Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2022 [1].

---

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach. I tried to bring it to FA quality in 2018, but failed. Thanks to all who commented then, which helped to improve the article. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is a beloved piece, and one of few that Bach called a cantata. The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2015. On Bach's birthday, Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

To not get lost in the comments below: Mathsci (talk) is a co-nom, and the discography is in the process of being reduced here to a summary, while the table went to a dedicated article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

The autograph manuscript was provided by me in 2018. I was the main contributor in 2009 (before infoboxes were instituted). If User:Gerda Arendt restores Bach cantata to its November 2015 version, that would be an improvement (she has already almost volunteered to do so). With no time pressure, I would be willing to help Gerda to add material from the WP:RS, W. Gillies Whittaker's Cantatas of J S Bach, to improve the section on musical analysis. Possibly freely licensed audio files of parts of the cantata are available (e.g. musopen). Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer of more analysis and audio. I don't see any relation to Bach cantata which I unwatched, and which is not linked from this cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You pinged me twice today. I would like to help. Perhaps to clear the air, it might be a good idea to chat in private by email. What do you think? Mathsci (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems you weren't in the mood to reply. Going numerically through the cantatas I found Ich habe genung, BWV 82. I added Gilles Cantagrel and William Gillies Whittaker as WP:RSs. I also found a 1950 public domain recording of Hans Hotter singing "Ich habe genug" and will add the slumber song. Mathsci (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You suggested to clear air, and I knew of nothing unclear. You suggested email, and I believe openly here is more transparent. What reply did you expect? I think it would help to focus here on this cantata, and move comments for BWV 82 to that article's talk page, and comments regarding Bach cantata on that article's talk page, but with a ping please as I don't watch it. Please drop remarks about my mood which don't belong here. For my mood, look up #Ukraine on my talk. It doesn't belong here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

In this article page you quote "most-beloved" in Jones' 2007 book. However, Jones wrote "best loved", which is not the same. Today one of the lede Bach-archiv images, uploaded by me, appears as a FA on the main page of wikipedia. In your caption, however, you wrote that this was in Bach's handwriting. But that is untrue, as the copyist was Johann Andreas Kuhnau, as explained in the caption of the lede image. I have no idea why Schweitzer's Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned in this article. (It is true that, during WW2, an arrangement of BWV 680 for orchestra was performed as a prayer for peace.) Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the subtle difference in meaning that I couldn't detect, and my mistake with the attribution to the copyist. - Schweitzer's peace prize is mentioned because some readers may not recognise that this is the same person. Feel free to discuss, and to make the language change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss? I looked for places where audio files have been used as external links in FAs, and found BWV 125 (Herreweghe). I also discovered that there was a February 2021 concert here, featuring Stephan MacLeod and Gli Angeli Genève. It might be useful for creating audio files. MacLeod has been a soloist in Suzuki's cantata group. Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

two things:

• Discuss (with others) if Schweitzer's other role in history be mentioned or not.
• Audios would be nice, but my experience in creating them is zero, all assistance is appreciated. I just began the article on MacLeod. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The CD of MacLeod/Gli Angeli Genève has not yet been released. As the website states:[2] "This album has not been released yet. Pre-order it now. (Will be sent some days before release date)." On the other hand, if you look at bach-cantatas, you can see that only a fraction of CDs for BWV 56 are actually listed, e.g. recordings by Gérard Souzay, Hermann Prey, Bernard Kruysen, etc. For BWV 1, a separate article on the discography was created. A veritable Pandora's box. Curiosity killed the cat. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathsci, for having added music, references, sound files, wording: I invite you to be co-nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree to do that, provided there's no particular rush and that improvements can be made in a vaguely systematic way.

