Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive3

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [1].

---

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

Mathsci (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of the most beloved, so here we try a third time. Thanks to all who commented and improved in the long article history. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is one of few cantatas 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!. I asked Mathsci to do a third round, because he contributed most after the last nomination, but he was banned. - Today is the birthday of the conductor with whom I sang it. Those attending a memorial concert for him joined singing the closing chorale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review

licensing concerns:

• File:BWV56 aria Da leg ich den Kummer auf einmal ins Grab.jpg, File:BWV56 recitative Mein Wandel auf der Welt.jpg, File:BWV56-excerpt-aria-Endlich wird mein Joch.jpg, File:BWV56-4 final adagio.jpg, File:BWV56-5-harmonized-chorale-No-87-Becker-1831.jpg who is claiming copyright on this? What original contribution exists? Buidhe public (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  All files uploaded recently by Mathsci, with detailed information about the IMSLP file, and licensing. GRuban is my help with images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hello, I was summoned. Insert puff of smoke and smell of brimstone here. All of these are musical scores in an unremarkable font, which are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text except for the contributions of the composer; you can't retype a piece of music in a perfectly standard font and claim copyright on the end result. The composer is, unless I misunderstand, Johann Sebastian Bach, who died in 1750, and the works were published in 1831 or so, yes? All of that easily meets public domain standards for Germany, the US, and basically any countries we know of. There are no 190 year copyright statutes. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  All of that would suggest the current licensing of CC BY-SA is not correct, so the tagging needs to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Re-tagged.--GRuban (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Of course you can. Copyright on the composition and copyright on the typography are two different things. Without acknowledging the author of the typography and the license it is released under, these files are in violation of their license. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I humbly disagree, for the reasons as stated. PD-text is quite clear that we, Wikimedia Commons, do not accept copyright on mere typing. Neither can anyone retype Gulliver's Travels or The Merchant of Venice and claim copyright on that. If the esteemed administrator wants to add an additional template of CC BY-SA, I will not object, due to my respect for the mop, but I am quite sure it is not necessary. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Musical notation is not text, and publishers get valid new copyright on new typography. If you are unaware of the difference between musical notation and text, please stay out of this discussion. See [2] for the author. There are two ways to rectify Mathsci's copyvio here, to properly follow the file's CC-BY-SA 4.0 license or to delete it. I feel too esteemed to add any templates, but may nominate for deletion if the false PD claim isn't corrected. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, let me expound a bit, as this is bugging me. Copyright, as the first sentence of our article about it says, is granted not just for work, but for creative work. Retyping is not a creative work. If the typist or the printer employs their creativity in retyping the Cantata, if they intentionally change a C# to a D here and a B to an A there ... it's just not the Cantata. It may be a closely related derivative work, but I don't see anyone claiming that is what happening here. As best I can tell, these are exact reproductions of Bach's composition of 1726, as published in 1831, as best the printer could manage it, correct? If so, the only creativity involved was choosing which font to use, and PD-text is quite clear, we, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, don't consider that single choice sufficient to establish copyright. And I'd say, neither do most courts, but as those of us in the US recently learned, relying on a court to continue ruling the way it has for the past many decades is not at all a matter of certainty! So the best we can do is rely on Wikimedia Commons rules, which are quite clear here. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Neue Bach-Ausgabe is PD in Germany (where the copyright in such editions last 25 years), but not PD in the United States (because the US managed to kill half of the public domain in 1996). Why do you think you're smarter about musical scores copyright than the specialists at the International Music Score Library Project? —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like we should take this discussion outside of the FA candidacy, wherever you prefer, Commons deletion, third opinion, RfC, whatever. How about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright ? Can we stipulate that if the community decides with Kusma, we will place whatever license he chooses on these files, and let the FA proceed meanwhile? I'm quite sure Gerda will accept whatever the community decides, as this is a very hair-splitting point, since whether CC BY-SA or PD, these files will look exactly the same in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  The author of the PDF that the files are extracted from has already chosen a license that we could just follow. I am happy to believe in the licensing given for several versions over at the IMSLP wiki page I linked above, which means we could just end this by being nice and acknowledging the person (Markus Müller of bachsoboe.de; this may even be the best source as it gives author information) who typed this up by following their CC-BY-SA license instead of saying they have no right to it and claiming we can use it unacknowledged. I think what you are proposing is a very poor way of treating the work of people contributing free content. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I will restore the license on the files, pending any discussion. --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Kusma:  Done, all four files, also added acknowledgment of Markus Müller of https://www.bachsoboe.de/blog/2014/01/31/bwv-56/ under Bach in the Author slot. Satisfactory? I admit I would like to have the public domain for music typography discussion, since it seems likely we will have these issues again. Do you know where it's been discussed before? If not, will you join me at the Commons Village Pump for Copyright, and possibly invite other people who may be authoritative or at least knowledgeable? --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'm happy now. I tried to do some research but ran into contradicting claims in two different German Wikipedia articles, making me less certain of my position (apparently there is some degree of debate). There is probably a difference between "mechanical" reproduction and a "new edition", but I wouldn't know how to tell. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  It does seem complex. Asking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_there_a_copyright_for_typography_of_sheet_music? I hope I explained the question well enough, but if I missed something, please do help. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Brett

