Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Adding references

I will expand the article a bit. Sorry, I have a hard time working with references within the text body and will place them in a separate section for that time. Afterwards, I don't care if the protector of the first state of references restores a former state in the name of WP:CITEVAR, even if I find it much less editor friendly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It must be very difficult to edit here if you struggle with the most common referencing style. Perhaps you should consider using an assistive technology such as wikEd? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say I struggle, I asked you to please wait until I am done. I am not and will say so here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You said you "have a hard time", and you didn't ask anything. Surely it would be far more efficient if you found a way to work with the common style, without needing to change and then change back? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard time = waste of time: when I want to edit any reference, I like to edit "References", not having to search for the one in the whole article. I said "afterwards" and hoped that would be understood as "let me first finish". I have no need to change back. - If "most common" is unfortunately not equal to "best possible", how can we upgrade? What if we want to use even more advanced techniques as described here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You would need agreement that your style is an upgrade; you don't have it. Thus, if you really need to change the reference format in order to edit, you do need to change it back. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Excessive?

Please, Nikkimaria, explain this edit and its summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Short and sweet is more accessible. Actually, a nice image with an informative caption would be preferable, but we don't yet have one. Any idea where one could be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the short length of the article, I can see why we wouldn't want the infobox to be longer than the article. Here's my opinion (that's all it is) on the removed material: "text" is important, because it is vocal musical composition and has been classified among cantatas. "language" problably not very important, given the article title and that it is nowhere explicitly stated in the article. "composed" would be important if we had the informaiton, but I removed that information from the article itself. If it was composed in 1730, it was definately not by Hoffmann. Too confusing. "Period". meh. To me it is obviously baroque, but since infoboxes are supposed to be quick overviews for both experienced readers and those wholly unfamilliar with the subject, perhaps it should stay. I dunno. "occasion" I believe should stay. It is important to the overall context of the piece. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In general: I would not mind an infobox as long as the article, - is there any guideline? Readers unfamiliar with the topic - and we want to serve them, I believe - will not necessarily recognise the title as German, and not the period as Baroque. Some kind of date would be helpful, for example "18th century", if we don't know more precisely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

78, since the general context of the piece is uncertain, it would be best not to try to include that in the infobox. Gerda, the guideline is that shorter is more effective. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just asking because you often quote MOS, CITEVAR etc, and here I missed something. Forgive me: "excessive" sounds like a harsh criticism to me, - my lack of language perhaps. Can we agree, that language and either "Baroque" or a time frame are not excessive, but helpful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS is where that guidance is found, yes; no, we don't agree on expanding the box further. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there was so little there that is was useless. But then, maybe that's the goal? I inserted some, but not all, info that seems relevant, such as it being a Baroque work written in German, and I see nothing in the MOS to indicate this is more than a mere difference of opinion. Really, can't we instead spend time de-bloating truly bloated infoboxes, like, maybe [{Serena Williams]]? Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The presence or absence of these parameters does not impact the usefulness/uselessness of the template here. As for "relevant", the factoids do not appear anywhere in this article, in the leads of any of the number of more developed cantata articles that I checked, or in many cases anywhere in those articles at all - nor should they. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New day: "Baroque" and "German" don't appear in the Bach cantatas for one reason: to please you, - justified by many people knowing that Bach set German texts and was a Baroque composer. Of Hoffmann, it is not known so well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, things in the infobox do not have to be repeated in the article, though they can be; the "should" issue is a mere opinion, Gerda makes a good case that even if a lot of people know about Bach, that is not the case here. A template should have enough information to be useful, otherwise it's just a pretty picture with a frame. Oh wait, that's the real goal, isn't it? Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well then, seeing as Bach appears in both the infobox and the lead, I guess that solves that. Montana, "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article" (MOS:INFOBOX, my emphasis). As I said earlier on, it would be nice if we had a "pretty picture" to accompany this article - since Gerda didn't answer, do you know where one might be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess we have to chop all the chemistry infoboxes that include a molecular diagram because no molecular diagram is in the article? Or perhaps remove the latitude and longitude from every infobox about a geographical article if they don't also mentionit in the article? That's just silly. And MOS says in the very next sentence, "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I'd say Baroque period is a key fact and should be in all the Bach articles as well. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is information about molecular structure in most chemistry articles that include molecular diagrams; coords in infoboxes are typically doubled elsewhere on the page. As Gerda points out, there is good reason to exclude this factoid from Bach articles - and from this article, which includes Bach in both the lead and the infobox already. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I think I feel like the potted plant that is speaking up, out of turn, joining in a conversation with three editors I consider superior. Nikkimaria, surely you can't feel consensus is to remove the infobox altogether, because we aren't able to decide which version of the infobox. At least the edit summaries have been humorous. I did not read the edit summary of "excessive" as hostile to any editor, just that Nikkimaria thought the box was too big for such a short article, "excessive" meaning "too much in context". On the other hand, it seems that it is quite possible reasonable people wouldn't find a 5-line infobox to be "excessive" at all, as it neatly fits within the lede, at least on my computer. Since no one agreed with *my* suggestions as to what was useful, leaving me without a dog in the fight, may I gently suggest that version 612569288 is a good compromise? 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 02:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it solved the problem at hand ;-) but okay, done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Format of sources