General comments

There is something jewel-like in the construction of the cantata. Ton Koopman's YouTube talk on BWV 56 emphasises Bach's role as a craftsman: looking at the final page of the autograph manuscript, Bach's conciseness in preparing the 3/4 part of the 2nd recitative with the elegaic reprise of the first aria and the microscopically written final chorale is a miracle. It's similar to BWV 105, which has also been studied by Robert Marshall in great detail. Here there are no problems with authenticity or chronology. I would resuscitate Alfred Dürr's musical analysis (which can be slightly dry) and combine it with that of Whittaker and Cantagrel—a to-do list. (Nikkimaria is very good at making things concise when required.) For reception, that would be slightly easier if it were BWV 82 because the BBC have made one or more programmes reporting on how the music and meaning of "Ich habe genug" has affected a whole array of different people, when confronted by life-changing problems. On the other hand, Koopman has said the same about BWV 56 in his short YouTube talk (as has Schweitzer). There's also André Pirro's book. That universality is apparent in what other recognized musical commentators have written (finding German 19th sources aoart from Spitta would not be time well spent). Standard things like vocal scores have already been discussed in the article talk page, but not the article. (I watched a video of the Dellal Emmanuel group playing from the Wiesbaden Breitkopf parts, using a terrible positive organ and oboes with metal keys, so not barqoque.) When I watched Koopman's first (televised) recording of BWV 56 with Mertens, I was amused that the subtitles of Henry Drinker accompanied the final chorale (which of course is much better in German, particularly for the final detached Jesulein with its closing cadence). Also I smiled when I noticed that the obbligato oboist was unmistakably Marcel Ponseele, who also regularly played with Herreweghe.

Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

great! - do you also agree to have the table of recordings separately, and leave here a summary with some evaluation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, because there are too many recordings, some of which are not even mentioned in bach-cantatas.com. As with BWV 1, they can be discussed in summary form. Here the artistry of the singer can be important; everybody has their personal preferences—Koopman & Mertens are excellent in their first recording. For BWV 82, this YouTube recording directed masterfully by the organist Bálint Karosi with Harrison Hintzsche (baritone) and David Dickey (baroque oboe) is inspired, but I haven't yet found any of that baroque chamber music quality for BWV 56, where singers and instrumentalists are equally matched. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The very first sentence is difficult to follow, probably due to its arrangement. How about:

  "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen (lit. '"I will gladly carry the cross-staff"'), BWV 56, is a church cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach for the 19th Sunday after Trinity."

  I was like that, and was reworded in 2018, and I'll try it again as you suggest. --GA

• "Albert Schweitzer wrote in his Bach biography: "This is one of the most splendid of Bach's works."" — why not simply "Albert Schweitzer referred the cantata as "one of the most splendid of Bach's works."?

  That's for those who don't immediately know him and what he did, adding weight to the statement. --GA

• "and its film adaption Brother of Sleep." — perhaps mention the year in parenthesis

  I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy for the cantata. --GA

• The lead section should preferable be no longer than 4 paragraphs.

  We have intro - text - music - publication - recordings and legacy, and clarity should be of higher value than guidelines, no? --GA

  Yes, but the last lead para is just 1-2 lines long, and can be merged with the previous one (without compromising the clarity, I think) --K.S

• "Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig as its" — perhaps "Johann Sebastian Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig as its"

  As in biographies, once it's clear which person, we only use surnames after the first introduction of the complete name. --GA

  Yes indeed, but the prose should be independent of the lead, not a continuation. We have "Johann Sebastian" in the lead, but never in the prose text. --K.S

  Interesting. Did you know that I never repeat the full name in the prose. Kafka. Jessye Norman. BWV 1.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#21: "Corall 2015, pp. 11" — should be 'p.'

  You are welcome to change all minor mistakes! easier for you than describing. Formatting Corall. --GA

• Ref#31: "Wolff 2001, p. 8–9" — should be 'pp.'
• "Ambrose, Z. Philip. "BWV 56 Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen". University of Vermont. Retrieved 22 October 2014" is listed but never used.

  used it now, and fixed the page nos. --GA

That is on a quick read of just the lead and general source formatting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful finds! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "Bach rarely used the word cantata to refer to a composition, and only for solo cantatas" - I see the first part supported in the text, but not the second

  will search, commented out until then --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• "describes the Christian life as a voluntary journey" - source?

  If you mean the lead: it's a summary. Recitative (No. 2) translates to: "My pilgrimage in the world is like a sea voyage", and the chorale speaks of harbour. --GA

  Not disputing the journey part, but I'm not seeing the voluntary part in the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see. "Ich will gerne tragen" translates to "I decide to carry willingly", which I thought I could summarize as "volontarily". Would you have a better suggestion? ---GA

  Willing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I now tried to include "willing" - good suggestion! - but it led to more changes, please check. My translator has no good term for Schiffahrt, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• "which also uses the imagery of a sea voyage" - source?

  see above, additionally, I'm determined to write an article about that hymn. --GA

  Perhaps the situation would be different if such an article existed, but at the moment the text supports that the chorale uses voyage imagery but not necessarily sea voyage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Let's see what sources for the hymn support. Planned for Sunday. - The German See translates to lake, perhaps my mistake. The text clearly has sea but it could be a word to fill a sillable. ---GA