The Legacy section starts, "Raised in Alsace, the polymath Albert Schweitzer..." Unless being raised Alsace is somehow pertinent to the cantata, Bach, or the biography in ways that I'm missing, this should be cut. Brett (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

done, - hopefully most readers will known him anyway --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by VersaceSpace

Nothing major to add, as I'm largely unfamiliar with the topic, but I would move ref 1 out of the lead. Hopefully what it cites is inside the body, if not that's likely a separate issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, but quotes have to be cited in the lead. - Fell free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Fe[e]l free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. Wise words! I'll be giving the article a full read at a later date, and giving my thoughts. What I will say prior to my absence is that I believe the lead is a bit long and includes some information that isn't of the utmost importance. An example: Bach not referring to his compositions as cantatas. Much less necessary (to me at least) is the one time he did refer to it as such. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem lead-worthy. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It singles this one out, from his perspective, therefore it seems worth mentioning to me. But I'll see what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Kusma

I think this may still need some source work and checks.

• I just read the "Recordings" section, where the sentence about "complete cycles" is unsourced (and quite unwieldy). You probably mean "The cantata was recorded before people like X, Y and Z did complete recordings of all cantatas".

  The recording section was in this article in detail, and was mostly placed in a separate article, as getting too heavy. What is left wasn't written by me, but I'll check. --GA

  Kusma: I'm now in the process of making the recording section prose. ---GA

  I think prose is better :) There are some issues with it still: As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times.. The website by now has 102 entries for complete recordings, and some of these are a bit dubious (not much is known about the second one from the 1940s; two of the 2021 entries are the same). Maybe something more attributed is better ("As of 2022, the Bach Cantatas website lists 101 recordings"). —Kusma (talk)

  So what is your source for 101? —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  I took your wording, and said "more than 100". - It's not the exact number but an idea of the range. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• The next sentence, "The earliest extant recording was a live concert performance ..." is sourced to a dead link, but it is archived. The source says "American baritone Mark Harrell is heard in a 1939 performance of Bach's Cantata No. 56, a performance that shows the big-scale influence of Mengelberg's interpretations of that composer." and says nothing about "earliest extant recording".

  archive-url taken with thanks. - If you insist, we could say "early" instead of "earliest", but it's unusually early, and we don't know of any earlier one according to this. --GA

  Just write only what you can verify from sources. Either just say "In 193x, it was recorded" or say something like "The earliest recording listed at ThatListOfBachRecordings is ..." Claiming this one is the earliest without a source saying so is WP:OR.

  done ---GA

• The sentence "The cantata is often coupled with Ich habe genug, BWV 82" is sourced to a review that only says they have been "frequently recorded in the past", not that they have been recorded together.

  What can we do? Of the items in the table, 8 have them together. Should we list references for all eight (or more) for that one sentence? Should we drop that sentence as redundant, because naturally cantatas for bass are frequently grouped together, especially when related in content? --GA

  You could state that they have been recorded together eight times, out of X recordings listed at SomeGreatPlace.

  That's now becoming a sourced section, - please check. ---GA

  I like it better now. A few more comments: well focused voice in an intimate rendering full of devotion sounds like it might be better off as a quote instead of in wikivoice. Thomas Quasthoff recorded them in 2004 it is not obvious that Quasthoff is the singer here. three works was released sung a comma might help, or generally a bit more copyediting. —Kusma (talk)

  thank you for looking! - Sorry, I can't access the Cookson saying (and other pages on the site, but some I could see - strange), will check again later. I added baritone to Quasthoff. Not sure about the comma, because we have already one after the year. Move or add? (I'll never learn commas in English, I'm afraid.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• The source for the following "bass cantata" sentence also mentions a fourth cantata. It is unclear to me whether these cantatas should be mentioned at all.