Without any discussion, User:Nikkimaria has removed William G. Whittaker's 1978 Oxford University Press book The Cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach as a source along all with most of the material. That was done without any discussion, just a series of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reverts which verge on vandalism. Removing a source in this way constitutes tendentious editing. I hope that Nikkimaris can now explain themselves on this talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci, as I just said in the previous section, I did not remove that source. If you look at the most recent diff by me you will see that that source is still present. It appears that your revert was based on a misreading of the diffs and a misunderstanding of BRD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria, no, as I read it the book 1978 Oxford University Press book The Cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach by W. Gillies Whittaker as a WP:RS. What is going on there? I have restored the previous version so that you can explain yourself a little more carefully. At the moment it just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please could you edit incrementally as most editors do? If sources are not available or if you have not read them, please don't ignore them or delete them as you have done? Gerda Arendt and you prodcued a sub-stub quality article with any sources. Now the sources that hev been found have been disregarded way. That is not helpful. On the other hand, if we look at the Breitkopf edition, you will see that the English text is by Lucy Broadwood (directly related to the Broadwood pianomakers) and that Melchior Hoffmann is now credited as the composer. Mathsci (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci: the source you are referring to was not removed. Please look at the link I provided above. And I did provide explanations either in edit summary or here for each of the incremental edits in the last set. If there's something specific I removed that you'd like to discuss in more detail per WP:BRD I'm happy to do that, but in the interim this revision should be restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Could we carefully go through the removals you made to check what's happened? I would be happy to do that. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was confused by your change of referencing system (I'm OK with the convention you've used—see the survey above). I apologize for that. Having checked the content, I have completely restored your previous version, with only two or three very small tweaks. When making my edits, I also noticed that no current editions were mentioned, so I investigated which complete online vocal scores were available (Breitkopf with Hoffmann as composer). The study score of Eulenburg's edition gives a further English title ("Strike O strike"), which I have not listed in the article. Perhaps it is best to keep the article short, because so little is known. Also, since this is about a spurious work and BWV ^2a is given as a list on wikipedia (wikipedia is not a source), it seems better to have an external link. Anyway sorry again about the mix-up. Mathsci (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here is your version.[1] Mathsci (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria's damaging behaviour in mainspace on this article, deleting thousands and thousands of bytes of well-referenced content with meagre excuses, has been quite disruptive. See also above #Editing behaviour during RfC. I don't think this should be accepted any longer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lutheran thinking about death around the first decades of the 18th century

There's some literature in reliable sources about death in Lutheran exegesis of Bach's day, e.g.

• Dürr & Jones (2005), p. 544 – here it is explicitly said that such approach to death "... strikes today's listener as strange ..."
• Yearsley's 2019 book on A. M. Bach and her notebooks also develops various aspects of the theme.

Don't know whether similar descriptions relating directly to the lyrics of the BWV 53 aria would be available in reliable sources? If not, or if nobody can find such more direct sources, I'd give a general context description about such c. 18th-century Lutheran approaches to death (as apparent in the text of BWV 53) based on the Bach-related sources mentioned above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant content

