Talk:Was willst du dich betrüben, BWV 107

}}

Image

This is a chorale cantata, only distantly related to the Gospel. The image of the author of the chorale is relevant to the music, not a painting showing a scene from the Gospel, painted a century before Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Some themes of the Gospel are echoed through several movements; the portrait is poorer in quality, also not in the time of Bach, and doesn't show what the music means. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the quality. However, does the picture illustrate the "few themes"? And even if, would it be more suitable to be the first meeting of a reader with the article than the face of the person who wrote the chorale which inspired the complete text (some paraphrased)? - I used the Bernardo for the later cantata which is closer to the Gospel. For the chorale cantatas - compare others - an image of the hymn writer has been consistently the first choice if available, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Why would a poorer-quality image that does not illustrate the music be the first choice? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I try again. The cycle of chorale cantatas by Bach is unique in history: week by week a cantata based on a hymn, most of them "old" when he composed (by Luther, Speratus etc), some written closer to his time. For the chorale cantatas, the ideas of the hymn were often the only, always the major source of inspiration. I believe that it is a good idea to present the author of this hymn, even in poorer quality. Also: cantatas written in Weimar show the Weimar location, chorale cantatas the author of the hymn, for consistency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Holy consistency"? "Poor quality images...should not be used" (MOS:IMAGES). If you feel strongly that the current image is not sufficient, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "holy", I wouldn't say "not sufficient" about the Gospel scene, but (third time) not to the point of this cantata and therefore not even wanted below, certainly not in the top position. An image of "poorer quality" was used for a TFA. I believe that we should not apply the same quality standards for reproductions of older print but be happy that we have them at all and show them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

ps: the image of the poet illustrates the title line well, "Why do you want to distress yourself?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the TFA, an image of a person on an article about a person is obviously representative of the article subject, and no free alternative presents itself; here, the image of the person does not show the music, and there are other free and better-quality images to be used. If you'd like to either remove the image, or propose a different image altogether, feel free, but unfortunately others have quality standards higher than those you espouse. Besides, if the image was "not even wanted below", then why was it the original lead image? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've swapped in a different image. That should resolve this. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It does, thank you! If you find more of Bach's own writing feel free to add! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Guess it doesn't: the image doesn't fit any better where it's pushed into the "Music" section by the infobox, and it's no better quality now either. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The image is in the article since 2 August 2011, with a short interruption for what I thought a "better pic" 5 Aug, but returned 6 Aug as the "distressed pic" on the special wish of Marrante. The article is known with that image which shows distress perfectly, - I don't mind the lack of technical quality for expressiveness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long a problem exists, when we see it we should fix it. That image does not appropriately illustrate the "Music" section where it ends up because of the infobox. And our standards advocate higher quality than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The picture is not a problem, seems to be one for you alone. The music uses the text, - how should it not be in the music section also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a problem to be using low-quality images, particularly where better alternatives exist. Swapped. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Was I so unclear about the fact that I thought as you do now on 5 August 2011, but was a day later encouraged to use the image showing him in distress (with "almost Barlach" quality, as Marrante said). What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion: I personally like the one that has the face larger and doesn't have the yellow background, it looks clearer on my laptop (i.e. small) screen. But either way, I also moved the image so it is in a better layout position. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Was willst du dich betrüben, BWV 107/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I promised I would take a look at this review, and I will. I would first like to listen to a bit of it if I can, and check the sources, then I'll come back here for a full review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

History and words

• "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life" - this is just verse 23 of Romans 6, not verses 19-23. (I'm glad I spent that time in Sunday School now when I was a kid)

good memory, however, at this point, usually a summary is given, - in this particular case the first verse is a good summary, - can you word that? It's taken (for all cantatas for that occasion) from List of church cantatas by liturgical occasion#Seventh Sunday after Trinity (Trinity VII). (Only God and Francis Schonken know, why the general article has the specifically Lutheran prescribed readings, which were in Church cantata (Bach)#Trinity VII before, which used to show the connection of readings and cantatas at a glance. --GA

I have put in a translation of verse 19, which now means the article does cover the passage in full. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• ""Was willst du dich betrüben" (1630), which is focused on trust in God, even when facing adversaries including the devil" - the source given is the Bach cantatas website which has the words, but not an explanation of what they mean. Did you mean to pick another page?

moved that ref, doubled another --GA

• "The treatment was decidedly old-fashioned in Bach's time." - I can't see where in the source this is stated, though it does say the choice of using a recitative and four arias was atypical of Bach's composing methods at this time.