  The fourth cantata, Traitor Love, is secular, and doesn't need to be mentioned. --GA

  I don't understand this argument. The third cantata is incomplete and yet both are mentioned in the source. Secular/Non-Secular doesn't seem to be a dividing line for some of the people interested in bass cantatas.

  This is about a church cantata. It seems noteworthy to talk about the other church cantatas, but less so for the one secular work that I see only that one time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Amore traditore is now mentioned. ---GA

• What are the selection criteria for the list of recordings here versus those in the dedicated sub-article? Many of the entries appear to be unsourced.

  I don't know, Mathsci did it. We could drop the table completely, or add from the many recordings. --GA

  no more table here, but expanded in the discography ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, from just looking at this section I don't think the article is ready. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Does look better now. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Another thing in the Recordings section: "Helmuth Rilling, who recorded all Bach cantatas from 1969 to 1985, in time for Bach's tricentenary, recorded the cantata in 1983, with Fischer-Dieskau in his fourth version, the Gächinger Kantorei and Bach-Collegium Stuttgart." Split this overlong sentence and reword it. I currently take home the message that Fischer-Dieskau's fourth reincarnation is the Gächinger Kantorei. Perhaps "From 1969 to 1985, Helmuth Rilling recorded all Bach cantatas in time for Bach's tricentenary. His recording of BWV 56 was sung by ..." or similar.
  • After "three virtuoso solo cantatas", a colon instead of a comma would eliminate potential for misunderstanding. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at the "Poet and theme" section, I find the research by C. Blanken that is cited to be fascinating, but there's probably more that can be taken from her article, for example Birkmann's interest in the cross-staff as a mathematical/geodesic/navigational tool (pp. 25–28) could be joined to the mention in the next paragraph. The "cross staff" pictured here is not that tool.

  Yes. --GA

  having looked there more: I am not sure what to say. He was interested, but would the text mean to "tragen" such a thing gladly? Could you suggest a wording. I find also interesting that the poet was torn between scientific studies and theology, but again wouldn't know how to integrate that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  It looks fine to me now. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would put "The text is rich in biblical references" before "Birkmann's text alludes to Matthew's gospel"; this way is a bit redundant/repetitive.

  I am not sure, because biblical references are one thing, and solo cantatas sometimes have few (to none), and the specific Gospel reading for the occasion is another. --GA

  Then at least put "other biblical references". You currently first tell us that the text alludes to the gospel, and then tell us the more general fact that it alludes to the Bible, which we already know because you told us it alludes to the gospel of Matthew.

  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• A lot of this is about the text, more than the "theme". "The final lines of the opening aria ("There my Savior himself will wipe away my tears") are repeated just before the closing chorale.", for example, is not "theme". Neither is the rebus on the title page. BTW, the source mentions that Bach used χ for the cross, but "On the title page [of BWV 56], Bach replaced the word "Kreuz" by the Greek letter χ" is not in the source given, which is about other cantatas.

  I added "text" to the header, although I found it a bit redundant. - The X on the title page can be seen, which other reference would you want? --GA

  I did not see that. Could you mention this in the caption? Or perhaps move the whole sentence into the caption if it is not sourced without the image?

  I restored the χ to the image caption. It appears also in the complete quotation of the title page above the movement table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Chorale: So apparently this part is not written by Birkmann? It could have been mentioned earlier that not everything is by him.

  It's rather basic about Bach's church cantatas that they have up to three text sources: Bible - contemporary poetry - chorale. See Bach cantata, adding a link to it. It's not normally repeated in every cantata. The second para of the lead says that the chorale is from Johann Franck's hymn. --GA

  I tend to expect articles to be complete also without their lead section. I would suggest to explain the basic structure of Bach cantatas here; should this ever become TFA, it should be well readable for people who know nothing about Bach cantatas.

