized audience (e.g. that what is called "... Lücke..." by Dörffel refers to the intonation, not written out in the manuscript). Added a reference with a page link to the score, for clarity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
implemented somewhat different as proposed, keeping the link to Forkel's 19th-century title of the publication (the title of the Wikipedia page where this redirects to is that of Terry's expanded translation of the same). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(see above reply re. "Structure and scoring", #2): added the Rust 1862, p=XVII, reference in the sentence (Rust couldn't check whether the contentions contained in Schicht's Italian title were correct, while he had no access to the P 659 manuscript, so he mentioned his apprehension explicitly: "Die Richtigkeit dieser Angabe..."; Dörffel, who had access, see "Gegenwärtig ..." in the last paragraph of p. XXXIX in his preface, compared the manuscript with the first printed edition detailed the differences on p. XL of the same preface). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(see above reply re. "Structure and scoring", #2) For clarity (per point):
when only removing the pipe it makes Danish link to a disambiguation page, so I suppose you meant that "Danish" shouldn't be linked: anyhow, I removed the linking altogether. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed italicization; the source has "seit Kriegsende verschollen" mentioned in "Provenance" entry. This, and other indications on that page of the reference, cover the entire sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken Regarding MOS:NUM, the issue is with areas like where you've wrote "9th volume of its second series" because this is spelling them out and using numbers when they are both of the same digits. Also, you have not fixed or replied to the sources point. --K. Peake06:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: yes, as said, I'm working through all remarks in a "first pass" now, and will return to the ones that are not yet addressed satisfactorily in a second pass. On the other hand, please explain your "unless I click on the page for BWV 167" as I already asked before: I really don't get what you're trying to say here, and I suppose that until I do I can't adequately address your concerns regarding the BGA preface sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again scores:Ihr Menschen, rühmet Gottes Liebe, BWV 167 (Bach, Johann Sebastian) (=BWV 167) is completely unrelated to Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167 (=BWV Anh. 167). Two different Wikipedia pages! At IMSLP all editorial prefaces can be reached from the same page, linked as follows: "Vorwort" – Unless that link is used, you'd have to go to the library nearest to you that has a paper copy of the BGA edition, or find the BGA volumes elsewhere on the internet. But none of that denotes a problem with my BGA references as currently written in the BWV Anh. 167 article. Re. "should everything be done by now?" – see my latest updates to the article, and comments inserted above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dörffel quoting Rust (i.e. the same quote as given with a translation in the Wikipedia article) is on p. XXXIX of Dörffel's preface. Since page XL of that preface is not really needed for this reference, I changed "|pp=XXXIX–XL" to "|p=XXXIX" in the sfn of that reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to "Structure and scoring" #11 – the German quote is indeed on the indicated pages (unless if I made an error in copying this?). (note: through new updates to references, numbers of references as in your above comments seem to have (mostly?) redressed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC); updated: footnote numbers are again completely different from those used in Kyle's original remarks. 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Schlussband" translates as "closing volume". There's a 1926 supplemental volume to the edition, but that volume, strictly speaking, does not belong to the BGA, while the Bach Gesellschaft (BG) no longer existed at that time: the supplemental volume was published by the Neue Bachgesellschaft (NBG) which had superseded the BG by then. Mentioned the correct Bach by first names, while it was indeed the other one (and not the last mentioned one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "20th century": I'd rather keep both full names for now: the last first name mentioned is Johann Ludwig's, while the last Bach mentioned (in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis expression) is in fact Johann Sebastian: imho, "Johann Ludwig and Lotti" would sound amateurish if you ask me; and the short form you propose is too ambiguous. All other points implemented as suggested. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; that was a quicker review than I expected! --K. Peake 12:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)