  The hymn article is begun, including a translation of the text. Problem is the term Schifffahrt = voyage by ship, which doesn't distinguish on which kind of water, river, lake or ocean. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Looking for the book sources (see below) I found that the page numbers for the google.books rendering are different - no idea whether I was confused, or they were different 4 years ago. It's Gardiner who uses the term "sea voyage". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  On page 378 of Whittaker, he writes, "The imagery of the sea returns in the exquisite hymn-stanza ... The voices are low-lying, the harmonies are richly solemn; it makes a hushed and magical close to a wonderful cantata." Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) [probably Gardiner copied Whittaker's commentary]

  Please add that to the article, which would also fix the "uncited" reference question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• "the expressive singing required by the soloist has interested also singers and ensembles not specialised in Bach's music. This cantata has been combined with two other cantatas on related topics" - source?

  "expressive singing" can be sourced to Schweitzer, and the sheer quantity of recordings indicates interest. The wording is taken from BWV 51, another one which attracts performers beyond liturgical interest. --GA

  Quantity indicates interest but doesn't necessarily mean interest from non-specialists. I don't think that is a SKYISBLUE situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I moved the recordings table to a separate article, and the section will probably change. ---GA

• "The cantata was recorded early" - source? (I expect you mean compared to other cantatas, rather than relative to recording generally)

  You are right, and 1931, the first one known, is early compared to others. We might give just the year, and leave it to the reader's knowledge to put it into perspective. --GA

• Why is Bach Digital a separate section?

  Because it's the key source for the most important historic documents. --GA

• How are you ordering Cited sources?

  By groups, then by authors/editors last name, then those without author by website. I make mistakes, and I'm not alone. --GA

  This needs to be made consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I sorted the book sources by author's last name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the entries in Cited sources are not cited.

  They probably will be. --GA

  Some were added by Mathsci, who mentioned health problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Buelow is credited as an editor, not an author

  fixed, thank you --GA

• Cantagrel title is mispelled

  I didn't add that one, so don't know. Our article on the author has that title, the ref for it has a different one, and the book cover in that ref has yet another, - all mean the same. Which one do you want? - Sadly, my French is only good for menu-reaing. --GA

  Do we know what title appears on the copy that was used? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Mathsci, do we know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's "Les Cantates de J.-S. Bach" (it's an e-book). Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why are there two titles listed for Buelow?

  I don't see that, perhaps fixed? --GA

  Not fixed: "The Late Baroque Era. The Late Baroque Era"

  sorry I was blind for the question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at the new citation, I think you perhaps mean |chapter= rather than |title=?Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  taken, always learning - but when I say chapter and chapter-url, I get an error message missing title?? ---GA

• Be consistent in whether page numbers are included in Books or only in inline cites

  will check, no time to do that right now --GA

  looking now: for Buelow and Gardiner, there are a chapter here, two pages there, so the link in the citation goes to them. For Dürr/Jones, and Jones, it would be rather complex to list the different locations cited in the citation, or would you suggest to mention the Dürr paragraph devoted to this cantata there, or Jones' summary of the Leipzig cantata cycle III? For Kruse and Wolff, I gave the chapter now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include publication locations

  same --GA

  added locations --

• Dashes should be corrected in titles

  I wonder if I'll ever learn that, sorry. --GA

  asked for help --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how volume numbers are formatted

  see above --GA

  I tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• "University of Vermont" is not a work title

  made it publisher --GA

• Blanken appears to be a republication

  changed year to 2015 --GA

• IMSLP ref doesn't match formatting of other web sources

  well, we have this template, - should I not use it? --GA

  AFAICT at the moment it is not cited - are you intending to cite it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know why IMSLP was mentioned when not in the reviewed version. No plan to cite it, adding to External links. ---GA

• Some of the details in the Recordings table don't appear to be supported by either BCW or the individually cited sources - eg use of period instruments

  it goes by performing group/conductor, and seems helpful to imagine the sound, but could be dropped, of course --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Don't disagree that it is helpful, but it does need citing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  the tendency to split recordings is growing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  split done one direction, the table will become much shorter or completely prose ---GA

• FNs 66 and 68 are missing pages

  added, thank you --GA

• Drinker is a digitized book, not an online-only source

  it's under books, no?

• Is the Finscher source a republication? If yes, is it authorized? If no, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

  I'll check --GA

  removed ---GA

• What makes Shiloni a high-quality reliable source? IMSLP? Discogs? Classicalcdreview? Classical Music Online?