  For those readers, we have the links to Bach's church cantatas and Bach cantata. Please compare current FAs about Bach's cantatas, such as BWV 1 (2022) and BWV 165 (2015), - we can't repeat the basics in all 200 articles about his cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Depends on how long the discussion of the basics is, I guess, but I won't argue this point further. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• First performance: do we know in which church this was?

  Sorry, no. Bach digital has just Leipzig, same Dürr/Jones. --GA

  Do they say that the specific church is unknown? That would be worth mentioning. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  No. they say just Leipzig. For many cantatas, it was Thomaskirche in the morning, Nikolaikirche in the afternoon the same day, or Nikolaikirche in the morning, Thomaskirche in the afternoon. But that was more for festive seasons such as Christmas (compare BWV 40#History). In ordinary time - as for this one - rather only one service. Does it matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll leave checking other sections to others. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I hope I could clarify some, and would be interested in how much table of recordings you'd want, now that we have the other article for them, for example, and how much more you'd like about the navigational instruments, which is one of the several meanings of cross staff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a table of recordings, sorry. Personally I would probably use prose and only talk about those with excellent sources. For the navigational instruments (or alternatively the question "what is meant by Kreuzstab?") I just see that both Blanken 2015 and Corral 2015 (both seem like excellent scholarly sources; actually, both are "journals", see Understanding Bach) both spend some time discussing this. While we're on the topic of sources: any reason why you're not citing Wollny 2017? One obvious piece of information in there (probably also in better scholarly sources, but I haven't tried hard) is the name of the bass in the first performance (Johann Christoph Samuel Lipsius). Other uncited sources are Ambrose 2014 (probably not RS) and Bayer (dead link). Is the "Carus 2000" source meaning the printed book or the webpage (which, incidentally, attributes the chorale to Johann Rist)? —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Only few replies (need to do a bit more for Alice Harnoncourt): used Wollny, made Ambrose external link. Will think about the others, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

By now, the recordings table is gone, there's more detail from Blanken and about her (want to write her article, perhaps?), and the bass mentioned. Anything else, Kusma? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Many improvements! I can try to read more but not today. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

From my source comments: please move Blanken 2015 to "Journals" subsection (it clearly is from a journal). —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Other than my handful of new comments seemingly randomly placed in the text above (look at the diff if you get confused) I think I'm happy with the sections I looked at. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and please check if I found them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented one myself (comma->colon), and I'm still not too happy with "in his fourth version"; the source has the much clearer "This is the fourth recording Fischer-Dieskau made of this work, and one can hear in his voice a mastery of the music and content. His voice is less flexible and colourful than in the three previous recordings of this work, but he remains, nevertheless, the standard by which other singers of this cantata are measured." Other than that I think you've done what I asked for. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you suggest to use the full quote? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I just suggest to be clearer about the "fourth version" thing (or to not mention it). The sentence is still trying to say too much at once. —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I dropped it, although I find it interesting. No time right now to find the third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine. I haven't read enough of the other sections to be qualified to support the whole article, but I have no more complaints about Sections 2 and 5. So I guess this is a "partial support" or something :) —Kusma (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [3]

Formatting

• You could consider including 'R.E.B.' as the author for the classicalcdreview.com ref

  Or even better, Robert Benson? —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Your linking of publishers in the books section is inconsistent (i.e. A & C Black is not linked)

  linked now --GA

• Your inclusion of locations in the Books section is also inconsistent (Rowman & Littlefield)

  loc added the second time --GA

• Since Gramophone is not a 'Journal' but a magazine, the subheading might be out of place. Perhaps 'Articles', instead, though you would probably have to move some online sources up then? It might be best to keep 'Journal' and move Gramophone down to the online sources section. Also, it should probably be 'Journals', right?

  moved to online for now --GA

• Bach (journal) and jpc (retailer) (in online sources) should probably be linked

  done --GA

• Blanken, Christine says 'in German', but appears to be in English?

  fixed --GA

• The The Bach Choir of Bethlehem should probably be the publisher, not website, as the website is a different name

  done --GA

Reliability

• I'm not convinced that classicalcdreview.com is a high-quality publication for FAC purposes.

  Understand. The original source for the earliest recording we have was Bach Cantatas but came Francis Schonken and said it's not reliable. One thing is certain: that recording exists, there's even YouTube, and it was reissued. I'm sure it's mentioned in the "milestones" book, but don't have it. Is this better? A combination? Help, anybody?