@Gerda Arendt: @Nikkimaria: The cantata BWV 53 is no longer attributed to Bach. The 2006 book of Alfred Dürr and Richard D. P. Jones makes that clear. Nevertheless the almost 1000-page book is being used to create new content on unrelated cantatas (BWV 95 and BWV 161). Given that even the librettist for BWV 53 is unknown with any certainty, the newly assembled material appears to be original research and synthesis. Essay-like material of that kind is misleading—it is unhelpful for readers trying to find reliable information about BWV 53 on wikipedia. On the web and elsewhere, there are a number of liner notes for CDs about the aria (e.g. on the website bach-cantatas). These are always informative; but none of them stray into unrelated topics unduly. The book of Dürr & Jones approaches 1000 pages in length; but there is only one line devoted to BWV 53 in the Appendix. Since no rationale has been given for choosing new content beyond this one line. Nevertheless new content on cantatas BWV 161 and BWV 95 have been added at random, with no justification: one from Bach's period in Weimar, the other from his period in Leipzig. Any cantata about death could be chosen, e.g. the actus tragicus, BWV 106.

It's also not clear why content on thanatology has been included: I noticed a day or two ago, that a search on google books yielded the book and the opening lines of the aria. But with no context, why was it included except as some kind of scrap book? Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

New material on Bach cantatas has been inserted which seems irrelevant to BWV 53. As explained above, this material is WP:UNDUE for this article and does not conform to the usual pattern adopted for cantatas (even doubtful or spurious). Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The text of these opening lines is reminiscent of other cantata texts of the first half of the 18th century, for example:

So brich herein, du froher Todestag,
So schlage doch, du letzter Stundenschlag!

Then dawn, you joyful day of death,
Then strike, you stroke of the last hour!

ending the fourth movement of Franck's libretto for BWV 161, or:

Ach, schlage doch bald, selge Stunde,
Den allerletzten Glockenschlag!

Ah, strike soon, blessed hour,
The very last bell stroke!

opening the fifth movement, by an anonymous text author, of BWV 95. Melvin P. Unger connects such phrases with verses from the 5th chapter of Paul the Apostle's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, e.g. "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven ... that mortality might be swallowed up of life. " (2 Corinthians 5:2–4) and "We are ... willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). From Jones's translation of Dürr, explaining how cantata texts such as those of BWV 95 and 161 were seen in the exegesis of Bach's day: "Jesus will one day restore me to life, ..., and therefore I can wish for myself nothing better than an early death, which will bring me closer to the desired resurrection." According to these authors, the reasoning may seem strange to a modern audience.

• The problem with this material is that it it WP:UNDUE. There are several problems already addressed on this page|:

1. For doubtful or spurious cantatas, there are no guidelines from Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Music.
2. The cantata BWV 53 is no longer attributed to Bach, so writing "what if" material is unencyclopedic. Forked material about BWV 96 or BWV 161 is speculative and not encyclopedic.
3. Previous material, summarised by user:Nikkimaria, was very well-written and did not mushroom. For a single simple aria, with very few sources, there is very little reason to expect otherwise.
4. There are almost 30 recordings with no indication of notability. The recent recording with Maasaki Suzuki and Robin Blaze has been omitted (Suzuki plays the campanella).
5. Martin Elste wrote almost nothing about performances (one page). The featured article BWV 4 gives a guide.
6. Too many parallel translations, that are either not notable or have no relevance too BWV 53, do no help the reader.

Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

I agree, seems better for this content to be omitted from this article. (Concerns about other articles is best addressed elsewhere). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with user:Nikkimaria. I have hidden some of the material, which did not seem relevant. For any users who wish to add this type of material, the WP:ONUS is on them to explain why it is warranted. At the moment it looks like forked material, occupying too much space. Any proposed changes require WP:consensus and carefully prepared reasoning. In Yearsley's recent "Sex" book, there are no references to Melchior Hoffmann, BWV 53, Schlage doch, ... How could such material be warranted? Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: suggestions for organization were fine. So far, WP:Consensus has been against any Reception section. That must be respected: constantly trying to reinstate such a hold-all section has no consensus; and the standard format for cantatas (even spurious) should be respected.

