Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2018 [1].

---

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a secular cantata by J. S. Bach, about time, past and present. We looked at several church cantatas before, - this is different. It has in common with some church cantatas that it will soon be 300 years old, on 1 January 2019, to be precise. A main contributor to the article was Thoughtfortheday. It had a recent GA review by Ritchie. - The cantata was writen for a specific day, but then reused for Easter purpuses. The derived cantata gets more attention, performances and recordings, but this one is at times taken for festivities such as the 80th birthday of Bach scholar Alfred Dürr who enlightened us about the timing of Bach's cantatas. A choir in which I sing used the "light" finale for its 25th anniversary. I just hope to make this article as good as possible for the anniversary, with you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A question we discussed during the GA review was the introduction sentence. In the version made GA it follows the MoS. My concern is that readers are fed long German, + long translation, + two BWV numbers (because a change was made in 2018), before Bach is even mentioned, and that all this is a cantata. I'd prefer to say it bit more freely, to help those readers who won't look at an infobox:

Johann Sebastian Bach composed the secular cantata Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht (Time, which day and year doth make), BWV 134.1, BWV 134a, in Köthen. He wrote the Serenata for the court of Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, as a congratulatory cantata for the New Year's Day 1719, the day of its first performance.

Thoughts welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I heard no thoughts, and take the liberty of using that wording, which I prefer, - open to discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the focus should be on the article and not the composer. I would have left the GA wording. Here it is not really a problem, however. --JM

I believe that the focus is clearly on the cantata by the bold title. It is similar in other FAs, see BWV 161, BWV 172 among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We have at least one featured article on music where there's no bolded focus, but still the composer comes first: Piano music of Gabriel Fauré. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Disclosure: I know the nominator.

Tony, thank you for taking a look, and offering your language skills, which is needed by some non-native speaker like me. I am aware that I often construct as I would in German, but less aware where that happens. Thank you also for your interest in Bach's music that we share!

1a:

• "New Year's Day of 1719"—you could drop the "of".

my pleasure, done --GA

• "representing past and future"—do you mean "..., respectively."?

yes, I do, but is it unclear without that clumsy word? Would a comma after past work? --GA

• Who's being congratulated?

Leopold. How would that be said best? --GA

• "Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, mostly for two solo voices, an alto as Divine Providence and a tenor as Time." It's not segmented well. "Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, mostly for two solo voices: an alto as Divine Providence and a tenor as Time."

Should that better be split, perhaps?

• "Bach used the cantata as the basis for a church cantata for the Third Day of Easter in Leipzig in 1724, Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134. In its early version, he only omitted two movements and replaced the text by words for the occasion."—"early" is a bit confusing. Not 1719 early, I presume. We don't know yet that there was an early and later version of BWV 134. "initial"? And ... why "only"? Whatever your reasons, it's unclear to readers. Tony (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

taking "initial" for a start. Should we mention (not in the lead but in the body) that Bach may have had extra little time for the three days of Easter because he had premiered the St John Passion? "Only" - this is the minimum adaptation imaginable: don't change a bit of the music, just put a new text underneath. Do you have a way to say that better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

adding to "only": Bach didn't even add a closing chorale, about the least one might have expected, - but I guess it's a bit too far away from the topic of New Year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Bachsaal_Schloss_Koethen.jpg: what is the copyright status of the interior?

• File:Leopold_von_Anhalt-Köthen.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Christian_Friedrich_Hunold.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You probably mean me, not Tony. I asked Vami who gave a hint about inside of public buildings (1), calling RexxS also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added PD-1923 to both File:Leopold von Anhalt-Köthen.jpg and File:Christian Friedrich Hunold.jpg, since 2D artwork from the 18th century is PD in the US, and a simple photographic reproduction is ineligible to generate a fresh copyright there.

The interior in Schloß Köthen is more complicated. Panoramafreiheit is defined in article 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, see https://web.archive.org/web/20070930161320/http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/gebaeude.html which effectively leaves the issue as something to be negotiated between the photographer and the owner of the building for indoor shots. The copyright, when granted permission (such as by payment of an entrance fee), would lie with the photographer. However the original uploader, Timitti~commonswiki (last active in 2006), has made a declaration that they release the image under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic" licence, and IMHO unless we have good reason to doubt that they hold the copyright, that licence seems acceptable. --RexxS (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'd really like that image because it shows the style of the surroundings and period better than 1000 words. Help with the alt texts would be greatly appreciated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Vami_IV

