Talk:O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 60/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 23:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'll review this article. General comments/progress will be in the table, with specific action items below. Stedil (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some unclear passages that need copy-editing. Update: prose has improved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This appears to be the main disagreement between editors. I'll have more thoughts about this soon. Update: sources are now sufficient for GA.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some disagreement between editors in this section as well. My thoughts coming soon. Update: more analysis added. Should be sufficient for GA.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	After looking through the talk page and the tags, I'm concerned about the possibility that some of the issues haven't been resolved between these editors, and may continue even after the conclusion of the review. I'll take some time to think about this, and share my thoughts below. Update: My opinion is that other editors' issues were addressed sufficiently as part of this review. If other involved editors see areas for improvement, they are welcome to contribute constructively.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets all of the GA criteria.

History and words

The first reading for this Sunday: I was confused a bit with this section as to whether the readings were part of the cantata. Some clarification that the readings take place before the cantata begins would be helpful.

I decided to be bold and added a clarifying passage here. Stedil (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is interpreted by the unknown librettist of the cantata as a foreshadowing the resurrection, expected with an attitude of fear and hope: Is this info included in Dürr & Jones 2005? I can't read pages 630 and 631.
expected with an attitude of fear and hope: Meaning is unclear. Rephrase.
The cantata is opened and closed by a hymn: Meaning is unclear. Does the cantata begin and end with the same hymn, or two different hymns? Also, the first stanza of Johann Rist's "O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort", expressing fear, and the last stanza of Franz Joachim Burmeister's "Es ist genug": Are both hymns present at the beginning and end? Rephrase so that it is clear that Rist's hymn is at the beginning, while Burmeister's is at the end.
two biblical words: Should this be "two biblical phrases"?
"Herr, ich warte auf dein Heil" (Genesis 49:18), spoken by Jacob on his deathbed, expresses hope against the fear of the chorale: Is this all in movement 1? Likewise, Selig sind die Toten (Blessed are the dead, Revelation 14:13) is the answer to a recitative of Fear: Is this all in movement 4? Clarify in the text.
Bach first performed the cantata Was Bach the only performer? I assume not, considering it was written for choir and Baroque orchestra. Rephrase/clarify.

I remember having written replies, but probably forgot to save. I also chenged things in the article. Could you read it again, please, and see if it's clearer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all of the sources in this section yet, because I think the prose needs to be cleaned up first. Let me know if you need any assistance in copy-editing. More to come. Stedil (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review. I am out today, but hope to get to it in the evening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More History/words

Gardiner cite could not be found. Is it web archived?

Sigh. The gardiner source was first this (Bach Cantata Pilgrimage diary), then the booklet of the Monteverdi Choir with the same information - until the website was reorganised, and I don't know where it went. It's available from the Bach Cantatas Website, http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV60.htm, look for Gardiner, click on the lower liner notes, but Francis Schonken doesn't think that site should appear even as an external link, so removed it. I don't know how you feel, - the German Wikipedia even has a template for the site, de:Vorlage:Bach Cantatas. I'll go now and look if Gardiner wrote something in his book. For me, he has to say something from the viewpoint of someone who conducted all Bach cantatas, - I wouldn't disqualify that as "liner notes". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, at least nothing that is availble online, and in my German village, I don't have access to printed sources in English easily. Grateful for whoever can check and add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he talks about it in his book. I don't have a problem with using the liner notes, as he is "an established expert on the subject matter." That should be sufficient for GA. Stedil (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis found and inserted the liner notes back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there is only evidence for the first performance: citation needed. Stedil (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased (only one date sure, otherwise time range), with dupl of a citation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

by a continuo part from that time: I'm still confused by this part. Did the continuo part change? Or did the second performance only use basso continuo, without the other instrumental parts? Or is this a reference to the fact that different instruments were used in the continuo? Stedil (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say what I read: a continuo part (figured bass) exists on paper with water marks from a later time, which suggests performance at that later time. The source says nothing about a change in the music. Perhaps the first sheet got last, or dirty. Different instruments were used anyway, continuo is a group: keybaord, cello, bass, bassoon if other wind instruments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking again. I was out all day, and behind on many things, so it will take a day or two to respond. Francis who found lack of references is blocked for several weeks, so we can't work anything out. I think if you find the references sufficient, you can remove the tag. You may want to chaeck out User talk:Softlavender. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... yes, I plan on removing the tags after offering my thoughts (see below). If consensus can be built that the sourcing/reception is sufficient, then I see no problem in promoting this article. Go ahead and respond to any outstanding items. Stedil (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and scoring

sometimes called a solo cantata: citation needed.

worded differently --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this cantata: Which one: BWV 60 or BWV 109?