The labelling of Mark Morris as "ballet" was not justified, as that is not that kind of "dance form". Let editors that have found properly sourced content decide for themselves how it is to be presented. In this particular case, a confusion arises between "contemporary dance" and "ballet": they differ. Thus Simon Rattle and Peter Sellars staged a version of the St Matthew Passion under the auspices of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. It is that kind of contemporary dance that is involved in both cases. Monteverdi's L'Orfeo with Trisha Brown is another example of this kind of semi-staged performance. (I think Simon Keenlyside sang Orfeo.) Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

There has already been WP:consensus for various changes to be made a few days ago. There is a section explaining why "ballet" is not the same thing as "contemporary dance". There is an even an explanation of the collaboration of Simon Rattle & Peter Sellars on the St Matthew Passion. A discussion of BWV 95 and BWV 161, and why it is not relevant to BWV 53. Very little has changed in the article, except some parts are temporarily hidden. I have my own pdf copt of Elste's book (on the history of Bach performances and recordings), so the two or three sentences that were relevant from that article did not require parallel translations. 30+ recordings for a one-movement cantata is unprecedented. User:Gerda Arendt sent me a greeting two days ago. I hope that she will help out. User:Nikkimaria has also helped. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In use

The page is {{in use}}, by me, for clarity. Please don't edit through the "in use", it is causing multiple edit conflicts. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• User:Nikkimaria has previously explained the {{in use}} tag. On this page Nikkimaria also outlined the proposed organisation of this article. That was agreed by wp:consensus. There was a short list that Nikkimaria wrote down with the header "Organisation". There were no sub-sections or other ambiguities. It was clear what was meant by "text" and "music and scoring". etc. The list did not have a "reception" section.

In exactly the same way, it was decided by consensus that material about BWV 95 and BWV 162 was not relevant to BWV 53 (with only one line in the Appendix). Editing is always done incrementally and ideally as a collegial effort.

For the section on "Recordings", consensus was that 30+ recordings was too many (BWV 4 has an article on its discography with only 18 entries). Here timings of pieces (mins/secs) were mentioned—probably not the norm for discographies of cantatas. Although I have helped with BWV 4, at User:Gerda Arendt's request, she is one of the experts on writing cantatas (in this case promoting it to WP:FA). There is a standard format.

When it is anticipated that a particular section of an article might be edited (e.g. to create a table), then an in-use tag can be put in place for that section. Alternatively the table can be edited in user space and then transferred there. Mathsci (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Time of origin

On 25 February 1713 King Frederick I of Prussia died. In Halle, where at that time he was competing to succeed Friedrich Wilhelm Zachow, the organist of the St. Mary's Church who had died a year earlier, Hoffmann was commissioned to compose music for a commemorative service in honour of the deceased king. In the Bach-Jahrbuch of 1994, Peter Wollny speculates that two pieces which had been tentatively attributed to Hoffmann, that is a Trauersinfonie (Mourning Symhony) in F minor and the Schlage doch aria, may have been extracted from Hoffmann's otherwise lost mourning music, which was performed on 1 May 1713 in Halle.

The speculation on the origin of BWV 53 is posted here. The standard method of editing by WP:consensus and incrementally has been not been followed. The standard format for cantata articles does not conform to the posting announced by User:Nikkimaria (with the five points). Not conforming to WP:consensus makes the article unstable. The first reference is in Dutch and not a WP:RS. The statements of Wollny are similar to speculation of Anton about the aria being part of a possible funeral cantata. That the aria BWV 53 might have been part of the funeral music for the memorial service in Halle on 1 May 1713 for the death of Frederick I of Prussia should be mentioned, but not as a separate subsection (given the consensus for the format). At the moment the cantata BWV 1 is in the process of being promoted to WP:FA (see the work of User:Gerda Arendt), so—as with other articles on cantatas—that format is being followed. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Reminder

The page is still {{in use}}—by me, that is. See also above Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 1#In use. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reminders about in-use tags have already been explained by User:Nikkimaria. It has been established by WP:consensus how the "organization" of the article should function. One editor cannot decide unilaterally not to adopt consensus. On other hand, as has been explained numerous times, a section of the article can be edited incrementally and the in-use tag can be applied there. Once it has been decided that consensus requires the standard format of the "organization", maverick editing is not advisable.

On previous occasions where incorrect consensus was claimed, editors like User:Pigsonthewing and User:Littleolive oil have offered valuable advice (see Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine#False_claim_of_consensus). User:Gerda Arendt also knows how things work for articles on cantatas as well as the Monteverdi article. Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminder about "organization"

The format for "organization" involves five sections plus a "Notable performances". That has already been decided by WP:consensus (as discussed with Nikkimaria). Editors who do not wish to follow consensus should explain why on the article talk page.