  In the context: what do you think of this one for a different recording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The muziekweb.nl source is a lot better, even has a WP page (Muziekweb). I think the Audiophile Audition source is okay. Aza24 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. I replaced several refs, including classicalcdreview.com. Will tale Audiophile on board. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just so it is addressed: I am okay with the use of Schweitzer 1911, as it is limited and directly attributed in the text (or a quote every time); except once where another source is used in addition

Verifiability

• I would move the Griffel page number from the cited sources to the short ref 67. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  doing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the review. I'll look asap (which may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, (Duino Elegies) took longer than I thought, and the last two points will again have to wait. Thanks for diligent looking and patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I added some refs from the discography, to support more prose, and still more may come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Everything is looking a lot better Gerda, though my comment in the Reliability section concerning classicalcdreview has not been addressed—should either be replaced, or explained how it is a high-quality source for FAC purposes. Aza24 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Concerns seem to be addressed. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

JJE

I'll review this section. With the caveat that I know next to nothing about the topic or its sources, the prose and writing seem OK to me. Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1? Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead? Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't. What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and the less someone knows before, the better we can tell if the writing makes sense. Breaking it up:

• Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1?

  not sure I understand the question, do you mean why a referenence in the lead? Because all quotes in the lead need one. "2011"? --GA

  I mean in the reference section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  still don't understand, sorry, no 2011, and link to what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Schweitzer 1911, p. 255." vs "Wolff 2002, pp. 237–257." for example, in the "References" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean the link to the pages? In the Schweitzer book, it's several different page locations. For Wolff, it's the whole chapter explaining Thomasantor, unless you say it needs to be more specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the first has a link under p.255 and the others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead?

  yes. I might add more refs there to support it, - saw one yesterday in what I added to recordings. --GA

  yes, see [4] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't.

  When the use of a ref is restricted to a certain part, I have page numbers there, but if different bits from a book are cited, rather not. There may still be inconsistencies, please let me know. Several authors worked on this. --GA

• What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in?

  As it's intro sentence states: Dürr/Jones, the bible of Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the prose seems OK but as I said I don't know anything about the topic. I think one thing to consider - but don't consider this mandatory - is to footnote terms like "cantata" and "rebus". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the approval. Would you footnote "symphony"? Rebus seems a common word, but in English I never know. There's a link, so what would a footnote do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes are easier to use w/o having to leave the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the slightest difference between going to another article and return, and going to a foonote and return. Therefore I prefer article, because that will be monitored and updated better than individual footnotes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "In his biography of Bach, Albert Schweitzer praised the cantata" — will "musicologist Albert Schweitzer" be better? We have quotes by him in the lead, so the reader should be aware that, in this case, the biographer is a subject matter expert, and not just a writer.

  tricky. I'd expect readers to him just by name, but "musicologist" is possibly the least appropriate of the many descriptions we could give him. He came from being an organist, and went on to be awarded a Nobel Prize for his humanitarian work in Africa as a physician. --GA

  Oh yeah, he was a "theologian, organist, musicologist, writer, humanitarian, philosopher, and physician"!! --K.S

• "Until recently the librettist was unknown" — Year in place of 'recently' would be better and more accurate.

  Which year, of first thought it was Birkmann, or generally accepted he did it (and then which would it be)? --GA

  What I meant was that 'recently' is pretty vague here. I think it would be 2015. --K.S

• "The third movement expresses joy at being" — fix the disambiguation link at "movement", probably to Movement (music)

  sure, sorry about that --GA

• "Jones, Richard D. P. (2013). — we need an {{endash}} instead of hyphen in '1717-1750'. Same with Barfoot, Terry (February 2002), Cookson, Michael (10 March 2010), McElhearn, Kirk (2 April 2002).

  what I get for just copying titles ... - thank you --GA

• ""Ton Koopman / Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir / Solo Cantatas for Bass"" and ""Johann Sebastian Bach: Kantaten BWV 56,82,158". jpc.de. 2006." are never used in the article.

  Thank you, to be used. --GA

That is it! Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support: One comment above, nothing substantial! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• " in English, it is commonly referred to as the Kreuzstab cantata" This is English? You render Kreuzstab in italics, presumably meaning that it is a non-English word.