I thought it was clear from the context (109: one singer, 60: two singers) but wrote it explicitly now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be going out of town for a week, and may not be able to log in during that time. I'll continue reviewing when I return. Stedil (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movements

Is there a key signature(s) for movements 2 and 4?

They are recitatives, keys come and go, some give first and last, but for whom?

In "structure and scoring," the first movement is described as an aria, but in "movements" it is described as a chorale fantasia.

It's both, aria says that it is sung by solo voice(s), chorale fantasia says that a chorale tune is a theme treated to a fantasia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. I'm very busy this week, but I'll work on it some more when I can. Stedil (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movement 4

each time expanded, following a scheme a ab abc: this line only made sense after I read the sources. Could you phrase it differently so it's clear that the bass quotes a greater amount of the verse each time?
I think it would be helpful to mention in this section how the biblical passage in this section convinces the alto part, in the end, to set aside its fear. Stedil (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movement 5

Add a page range to the Popl cite and double check the formatting.
Whitaker cite: does it have an ISBN? What pages does it mention the Berg Concerto? Stedil (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I copied that from the concerto article, without access to the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick check, I can't find an ISBN, so the citation as it is now should be sufficient. Stedil (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on sourcing and reception

As mentioned earlier, I think the use of the Gardiner liner notes is acceptable since he is an established expert in the field. If editors can provide reasonable evidence for why Gardiner is not reliable (for example, content that deviates significantly from other reliable sources), then they are welcome to replace Gardiner themselves with a higher quality source. WP:FIXIT
The Chafe quote is sourced to Gardiner's quoting of Chafe. Why not source Chafe directly? What about using Chafe as a source in general?

Will see if I can find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, and will probably use it more, but give me some time, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I wanted to look again, it wasn't included in the preview any more, and in the book, I have no search function. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The musicologist should probably get an article [1] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this issue has been resolved, since Chafe is now listed in the article (and has his own now, too). Stedil (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do a quick search myself for reliable book sources. The only ones in English I could find that aren't in the article already are Chafe (see above) and a book (2013) by Richard D.P. Jones The Creative Development of Johann Sebastian Bach, Volume II: 1717-1750: Music to Delight the Spirit. Editors are welcome to add more reliable sources themselves if/when they find them.
I understand the concerns about using the Bach Cantatas website as a reliable source for analytical/potentially copyrighted material. Currently, it appears that the website is only being used at this point as a reference to the words and translation of the text. As far as I can tell, the website appears to be reliable in this regard. I don't see a reason for a blanket prohibition of any sourcing from this site, but caution is advised.
I don't see the need for a separate reception section unless a significant body of critique can be demonstrated to exist that currently isn't in the article (once again, if anybody has this information, add it yourself). As currently constructed, I would integrate reception throughout the "movements" section, as available and appropriate. The critical reception doesn't necessarily have to be English - I think Francis provided an example in German that can be used if it provides unique insight unavailable in English. While the article does have some critical reception, I think perhaps a little more information would be useful. It doesn't need to be much; a concise summary is what's needed. Stedil (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one in a series, and most don't have anything about reception, because when the work was first performed there wasn't much (only very few even mentioned), the centuries afterwards cared more about his secular works and the oratorios, and from the 20th century, it has been frequently recorded, as part of complete cycles, but I don't know of specific "reception" for this cantata. It stands out as using a highly unusual chorale, and as a model for the Berg concerto, but that's better covered in the hymn and concerto articles, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Based on the sources available, I think the article now contains a sufficient amount of analysis/reception. If more sources can be found, then perhaps this article could become more "comprehensive," but that is an FA requirement, not GA. Passing. Stedil (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]