Talk:Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171

Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 28, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 January 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that music from Bach's cantata for New Year's Day, [[[Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171|Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), appears in his Mass in B minor?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171.

Wikipedia

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 04:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be done pretty soon. Thanks, Ya sh ! 04:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

A link for "soloists" perhaps?

Don't have one in any Bach cantata, not even FAs. --GA

why "probably"? A hatnote explaining why would be good. Any explanation would be better.

In the first (standard) paragraph, we don't explain. Later we do, saying that it was published in 1728 with the wish to have it composed by Bach, which means it wasn't composed by Bach THEN. So 1729 or later,- we don't know. --GA

Better to avoid vague terms such as "years after". A simple "after" or a precise number would be preferred. Or mention the year in which he started his term. Or anything else that you'd prefer.

? We just said we don't know, therefore can't know the precise difference to 1723, which is mentioned now. Sources disagree about when the third cycle ended, for which he took more than one year. --GA

"Years after", "after a while", "some time before" etc., - I have always seen the reviewers oppose to usage of those terms. However, it is OK in this case and mentioning the year he joined in would at least give some little less vague idea about the time. Little less vague > vague. Ya sh ! 03:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The year is mentioned now, and the whole sequence of three cycles (2 precise, 1 vague) explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we mention violins and viola?

Nikkimaria doesn't like that, compare ;) - Dürr (the most prominant source) also says strings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History and words[edit]

Again, an explanation for the "probably" would help.

tried to explain the cycles (but it is in Bach cantata) --GA

A link for Leipzig?

yes --GA

A link for "King James"? When I hear the term "King James", this guy pops in my head.

OK, but I never saw one so far. --GA

A link for "Christmas Oratorio"?

Its in Part IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and scoring[edit]

All good here!

Music[edit]

"The first movement, "Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm bis an der Welt Ende." (God..." - is the period at the end of "Ende." intended?

Yes, because that one is a full sentence, --GA

Unlink "fugue" since it has already been linked twice.

It was linked once in the lead, no? --GA

I don't remember why I suggested it! Perhaps a little misunderstanding while using Ctrl+F. Ya sh ! 03:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While the trumpets are independent, the strings and oboes mostly double the voices in the style of Bach's motets. trumpets, the first trumpet also playing the fugue theme." - "Bach's motets. trumpets, the first" - I would have fixed it but it is a little confusing to me that what's wrong.

Sorry, a sentence rearranged but not completely. I tried. --GA

I am a bit confused as to what "according to range" means.

The source mentions precisely the high range between lowest note and highest note, which would be difficult to play on instruments other than violins. I think to repeat the exact range would be too much detail. --GA

Fair enough. Ya sh ! 03:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, shouldn't we have an article about Julian Mincham?

Give me sources for a bio, and I'll write it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"tri-partite" -> "tripartite" - also a link perhaps?

word done, - I could only link to a disamb page, --GA

Unlink "recitative"

done --GA

"their own interludes" -> "their interludes"

I tried to add, because they make the difference to the normal straightforward 4-part chorale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement for GA but more information (if it's out there) would be nice. However, it's good enough to pass as it is. Great work Gerda! Ya sh ! 09:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems in passing this. Keep up the good work! Ya sh ! 03:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording[edit]

I don't think the Gonnenwein 1961 recording is on period instruments. As far as I can recall, the LP notes make no mention of thisDelahays (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You can make the change yourself next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]