  Mathsci insisted that in English sources this is not Cross staff cantata (as I had written in the DYK hook) but Kreuzstab cantata, and I found that true in those I checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Example: Kreuzstab Cantata (no italics, capital c) on p. 290 of Dürr/Jones --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  in other souces (not used for article)

  • Kreuzstab Cantata, Gramophone 1993
  • Kreuzstab cantata, musica-dei-donum.org 2014
  • Kreuzstab cantata musicweb-international.com 2014 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

More soon.--20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "sets all stanzas of a hymn unchanged" Unchanged from what? This reads a little obscurely.

  better wording welcome, - in most of Bach's chorale cantatas, only the first and the last stanza of a hymn (or chorale) were retained unchanged, while the inner stanzas were paraphrased by a contemporary poet, - see lead, for example. (Let's not forget that Bach lived 200 years later than let's say Luther, so chorale text was already sort of old-fashioned.) In a few cantatas, this was not the case. "omnes versus" literally translates to "all stanzas", but this "unchanged" is implied. --GA

• "published in 2015 her finds suggesting that Christoph Birkmann wrote the text of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen.[16]" I might say "researches" for "finds" if the source will support it. It seems more formal.

  fine, only she was introduced as researcher in the previous sentence, - is there an alternative perhaps? --GA

• findings?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• " As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times" I would say "has been" rather than "was"

  English remains a miracle for me - I though past tense for things past, no? --GA

• I'm not good at the explanations, but that's what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• "In 1964, Barry McDaniel was the soloist for a recording in a series Bach cantatas of Fritz Werner with oboist Pierre Pierlot, the Heinrich-Schütz-Chor Heilbronn and the Pforzheim Chamber Orchestra. " Should there be an "of" before "Bach"?

  yes, thank you --GA

• " related to peace (Friede) has been added.[68][28][69][70]" Refs out of order, intentional or not?

  not, thank you --GA

• Thomanerchor is linked more than once in the body.

  no more, thank you, same for Thomaskantor --GA

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon

With the caveat that I know nothing at all about classical music, I have a few comments. I have also done a bit of editing, making links mostly, or readjusting them. Please revert any you feel are mistakes. The lead is a little longer than I initially expected for a piece of music. But there is actually nothing that I would scrap.

Thank you for the edits. While I felt that some border overlinking (such as church cantata after the more precise Church cantata (Bach) was linked), they may help readers. --GA

• Bach was appointed by --> Johann Sebastian Bach was appointed by

  not in any other of the cantatas, compare BWV 22 where the appointment is actually discussed. Mozart, Beethoven, - they go just by surname once it's established that not Mozart's son or Beethoven's father is meant. --GA

  I was under the impression that there is a rule that any person should be introduced by full name and subsequently referred to by just surname. And that this excludes the lead, as in an introduction in the lead does not count (something I find a little odd). So all I'm saying is treat Bach the way you treat for instance Gustav Leonhardt. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am under a different impression: that once a person is introduced with given name and surname in the lead of a biography, the given name (like a translation) is not used again unless to avoid disambiguation. Similarly, once J. S. is introduced as the Bach we mean, no repetition of the given name is wanted. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am all too happy to change my conception of the rules. I like taking the lead into account, because the reader read the lead. So, fine, no changes needed.

• and includes Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen --> I guess that here, like in the lead, the translation should be given. Should BWV 56 also be given here? Plus, actually, I miss a description of what BWV 56 means in the entire article.

  No second translation, please. For a person, we give the name in an original language once in the lead, but not again. Some users would refer to the cantata just by BWV 56 alone, but I feel that is too technical. BWV is the catalogue for Bach's works, as the link shows. Mozart has a catalogue of his works, abbreviated K., Schubert D. and there are others. Beethoven's works and those of many go by Opus number (work number). --GA

• rarely used this style in his chorale cantatas, except in the early Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, and later chorale cantatas --> to me as a layperson with no idea how many chorale cantates there are, it seems that "rarely" could be a bit of a stretch. What are we talking about, 5%?

  if you click on Chorale cantata (Bach), you get about 40, so 5% is close. --GA

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for you interest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I went back to some previous FACs you nominated (e.g. Der 100. Psalm way back in 2017) and I feel I slowly but surely get educated in the field. Very slowly :) In any case, nice work. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from Ovinus

Sorry, I don't think I can support atm, mainly because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject. I'd suggest adding footnotes for terms like declamatory recitative, omnes versus, accompagnato, etc. or to use less technical words there. The lead is a little long and I agree that the Schweitzer quote is putting too much weight on one commentator. Also:

