Talk:Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184

BWV is not part of the title

Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184 is the article title, Erwünschtes Freudenlicht is the title of the piece, BWV 184 is the catalogue number which Project Classical music agreed to use as disambiguation, short but still indicating (at least to those who know) that is a work of Bach. It is no part of the work title. The current version may lead to thinking that it is. Around 200 articles about Bach's works use the dedicated infobox which reflects that, {{infobox Bach composition}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The reader sees the same presentation in the article title, template, and bolded in the first sentence of the lead. If they are likely to be confused by one, they are likely to be confused by all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The article title was designed to be simple. In the lead, there's the translation in between title and catalogue number, visually supporting that they are two different things. No way the comma should be bold, we should not have a bold link within the "title", the separation of the composer's name in two lines is not pleasing. Why not use the dedicated template? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The article title is designed to be simple, the template header is designed to be simple. I've amended the composer name to be the same between the versions, although on my display it is a single line either way; this template's design is more pleasing overall. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we design the other template this way? The catalogue number should be its own entity, not pretended to be part of the title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You can propose whatever changes to either template you like. But if "pretended to be part of the title" is a problem, it shouldn't be in the article title, and it shouldn't be bolded in the lead. Whatever our conventions, we can't expect a reader to understand what all the subtleties of formatting represent, and why we think one makes sense in one case and not another. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

As discussed by Classical music, it's the standard disambiguation for works by Bach on which the project agreed. It doesn't make it part of the title. It's bold because it's an important incoming link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, those are our conventions. However, if you believe that a reader seeing Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184 will think that to be the title, that is exactly what is in large print at the top of the page. Having that at the top of the template would not cause any additional confusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel understood, probably my fault. Trying again. Comparable St Martin's, Isles of Scilly. The infobox does NOT repeat the disambiguation. I believe that BWV should NOT appear within the title, but it should appear: as a redirect and other name for the cantata. I have no time right now for making the templates similar, but perhaps RexxS? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 01:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Will be done in a the next couple of hours. — Yash ^talk stalk 01:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• Maybe include Whit Tuesday in the second sentence?

I included it in brackets, feeling that I can't write "he wrote it for Whit Tuesday" when he didn't even know what that is ;) --GA

• It says "now lost" (implying that it's lost entirely) in the lead, while it says "mostly lost" in the prose. Tweak the lead a bit.

OK, done by adding "mostly", but it is really so lost that we don't even know the title - which is rare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

History and text

• "both were adapted from secular models, both written for Pentecost in Bach's first year in Leipzig, and both revived in 1731" - repetition of "both" can be avoided.

Yes, but it is rather intentional to stress how similar. --GA

As far as I see, the expression of meaning remains the same, with better flow if a couple of "boths" are dropped but it's fine either way — not a major point. — Yash ^talk stalk 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just wondering - if the work was "mostly lost" how do we know that it was a "duet cantata with several dance movements"? As in, did any musicologist conclude​ that or was it found from some literature? (I was not able to access the source) If either is the case, it would benefit from it's inclusion. Or if it's something else with a possible explanation, it'll be worth mentioning. Forgive me if I am missing something obvious.

Sorry to see that the source was "reorganized". Will have to think. - The dance thing can be said because the music barely changed, musicologists can also tell more from the existing score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Music

• "here the next to last" - add "as the fifth movement" or something similar in brackets.

tried differently --GA

• accompagnato -> an accompagnato?

well, it's an adjective to recitative (recitativo accompnato) --GA

• "called a passepied by the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann." fits oddly in the sentence. Can be merged with the following sentence as well.

sentence split, no merge, - sadly that's to the same source --GA

• Describe why it is "unusually" a "four-part setting of a chorale stanza". Perhaps it would be better to remove the description from "Scoring and structure" and only mention it here.

Unusual is the position (not the setting), because normally it's at the end. What do you suggest how to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It'd be clearer amd easy to read if that explanation can be found in "5". Moving "A chorale movement, which ends most of his cantatas originally conceived for church use, is here penultimate movement, followed by the only chorus" from "Scoring and structure" to "5" keeps everything in one place and that should do it. Just saw that it was dealt with by Nikkimaria. — Yash ^talk stalk 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

• Links in #6 and #12 don't have the pdf files anymore.

That should do it. Cheers, — Yash ^talk stalk 04:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I replaced one pdf (Gardiner), but don't have access to the other. I contacted the site about the problem which is new overnight. We can consider to live without Hofmann, but only reluctantly. I hope it's only temporary in the process of reorginasation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's understandable. It won't keep this article from passing. Cheers, — Yash ^talk stalk 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I will just go ahead and pass this one. The only point left to my concern is about moving that one sentence which I trust you'll get around soon. I found very little to complain about here. Great work! — Yash ^talk stalk 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)