  IMSLP should be good enough for that a piece exists. I'll try to replace the others. Many concern recordings, and I am templted to split off the recordings, as we did for other cantatas. --GA

  Hopefully any source cited here confirms that the piece exists! Given that, is there any specific reason to use this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  all removed that were there (IMSLP wasn't) ---GA

  IMSLP (still) is listed under Cited sources -> Online sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  finally I found it (in edit mode, - should have thought of that) - removed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Bayer Records link is broken. Ditto MDT

  will check --GA

  removed ---GA

• Is "Bach's Third Yearly Cycle of Cantatas from Leipzig (1725–1727), II" an authorized republication?
• External links section shouldn't use citation templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  does it hurt? --GA

  I'm assuming WP:ELCITE exists for a reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  do you happen to know which reason? These are mostly former refs. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_40#RFC_on_how_to_format_external_links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  (I don't see a convincing reason.) I removed 3 formatted the wrong way, but gave one the honour of Further reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. It's late here, will reply over the next weekdays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

replied now, some will take more time that I don't have today - again tahnk you for thorough checking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

some more replies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Gerda Arendt proposed me as a co-sponsor on 28 March 2022, so that seems to have changed matters. In addition, the article has changed substantially with many enhancements to the section on "Music"; this is still ongoing but only minor changes are envisaged. In addition, as happened with the WP:FA article BWV 1, the section in "Recordings" has already been split off for a separate article on discography: the table will be removed, to be replaced by a concise text summary.

Having committed to improving the BWV 56, I would request a period of week or so to "polish" the article; I have also been in email contact with the webmaster of bach-cantatas.com concerning this article and audio files. Thanks in advance for your understanding, Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the level of changes to the article since this nomination was opened have effectively invalidated many of the review comments to date, as the comments will have been against a significantly different article. There is also a question as to whether the article was fully FAC-ready when it was nominated. So I am afraid that I am archiving it for the proposed improvements to take place and look forward to seeing it return here in two weeks.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

Comments by WA8MTWAYC

Non-expert review.

• "The text, by Christoph Birkmann" ==> it feels like a word is missing here, like "written"

  added, but really: what else? --GA

  Nespresso:) It looks better now. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• "two oboes and taille", "two violins and a viola" and "continuo" ==> I would wikilink oboes, taille, violins, viola and continuo

  why not, some may not even know what a violin is - all are linked in the preceding Baroque instruments, and what readers find there may be more to the point than a modern violin - but again: why not? --GA

  I see it's also all clearly explained in the Baroque instruments article, but while reading I wouldn't have guessed that was the case. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Bach was appointed" ==> I would use his full name, as is done in the lead

  We don't do that in biographies (Kafka), why here? --GA

  It's not a problem for me. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• (minor issue) "town of Leipzig" ==> Leipzig is a city, but was it already one in the 18th century or was it a town back then?

  not by the standard of 100.000 citizens --GA

• "as its Thomaskantor" ==> Thomaskantor is in italics here but not in the lead

  thank you, good point --GA

• "was required for" ==> sounds like it was kinda mandatory. Is "Cantata music was played at the two major churches" better or is this suggestion not how it's supposed to be said?

  will think about that --GA

• What's the difference between cantana music and "simpler church music"?

  German has a specific term that we don't have in English. Simpler music might be chorale setting and motets, no independent orchestra with parts for skilled musicians. --GA

  Thanks, that's made it clearer. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• "and include" ==> and includes

  yes --GA

• "His new works have no" ==> His newer works had no

  not sure - short for "new in this cycle" --GA

• The image of Christoph Birkmann is causing a bit of MOS:SANDWICH right now.

  depends on sceen. I'm for pics right in general, but a person should look "in" if at all possible. --GA

• Ref 27 (the first) and 40 are placed in the middle of the sentence, I would move them to the end or after a comma.

  27 is for the quote, and I think is therefore best right behind it --GA

• Are there wikilinks for Stollen und Abgesang?

  check out bar form, they'd be only redirects to it (similar to the instruments all being in Baroque instruments. --GA

• "While some Bach ... in Bach's music" needs a reference

  sorry but the whole recordings section is still under construction ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Albert Schweitzer is overlinked twice.
• "In 1905 Schweitzer" ==> In 1905, Schweitzer

That's all I have. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful, WA8MTWAYC! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem, Gerda. I'll give the nom my support when the recordings section is finished. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.