It's a different way of saying that in the other thirty-some cantatas of the same cycle, none is like that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Scoring and structure

• The source for the scoring, http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/107.html gives me a 404 error

works for me --GA

I get a University of Alberta Faculty of Science page saying "Sorry, We Couldn't Find That Page. Don't worry, we've been notified of the issue. Here are some things you can try: Double-check you have the correct address. Go to the UAlberta Homepage. If you still can't find what you're looking for, send us some feedback." I have added a Wayback Machine archive link which works. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• The type of the first movement is given as "Chorale fantasia", but the source simply says "Chorale" - what's the difference?

added a link, and another ref, - more in Chorale cantata (Bach): "but for his 1724-25 second Leipzig cantata cycle he developed a specific format: in this format the opening movement is a chorale fantasia on the first stanza of the hymn, with the hymn tune appearing as a cantus firmus." - It was linked in the beginning, we don't repeat in every cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Music

• a chorale fantasia, with the the vocal part embedded in an independent concerto of the instruments" - this is cited to the Bach cantatas website documenting the choral melody, but I can't see where that particular part is mentioned. It does say the melody is "a type of ‘vocal allemande’ – a combination of dance and folk music lyrics".

see above, one more ref was added --GA

• "The scoring is rich in woodwinds" - the source (Dürr & Jones' Cantatas book) seems to suggest it's merely "the relatively rich woodwind scoring

in many cantatas, there are no woodwinds, in many others just oboes, - this - horn-flutes-oboes - is rich, - but add "relatively" if it helps ;) --GA

• "but mostly in two parts, due to the bar form of the poetry" - I can't see where "poetry" is mentioned in Dürr & Jones, where is this information in the book?

I am almost sure I read it there, but now most pages are not visible, sadly. The hymn stanzas are all in bar-form, - better wording welcome. --GA

• "follow the bar form of the poem as bipartite structures" - what's a bipartite structure?

in German "zweiteilig" (in two parts), opposed to tripartite (in three parts) as a da capo structure would be. Learned that from Nikkimaria. --GA

• "The rhythm alternates between 6/8 and 3/4 one measure to the next" - the source says "bar" (British English), while the article says "measure" (American English). As this is about a German composer, I can't see a preference between one or the other - which version of English would you recommend?

I usually prefer British English, but think "bar" is too ambiguous to the simple reader ;) - compare FAs on the topic --GA

• "the two oboes d'amore begins with an embellished version of the chorale tune" - the only source given here is Emmanuel Music, which is simply a translation of the words and doesn't contain this information

ref Mincham added, twice --GA

• "It expresses trust in God like a song with dance character" - I don't think this makes sense. I've re-worded to simply say "song-like". The trouble with English is you can't say "song and dance like" as it may be interpreted for the idiom "song and dance"

thank you --GA

• Dürr & Jones say the closing chorale is "richly decked out" - could we pop that in the entry for movement 7?

go ahead, do it, - if you hesitate as the reviewer, do it afterwards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think "a rich orchestral Siciliano concerto" covers it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary

I don't think there are any significant problems. I've done some copyediting as I go to make things a little clearer. I'll put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

After listening to gorgeous singing by English Voces8 at a place they called one of the most spectacular and inspiring in 11 years of 120 concerts a year, - I answered a bit, more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I think all my concerns have been addressed one way or another, is there anything else left to do on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you did well, - I still wonder why the link works for me no problem. The website is used for most cantatas, so should really be fixed. It shows the scoring of the individual movements most conveniently arranged, and it's so characteristic for Bach to change it from movement to movement. - Dürr-Jones is also good, but for many cantatas, you don't see the pages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)