There have been numerous discussions about the number of recordings that can be surveyed on this article. For this small one-movement cantata, it only warrants 6–10 recordings (cf bach-cantatas website). In RL, 40 or more recordings of BWV 53 exist but wikipedia is selective. See {{example farm}}. The tabulation for BWV 1, and all other cantata articles, follows the usual format (record labels and colour coding for "original instruments"). Otherwise for edits on "Recordings", editing in a that section can be done with a {{in use}} tag; or in user space, before being added to the article. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Organization

Given the content, "Reception" does not seem the most appropriate section title - I've switched this to "Publication history". This leaves us with the following sections:

• History and attribution, discussing who may have written the piece and when they may have written it
• Text, discussing potential authorship, translations, and lyrical content
• Music and scoring, discussing the instruments used (with emphasis on the bells) and the compositional style
• Publication history
• Recordings

Comments welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathsci: regarding these edits: Whittaker was not removed, please check more carefully. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In the case of spurious cantatas like BWV 53, experienced editors involved in WikiProject Classical music will comprehend that anomolous works can't really be treated in the same way. In Martin Elste's 2000 Bärenreiter book on the history of Bach performances and its discography, reviewed by Gregory Johnston [jstor], it is explained that between 1903–1906, Cantata No. 53 was the most popular to be heard in the concert room after the St Matthew Passion; and there are similar statistics for its discography—always with Elste's caveats that the attributed composer is Hoffmann. Looking at the featured article BWV 4, there is a section on "Notable performances". That covers Martin Elste's contributions (straightforward to translate); and there is the 2004 book on Mark Morris by Joan Acocella, in which the pas de deux "Beautiful Day", setting the so-called "Bell Cantata", is described with a subsequent review in the New York Times; and finally there are the detailed liner notes for Maasaki Suzuki's recording (linked to the bach-cantatas website). Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – unwarranted by current guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure. For this article, in particular: little (in fact: nothing) is known about the history of its origin; and the attribution issue is a bunch of speculations (the most important of which is a few lines in a footnote of a 1955 article). Taken together genesis plus attribution are a much smaller topic in reliable sources on the aria, than its reception, so it's not only (in general) Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure project guidance that should be followed, but more in particular the WP:BALASPS policy. Rejecting Nikkimaria's proposal, the project guidance can be followed without impediment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing in the cited guideline precludes the structure above. Do you have a specific alternate organizational structure you would like to propose? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In this edit,

Schweitzer calls it "[t]he best known of the solo cantatas for alto".

was removed from the "Reception" section (something comparable was placed elsewhere, where it doesn't belong according to the project guidance on article structure). Schweitzer's comment about the relative popularity of the piece (at a certain point in time) is a reception topic. So, indeed, adhering to the project guidance "precludes" against the article structure proposed above (while it lacks a "Reception" section, where Schweitzer's comment belongs).

References

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What is your specific proposed alternate structure? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You mean the one you destroyed? It was in mainspace, and can easily be restored again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, will be bringing the article structure back in line with the project guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You haven't gained consensus for your proposed organization, since you declined to actually propose and discuss an organization here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Re. "You haven't gained consensus for your proposed organization" – neither have you for yours. I think the one I'm working on now will, in the end, turn out to be the better one. That is, if I can work on it without further delays. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci indicated below he agreed with mine, and disagreed with yours. A reminder that {{in use}} is not meant to be used to reserve articles for long periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no consensus on article structure whatsoever:

1. Consensus for the article structure showing in mainspace currently is nowhere discussed on this page. Leave alone that there would be a consensus for it. It is not by far the one you proposed.
2. The article structure you proposed has no WP:CONSENSUS either: consensus in Wikipedia is not a "majority vote": especially the opinion of those favouring adherence to guidance can have more weight in an effort to arrive at consensus: the article structure you propose is still impossible to reconcile with project guidance, per the remarks given above.
3. You're far too involved to determine consensus in this matter, especially when the structure you want to push is unworkable.

Until if and when consensus develops, article structure would best adhere to project guidance to avoid back-and-forth; Other than that I'm in the middle of a major article rewrite, which will, when finished, adhere better to project guidance than the current version. If and when I can proceed unencumbered, I will not use the {{in use}} during the major rewrite. But that "unencumbered" has not materialised thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: WP:Consensus is decided by numbers and by strength of argument. So there is indeed consensus at the moment. For cantatas with a BWV number, the format follows a long-established pattern (see e.g. BWV 1). The section on "Recordings" is either by lists, with record labels; or by tables which provide the same information. There is no precedent for sections on "Reception" for cantata articles. Two users have outlined that consensus and agreement has been reached (Nikkimaria and Mathsci). user:Gerda Arendt also follows that format but, as far as I can tell, dislikes protracted and often pointless discussions.