Disclosure: I am the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, and am personally on good terms with the nominator. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, [...] Shouldn't this be in past-tense?  Fixed Jmar67 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Is there no date for when Bach wrote this piece? Thumbing through my library turned up no results, except that Bach once wrote a birthday cantata for a neighboring Saxon court in 1722. Bach usually composed shortly before performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC) ... but we don't know when exactly. --GA I recommend rewriting paragraphs 1 and 2 of "History and words" into a single paragraph. They deal with the same context. The picture, which is appropriate at this point, interrupts the text. I do not know how to make the text flow around it. Possibly move it to follow heading or the second paragraph. Any other ideas? I have put pic after heading for now. Jmar67 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC) I moved the image back because I dislike images directly below the heading. The paragraph about Köthen will probably grow. --GA It looked good on the page after the heading. Have to investigate why it is deprecated. --JM Once upon a time, the MoS said to avoid a left image below a heading, because the eyes of the reader expect text, and hhave to search on the right. I am old-fashioned and still try to adhere to it, although it was dropped some years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) The "Movements" section leads off with an image. --JM It's right image. Sorry I didn't mention it. I try to avoid left images, period. Only, this person has to be left, to look in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) There are two instances of Citation 6 in paragraph 2 of the same section, with no citation between (edit scar?). Consolidate. —Vami Thank you for thorough reading. Will respond (probably much) later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC) done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) While he had served as concert master in Weimar before, he became Kapellmeister in Köthen, directing a qualified musical ensemble.[5] The prince was enthusiastic about music and was a good bass singer and player of violin, viola da gamba and harpsichord.[5] "While he" refers to Bach, but reads currently like it refers to the Prince, and "while" forms a clause that sounds like Bach was somehow unqualified to be Kapellmeister because of his time as a concert master. Move the sentence "The prince was enthusiastic..." to just after the first sentence, or condense it into that sentence. With that done, you can now perhaps simplify the following sentences for flow (and consolidate the uses of Citation 5). –Vami Can you word better that Kapellmeister was an "upgrade" from the subordinate "concert master"? Shoud the ensemble come in a new sentence? --GA Reworded. --JM I would not separate the ensemble clause into another sentence. Try "Bach had served as concert master in Weimar from [dates], but now was Kapellmeister in Köthen, directing a qualified musical ensemble." –Vami reworded more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) librettist Link. –Vami done --GA a dialogue of two allegorical figures, Time, Interesting. A colon would be most fitting here, just after "figures" ("figures: Time"). –Vami done --GA I find sentence OK as is. Commas would interrupt flow and are not necessary. Jmar67 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) This comment applies to the following edit suggestion. Gerda made the change. --JM The music remained in manuscript form and like nearly all of Bach´s cantatas was not printed in his lifetime. Change "in manuscript form" to "a manuscript" and add a comma before "like" and after "cantatas". –Vami done --GA For another performance of the Easter cantata on 27 March 1731, Bach revised it, Revised what? The words or sheet music? –Vami The cantata. - The first time (1724) he had not revised it, other than putting new text to the music. Do you think how exactly should be mentioned here? The words stayed, but he composed new recitatives, among other changes. Or should that rather go to the Easter cantata article? --GA Add a tiny bit of clarity, like what you said just above me here, and save the whole context for the Easter cantata's article –Vami tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC) (a line from the first tenor aria) Un-parentheses and include in the sentence with a comma or dash. –Vami done --GA The cantata was published in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA), the second complete edition of Bach's works, in 1963, edited by Alfred Dürr, with a critical report the following year. Move "in 1963" after "Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA)" to get rid of a comma. –Vami no because "the second ..." explains NBA, should not be separated. --GA The sentence has too many commas. There is no reason to retain the date where it is. I agree with Vami. --JM year moved to the beginning, then - we cant separate a thing and its explanation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Neue Bach-Ausgabe (New Bach Edition) Unitalicize the English in parentheses. –Vami Why? It's a book title, not only a translation, as "New Bach edition" would be. --GA A- Astute point, my bad. –Vami The tenor as Time looks at the past: "Es streiten, es prangen die vorigen Zeiten im Segen für dieses durchlauchtigste Haus." (The past times struggle, they glory in blessings for this illustrious house.) Well here's a punctuation riddle. I recommend removing the periods in the German text and the parentheses, then ending the sentence with one. –Vami Not convinced, because this incipit is a full sentence, unlike the others. I think that as long as the full stop is within the quotation marks, that should be clear. --GA I wrestled with this during CE. Would prefer to delete the periods. They look strange. --JM The competition of the times is illustrated by figurations in the first violins. What does this refer to? I'd assume (as a dabbling Baroque enthusiast) this means music and the arts. –Vami No, "the times" are still past and future. How can that be clearer? I tried combining two sentences. --GA Reworded for clarity. --JM Ah. JM did exactly what I would sad to do (capitalize "Times"), so all's well. –Vami Bach's instrumentation complements the text well NPOV? –Vami How would you word that he chose strings when strings are mentioned in the text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Movements 5 and 7 have two instances of Citation 1, and only Citation 1. Movement 8 has three instances of Citation 1 with no citation dividing them. –Vami Quotations need a citation right after them. --GA Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147 Link. –Vami done (no idea how I lost it, was there before ...) --GA Schloss Köthen Change to Köthen Castle, link. –Vami No. It's not a castle. In a different Schloss (Weilburg, DYK), we realized that Palace is a better translation but not perfect, because it seems to mean only the building while Schloss is the complex, gardens and all. Better original than loss in translation. - I linked it now, though, as already in the first image caption. --GA [...] for which it was written. I recall the piece being written for a man, not a castle. –Vami Sorry for that hasty wording ;) - short for: the location where the first performance probably took place, which is too clumsy, so I dropped it altogether. --GA Bach's cantata Durchlauchtster Leopold, BWV 173a, his Brandenburg Concerto No. 4, and finally Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht Remove "his"; the pieces before and after Brandenburg Concerto No. 4 in the sentence have been established as being Bach's. –Vami Not sure, because it doesn't come with a BWV number, and readers perhaps don't know. I added a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) That works. –Vami It was titled: Replace the colon with a comma. –Vami Colon removed. Comma would not be correct. No punctuation needed here. Please indicate section name in comments. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC) There's no colon after "titled", and I can't change the colon in the title because it's part of the quote. Again, thank you for specific and helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) I replied a few time, with thanks to both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jenhawk777

