Talk:Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147

Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147 was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 17, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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.

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.

It is requested that one or more musical audio files be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

BWV 147a[edit]

List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function says that this cantata with the same name (BWV 147a) was writtein for "Advent IV" on 20 December 1716 and is now "lost" and that the work as its known now was written 2 July 1723 and "adapted from BWV 147a". Anyone know more of the story here? I only know what I read in the other article. DavidRF (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two works[edit]

At present the article covers two different works. I don't think they can be handled in one infobox without confusing the reader. The better solution could be to write two articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 147a --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composed?[edit]

In the "History and words" section it starts by saying Bach composed it in Leipzig. In the lead, it says he wrote its predecessor back in the day, when he was still doing his Weimar Thang. I do see how both are encompassed in the article ... it's just the specific word "composed" that I'm finding a bit awkward. Is some sort of rephrase possible, please? And yes, I do know that if I were a proper editor and a decent intellectual I would suggest some alternatives ... but hey. FML. Help! 82.34.71.202 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Composed" literally means "put together", I think it's the right term for a creation that partly uses older material, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Gerda. I feel a bit "yeah but no but" ... I do understand what "composed" means literally, but in this context I find it a little awkward. Talking about musical composition in an unexceptional way I find "composed" pretty much synonymous with "written", and we've already said when it was written, and then we seem to say it was written again in 1723, and to me that reads in a slightly contradictory manner. The lead gets it right - it was written, then expanded. Can we not try for something similar in the first body paragraph? Tell you what, if/when time permits I could have a bash at it ... but please don't hold your breath! Thanks 82.34.71.202 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 08:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A nice read and another worthy addition to Wikipedia's coverage of the complete works of Bach.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
As ever, my non-musician's brain does struggle a bit with the terminology in this sort of article, but the prose is readable and well-laid out, and the terms a tyro might need are helpfully linked.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I was afraid that this might come up - while the discussion at RSN didn't really reach a conclusion, I'm of the opinion that the Bach Cantata's website really shouldn't be linked as an EL (I realise it's not being used as a reference). Until the copyright status of the content there is clarified, WP:ELNEVER would apply. I'm aware that a number of FAs use this site, but I am not comfortable passing an artice for GA with a potential copyright-violating link in the External Links section.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
In-depth without being too technical. Interesting to learn the origin of Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring, one of my favourite pieces of music.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Easy to keep an article stable when it has only one editor!
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are both PD and suitably tagged on Commons, and seem like appropriate additions. A copy of part of the score would be nice, but if one existed I suspect you would already have put it in.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
All seems well but for the Bach Cantatas website. Closed per comments below.

Thank you for the review. The discussion on WP:RSN was archived with no consequences. History of this article (and please compare BWV 4, look for "Thoughts" on the talk page):

It was created in 2006 with one reference, and expanded a bit by 2010, when external links were added, including Bach Cantatas Website, - readers of this article are used to seeing this most detailed and at the same time most comprehensive site on the topic. We would cause them inconvenience if we would take it away here, while other quality articles in English have it, and the translations of this article to other languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to dig in my heels here, but as long as there is doubt over the copyright status of the website, it's really not an appropriate EL for a GA. I'm not about to call for a review of all the other GA/FAs that use it, but I certainly don't think we should be promoting any more GAs with potential copyvio ELs. Much as I dislike being hard-assed about such things, until the link is removed or some sort of community discussion establishes that it's safe to link to, I'm not comfortable pushing this to GA status. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time for this. Close please. 2 July is over anyway. You may want to consider that in the RSN discussion, even the one (and only) who believes in a copyright violation thinks the site is safe to be used as a reference for hymns. You may also browse once more the long talk (and archive) of Christ lag in Todes Banden, but only if you are unafraid. Please absolutely read the last chapter, Thoughts, raising the question "Can we agree?". - My heart and mouth and dead and life is with the reader ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus clausum, etc.[edit]

As Leipzig observed tempus clausum (time of silence) during Advent, allowing cantata music only on the first Sunday...

Surely the first? not the third, Gaudete?--2001:A61:20CD:9701:54A:D81D:8703:AC46 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, and this belongs on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]