The sections on "organization" follows the norm: they result in stable articles where, if need be, incremental content can be added in the usual way. Two editors (Nikkimaria and Mathsci) have agreed on how the "organization" should work (see above and below). That structure of the article was decided some time back and complies with all other articles on cantatas. The section on "Recordings" should appear in an uncluttered way: any parenthetic remarks can be added as footnotes. Apart from being multi-movements, the alto cantatas BWV 54 and BWV 170 have similar recording histories: in both cases, the number of recording has not mushroomed out of all proportion, delving into commentaries on the inter-war period.

The dance performance choreographed by Mark Morris was evidently not a recording. As in other articles on Cantatas, Passions, etc, it appears as a section on "Notable performances". Very little is known about this short one-movement cantata. Such an article should be concise and short: it is intended to be accessible to a general readership. Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The use of {{in use}} tag, when not in use for prolonged periods, has affected the stability of this article. WP:consensus has been established for the "organization" of the article. The format is identical to every cantata article with BWV numbers. As Nikkimaria has noted at the top of this section:

1. History and attribution
2. Text
3. Music and scoring
4. Publication history
5. Recordings

That is clearly written and unambiguous. It was emphasised that there was to be no section on reception (such sections do not appear in cantata articles). There has also been a lengthy discussion on the number of recordings. For this small article that number has been allowed to mushroom out of control with the consequence that material with no relevance to BWV 53 has been added: so content about BWV 96, BWV 161, thanatology, etc, and "publication history" hard for wikipedian readers to find.

This short and single-movement da capo aria currently has 41 recordings listed in the bach-cantatas website (a reliable and up-to-date source). For the outstanding Bach cantata BWV 140, the website lists 89 recordings. For BWV 140, the WP:GA has 16 recordings listed in standard tabulated form, mentioning when period instruments are used. For BWV 53, on editor has dug up 30 or more recordings. Consensus has rejected that all of those 30 recording be tabulated; not only that, the unprecedented suggestion that timings (mins/secs) be given has been rejected. Using the similar statistical reference frame of bach-cantatas, only 6 recordings should be discussed. Possibly that could be rounded up to 10. For contemporary recordings informed by historical practice on "period instruments", one of the best is that of Marianne Beate Kielland: well-known amongst baroque performers, she has a pure tone; and the capanella chimes are one octave lower, so less like the jingle of a glockenspiel. However, clearly the countertenor/alto recordings of Scholl, Blaze and Mehta should be included. The same kind of format as BWV 140 should be adopted, without fussiness. The 1926 recording with Emmi Leisner can be heard on spotify. There is no identified orchestra or conductor; it is in the portamento-style of Sir Thomas Beecham; and the sluggish da capo aria has been mercilessly cut, so there is no proper repeat. Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. For recordings, why is the publishing label not listed? Mathsci (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Instability of article

The is a reminder about the structure of this article that was decided by WP:consensus:

1. History and attribution
2. Text
3. Music and scoring
4. Publication history
5. Recordings
6. Notable performances

That organization was mainly guided by User:Nikkimaria and is reflected by what happens in all cantatas, even for those where the composer is in doubt. I think that User:Gerda Arendt has also said that this is the standard format for Bach cantatas. That s my experience. I'll probably ask user:Graham87 for advice here, on that the article can become stable. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I would again invite editors who disagree with this structure, or would propose readding disputed content, to discuss the matter here to seek consensus. Also as a reminder for all, {{in use}} is not intended either to "reserve" the article for long periods, or to try to preserve disputed changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please respect {{in use}}? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this. Graham87 05:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Graham87: I do not blame you, considering the edit-warring on Eight Little Preludes and Fugues. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: (ec) As you wrote the {{in use}} tag is not intended either to "reserve" the article for long periods, or to try to preserve disputed changes. Content is added incrementally, not by wholesale changes over the article all at once, without disccusion and without WP:consensus. In this case material has been changed in a contentious way in the "lead", in the section on "History and attribution", in the section on "Music and scoring", in the section on "Composition history", in the order of "Notable performances", in using images as repositories with no eductional purpose, and in adding indiscriminate lists of "Recordings". Thanks to Nikkimaria for helping with the clean-up. Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)