Full disclosure: I consider myself a friend and admirer of Gerda, however, if admiring Gerda and her work is a disqualifier, it will probably disqualify everyone she's ever come in contact with, so, I will do my best to be as fair--and as critical--as possible. This is a good article and I am inclined to support it, but I will go through the prose and do a reference check of anything in English.

Thank you for taking the time to look. This article, as pointed out in the beginning, was written by several people, I am only the nominator ;) --GA

• The music remained a manuscript and, like nearly all of Bach's cantatas, was not printed in his lifetime. Does that mean handwritten manuscript?

  Teach me English, isn't manuscript defined as handwritten? --GA

That is one of its common uses. It can also refer to any unpublished work, handwritten or not. Author's today still refer to their computer printed documents as manuscripts. It's a minor point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am through Movements where I am trying to decide if it wouldn't be appropriate to include just a little more detail.

  I'd love to add, but unfortunately this piece wasn't discussed much in detail, as a one-day-piece, and not even the derived Easter cantata was discussed much, as a derived work. Anybody: give me more sources, and I'll happily add. --GA

• For example It reflects that Anhalt was given many hours of blessing in the past. Who is Anhalt? What blessings? I'd kind of like to have a few examples.

  Please see History of Saxony-Anhalt. Leopold was a prince of Anhalt-Köthen. I am a copy editor and using initials JM. Jmar67 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Added link to Anhalt-Köthen. –Vami

  Changed link, text refers to Anhalt. --JM

  Thank you, all! --GA

Yes! Thank you, that's perfect. As someone who knows nothing of Bach's music, I thought this might be a question other ignoramouses (ignoramice??) would ask. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• 5, gives some details about Leopold's qualities like what?

  Will look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I can't do more tonight--it's already after midnight here. I'll be back tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Finished with prose review. It's an excellent article. Now spot checking references. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• The refs I looked at were good. This article has my support for featured article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt

• "when the cantata title was chosen as the motto of an international conference about chronology in Bach's music" I might say "when the cantata's title was chosen as that of an international conference on chronology in Bach's music ..."

  done, thank you for language finesse! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• "he had to write cantatas only for secular feast days: the Prince's birthday and New Year's Day. He wrote Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht as a congratulatory cantata for New Year's Day of 1719.[6] (paragraph) Of the twelve cantatas which Bach may have composed for the two occasions " As it is, the focus on "secular feast days" causes in the next paragraph less likelihood that the reader will remember "what two occasions". I would address by starting: "he had to write cantatas only for the Prince's birthday and New Year's Day, the court's secular feast days. He wrote ..."

  done a bit differently, please check. ---GA

• You say "prince's birthday" and "Prince's birthday". I would check all instances of "prince" so as to assure consistency.

  done --GA

  Should be lowercase per MOS if not accompanied by name. Reverted. --JM

  thank you ---GA

• "The music remained a manuscript" I might say "The music remained in manuscript"

  done --GA

• "However, the music of the original Köthen work was separated from its text because Bach used the sheets for his Leipzig performance." This reads a bit unclearly. I imagine "the sheets" are the score, but this might be better rephrased with an eye to the less musically educated.