• "A reviewer described the cantatas" – who?
• Is musicweb-international.com reliable?
• "Ich habe genug, BWV 82, a paraphrase of the Song of Simeon" What is the relationship between these? Three items, two items, or one item?
• "for the 19th Sunday after Trinity" I'd prefer something like "to be performed on ..."
• the English translation "There at last I will lay my sorrow in the grave" appears before the German original, is that intended?
• Maybe a bit too much interpretation in wikivoice, like "like that of a sick pilgrim struggling to make his way along the dark recesses of an unfamiliar flight of steps", "the sea is evoked by the undulating cello" (probably prefer a weaker word like portrayed—evoked implies a response by the listener)

Ovinus (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Ovinus (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and the views of those unfamiliar are especially valuable. I usually reply point by point, but will try in one batch:

• I do't see needfor a footnote for "declamatory recitative", because recitative is linked, and I believe that declamation and declamatory are common words. I may be wrong, of course, because English is not my native language.
  • Ah, I thought it was a specific term. I've replaced it with impassioned in one instance

    well, that's a word I didn't even know, - I knew only "passionate" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

    passionate works just as well!

• omnes versus is explained right next to it: "all stanzas of a hymn unchanged", - how could that be changed to be clearer?
• I believe that accompagnato is so close to accompanied that an explanation is not needed, - wrong?
  • If it's a well-known loan word/term in the analysis of Bach's music, that's fine

    not Bach's alone, we have recitativo accompagnato but as it's a redirect to recitative the duplicate link police would come after me if I linked :) .Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• I dropped the reviewer's view. While I think a bit more than just someone performed it is nice, this is not too specific.
• Musicweb is a site composers wait for. It has caused no problems in source reviews of previous cantata articles, not the source review for this one.
• BWV 82: I don't understand the question. Relationship between what? BWV 82, BWV 56, BWV 152: all for solo bass. BWV 82 and BWV 56: both dealing with death.
  • Ah, so these are three distinct pieces. I couldn't tell whether BWV 82 was Ich habe genug. Could you put BWV information in parentheses for the first and third pieces?

    please no after it's standard practice to have catalogue numbers separated by commas, and our article titles reflect that, same for Mozart's and Schuberts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

    So Ich habe genug is BWV 82! I should have remembered that from earlier in the article. I've used dashes to separate the entries; it's just that a sequence of commas is easy to confuse

• "for the xth Sunday" is a standard phrase, almost part of the title, and adding "to be performed" seems redundant, - what else. Compare other cantata articles and Church cantata (Bach). At Bach's time, this music would have been performed at no other day.
  • I suppose it's clear enough
• English before German: I don't know, Mathsci wrote that. It's long, so makes sense not to frustrate a reader but present the German afterwards for those who can read it.
• "sick pilgrim" - perhaps we should say more clearly that a 1907 author saw it like that, - will try.

  ... but that whole paragraph is clearly introduced: "In his book L'esthétique de J.-S. Bach, André Pirro describes Bach's use ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Pirro's book was written in 1907 so is trivially public domain; maybe just use a blockquote English translation, w/ a footnote to the original French? Indeed I think it'd be nice to capture Pirro's voice.

    I'll think about it, - was out all day, tired, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• certain "waves" in music evoke the sea, regardless of the response. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • evoke: "bring or recall to the conscious mind". portray: "describe (someone or something) in a particular way". The former is dependent on the listener, the latter is an artistic choice. But I don't feel strongly about this one.

    always learning, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The main concern I have is WP:NPOV and, to a lesser extent, WP:WEASEL. Bach's music is rightly exalted, but we capture this aspect in analyses from others, and it's unwise to write any non-obvious interpretation in wiki voice. Ovinus (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks, and am less concerned about tone now. I'm not sure what to do about stuff like "A reviewer observed his clear diction and phrasing, and his expressiveness", as I'd prefer it be along the lines of "A reviewer characterized/opined/said ..." Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the offers, - "characterised" works but not for this example, "opined" is probably good just that it's not in my (limited) vocabulary, and needs a construction with "that", and "said" is wrong, he "wrote". I begin with "noted" but want some alternatives. How about "emphasised"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Used "wrote". The article is in good shape imo. Last issue is the lead section, which is five paragraphs. The four-paragraph rule MOS:LEADLENGTH is under perennial debate but since FAs are supposed to follow the MOS strictly, I suppose it's required unless there's a compelling reason not to. (I often see it as an aesthetic reason than a length one.) BWV 1, for example, is three paragraphs. I'd suggest just concatenating two of the paragraphs and call it a day. Ovinus (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why two different topics should be connected for what looks like a formality to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. Alright, after another look through, support. Ovinus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

