Talk:Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Yash! 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I am a part of the 2016 GA cup. Yash! 08:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • "25 March 1725, which fell that year on Palm Sunday" -> "25 March 1725, which that year fell on Palm Sunday".
yes, thank you --GA
  • "The feast was in Leipzig the only" - how about a "comma" after Leipzig?
tried to have Leipzig sooner --GA
  • "The hymn suits the occasion, but also Palm Sunday" -> "The hymn suits the occasion and Palm Sunday".
that seems too weak, - it's rather unusual that one theme is good for two occasions, how about "The theme of the hymn suits both
Sounds better! Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the Annunciation and Palm Sunday"? - tried --GA

  • Shouldn't we link "oboes da caccia"?
we do in the scoring section, and we have a link to Baroque instruments, - compare other cantatas --GA
  • Mention that Bach was Thomaskantor at that time.
done now,+ more explanation of the cycles --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was the "inspirational librettist"? Bach? If yes, you can write: "possibly because of the death of the inspirational librettist, Bach" or anything that you would like. If no, any link to an appropriate page or a better explanation for "inspirational librettist"?
This sentence is a summary - perhaps too short - of what we can read below: that the librettist is assumed to have been some Mr. Stübel who died in January of that year. Whoever he was, - he inspired Bach to one of his greatest creations, the cycle of chorale cantatas. Can you help wording that in lead fashion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about we mention who the inspirational librettist was in the sentence. Stating who that person was and what he did would make it clearer. Perhaps something like, "The cantata was the last chorale cantata of the cycle, possibly because the librettist, Andreas Stübel who inspired Bach had died" or "The cantata was the last chorale cantata of the cycle, possibly because Andreas Stübel, the librettist who inspired Bach had died". Or anything like that? Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would both be lovely, ONLY we don't know. It's a hypothesis that Stübel was the librettist, and I don't see a way to express that without getting clumsy. Do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The cantata was the last chorale cantata of the cycle, possibly because the librettist, Andreas Stübel who probably inspired Bach had died"? Or does that sound odd? Yash! 12:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me little enthusiasm about "possibly followed by probably", + I can't even judge if "probably" is the right term for the likelihood of Stübel being the one. He is qualified by expertise and that fitting time of death, but is it enough for "probably"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Better to leave it as it is probably. May I suggest something else then: instead of "inspirational librettist", use "librettist that inspired Bach". On the other hand, I don't have any problems with passing the article now. So, it is a GA now! Yash! 13:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History and words[edit]

  • "This cantata is part" -> "The cantata is a part".
changed in rewording, see above --GA
  • "cantatas, begun" -> "cantatas that began".
yes --GA
  • "and planned" -> "and was planned".
yes --GA
  • The lead says that, "He composed it in 1725". And the first line, "This cantata is part of Bach's second annual cycle of cantatas, begun on the first Sunday after Trinity 1724" - was it 1724 or 25? Or did I miss something?
Trinity is mid-year, the cycle is for a year, but not a calendar year, not even a church year, - simply beginning when he began his job, which was at least not anywhere but the second half of the church year, with the first going from Advent to Trinity. First year June 1723 to June 1724, second following, taking us into 1725. --GA
Okay, noted. Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the last chorale cantata in the cycle and is based on" -> "It is the last chorale cantata in the cycle and is based on". - tense consistency.
the two are now separate, don't belong together, and I tried "turned out to be the last chorale cantata". The cycle wasn't complete. --GA
  • "with Epiphany but also with the Annunciation" -> "with Epiphany and the Annunciation".
as above, unusual --GA
  • "its joyful nature would have been all the more striking" - do not use words such as "joyful" and "more striking" please. Unless these words are quoted, best to remove them and perhaps reframe the sentence.
You feel right that I didn't write that sentence, - it was in the article before I met it, and I try to keep what I inherited. Not this time, I guess ;) - I dropped it and moved the whole thing to performance time. --GA
  • "although" -> "though".
gone in rewording --GA
  • "This cantata was first" -> "The cantata was first".
gone in rewording --GA
  • "which in that year was also Palm Sunday" -> "which that year was Palm Sunday".
yes --GA
  • "speaking of a longing" -> "expressing the longing".
yes --GA
  • "especially fitting" - an explanation for why it was especially fitting would be nice. Or else, something more formal than "especially fitting".
there's now a link to the Palm Sunday entry in Jerusalem, an arrival fulfilling an expectation, - I would prefer not to venture more into theology, - replaced especially by also, --GA
  • "If indeed Stübel" -> "If Stübel".
yes --GA
  • Unlink "Trinity" the second time.
yes --GA
  • "was begun" -> "began".
yes --GA
  • "It was later listed as BWV 1 in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis." - ref?
really? it's in the title, we have the link to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis and a footnote leading to it, explaining that it was created again 100 years later, - I don't think we have to reference the catalogue of Bach's works in every work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm - Now, this is embarrassing. I mistook it for something else entirely. My apologies. Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not embarrassing, - perhaps mentioning how much later the BWV catalogue was determined would be helpful from time to time, especially as the article that explained was made a redirect. #1 would be a good opportunity ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

  • Unlink "Epiphany".
yes --GA
  • "Christmas Oratorio, for example" -> "Christmas Oratorio, for example".
yes --GA
  • "thanks " - "appreciation".
no, it's Gratias agimus, Wir danken dir, - thankfulness is more personal than appreciation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Either use "bach-cantatas.com" or "Bach-Cantatas".
yes --GA

In all of our interactions, this is probably the first time I am raising an issue for "references". That's how good you are! Great work, Gerda Arendt! Yash! 08:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and then I refuse ;) - thanks for diligent commentary, otherwise mostly followed! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wie_schön_leuchtet_der_Morgenstern,_BWV_1/GA1&oldid=708967032"