• Hi Gerda. I think you need to ping some of your reviewers to see if they are able to support the nomination. Four weeks in and only one support looks, on the surface, like a lack of movement towards a consensus to promote. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think those who made one observation could support or oppose. I pinged several who had come to review former Bach cantatas for FAC, and some said they would, and four of them came came. Vacation, it seems. I'll go for another round right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments by Amitchell125

​ The following comments refer to the lead section:

• I would unlink soloist (MOS:OL).

  I had it unlinked, but some helper will have linked. Unlinking again. --GA

• The work is regarded as part of – why not ‘The work is part of’?

  Because that cycle is not clearly defined. The first cycle was Bach's first year in Leipzig, the second his second year, but the third is seen over more than one year, and I am not sure if all agree about its extension. --GA

• Introduce Christoph Birkmann.

  tried --GA

• You linked violin and viola, but not cello or oboe – consider not linking any of them.

  That's what I had, - thank you for the support. --GA

• Bach rarely used the word cantata to refer to a composition: the autograph score of BWV 56 is one of a few cases where he did – I would reduce the unnecessary detail here and amend it to ’The autograph score of BWV 56 is one of a few cases where Bach referred to one of his compositions as a cantata’.

  taken, thank you --GA

• Consider replacing This final desire for death with ‘This yearning’.

  done but repeating from the previous sentence --GA

• Bach composed the cantata in his fourth year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. is in a paragraph devoted to the structure and scoring of the work, and also seems rather redundant (Leipzig is already mentioned, for instance). I would amend the text to start ‘Bach structured the work in five movements’

  I moved the first sentence up, omitting the redundant Leipzig. --GA

• He scored the work for a Baroque instrumental ensemble of three woodwind instruments (two oboes and taille), three string instrument parts (two violins and viola) and basso continuo.- this could be reduced to ‘He scored the work for three woodwind instruments, three string instrument parts and continuo’, especially if the infobox reflected the instruments used in greater detail.

  taken --GA

• Five paragraphs for this article? I would move what remains of the third paragraph to join it with the first one.

  I prefer first text then music. --GA

• edited by Wilhelm Rust; edited by Matthias Wendt; published by Carus-Verlag – is this information notable enough to be included in the lead?

  I dropped the editors --GA

• In his biography of Bach, Albert Schweitzer praised the cantata – it’s not clear to me why a review that is this old needs to be quoted (or even mentioned) in the lead.

  It's about the shortest way someone summarised what's outstanding about this work. But I dropped the "praised"--GA

• by the closing chorale – chorale is already linked in the lead.

  yes, thank you for noticing

Amitchell125 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful comments! Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

​ I'm certainly no expert on Bach, but this has been picked over by editors more knowledgeable than I. Just some suggestions you may wish to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Kreuzstab cantata. Do you need to translate the German word again?
• Thomaskantor appears in the lead, but the churches concerned much later.
• Wo soll ich fliehen hin, BWV 5 (Where shall I flee), based on Johann Heermann's penitential hymn "Wo soll ich fliehen hin".[14]. Perhaps Heermann's penitential hymn with the same title
• Christine Blanken Nationality and job.
• You have harbour and saviour and then There my Savior. Since they are translations, it's difficult to see why you have British and US spellings of the same word.
• (SATB) I worked this out, but why not list the voices properly?

Thank you for looking support and trust. I was out all day yesterday, and today first had to look into Sempé.

• No second translate needed, thank you for noticing.
• The churches would make the lead longer, and we don't even know which of them had the premiere.
• Yes, taken, I realised, however why not sooner: because it's tough to avoid two links in a row like that. Please check.
• She should probably get an article. Until then a bit more.
• I don't know if I may change a quote for US-UK difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from NØ

No issues I can find and this seems like a comprehensive and well-researched presentation of this topic given how old the subject is. Unrelated but I would appreciate anything you may want to contribute to my current FAC. Regards!--NØ 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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