  A sentence I found, - will think about saying that better, but not after midnight ;) --GA

  I tried now, moving the sentence to after one about the new text. Perhaps you can help to clarify. Bach simply wrote the new text in the old performance material, his score and the singers' parts. So the former text was no longer there (I don't know exactly how, sorry.) It took some detetive musicologist to make the connection that this was the Köthen cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  Reworded slightly. What is the source? --JM

  I consulted Dürr in the BWV 134 section, and rewrote it. Better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  Again, rephrased for flow. Seems OK. Later softened "no changes" to "no significant changes" since other ref says "minor changes". Agree? --JM

• "For another performance of the Easter cantata on 27 March 1731, Bach revised it further, including the composition of new recitatives for the 1724 text." This also seems a bit unclear. I might say following the first comma, "Bach used the 1724 text with new recitatives" Assuming that the recitatives were the significant change, the "revised it further" is implied.

  Well, it's only 3 recitatives. Will think. --GA

  Again, perhaps you can clarify. - In a way, he had not "revised" it the first time, just writing new text to existing music. How could that be said better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• "with a critical report the following year.[2]" What is a critical report?

  Editors of critical editions write about what sources they consulted and which choices they made, often just within the publication, but for this monumental one in extra books, the critical reports. - more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It reflects that Anhalt was given many hours of blessing in the past.[1]" I might toss in a ", the prince's domain," after "Anhalt" (or "Prince's" if you decide on capitalization)

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• "(Help, o Highest," I would capitalize o

  only, the reference from which it is quoted doesn't ---GA

• In the text, Koopman's recording is listed as 1988, in the table as 1998.

  very observant, fixed ---GA

• You are not consistent on the italicization of Hunting Cantata.

  but now ---GA

• Why is "Köthener Herbst" italicized?

  probably in this impulse to italicise everything German, but this is a festival name, removed italics ---GA

• " with published results" I'm not clear what these are. Maybe "proceedings" for "results"?

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, very good catches and food for thought, - two still open, - I am rather busy today, and promised a birthday present article ;) ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I responded now to the so far open issues, making more changes but not sure about all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support seems all good to me. The remaining minor issues I will leave to your discretion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

SN54129

I haven't read any of the previous reviews, so apologies in advance for any repetition. Also note that I am deliberately—due to an absolute dearth of musical bones in my body—reviewing this as the most lay of all laymen, so further apologies in advance if I ask questions that have blindingly obvious answers. Incidentally, that's why I deliberately avoided looking at any of the technical stuff—I wouldn't know whether it was right or wrong!—so prose only.

• I wondered: do we have a little more detail on the date of composition? Opening the history section, you give a range of dates for his attendance at the court, and then state that it was performed on NYD 1718. I assume this means he composed it the previous year—but, I don't know, perhaps they take longer?—anyway, I think a specific date would be useful here if you've got one.

  (same question further up) he usually composed shortly before a performance, but we don't kow, and what would it change? --GA

• "Of the twelve cantatas which Bach may have composed": perhaps "Of the twelve cantatas which Bach is thought to have composed"?

  "is thought" by whom? --GA

• "30 kilometres (19 mi)": consistency between abbreviations.

  you are right, and these things keep being hard for me ;) --GA

  Fixed. Spell out. --JM

  Restored. There is no requirement for "consistency between abbreviations". The MoS guides us to spell out unit names on first occurrence and thereafter use abbreviations. That is rational, because a non-English speaker might not recognise an abbreviation unless they have seen the full unit name. MoS also suggest supplying conversions for units that differ between imperial and metric, which is also sensible, but there's no point in giving the full unit for the conversion because anybody who understands e.g. distances in miles, but not kilometres, will understand the abbreviation for miles. There is therefore zero reader case for a full unit name as the converted quantity and we don't do it. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a reason (this is more curiosity on my part) that "Auserlesene und theils noch nie gedruckte Gedichte unterschiedener Berühmten und geschickten Männer (Selected and partly never printed poems of different notable and skillful men)" is immediately translated whereas the piece that follows— Der Himmel dacht auf Anhalts Ruhm und Glück, BWV 66a—is not. Perhaps because the latter is wikilinked I guess? (Incidentally, isn't "skillful" > "skilful"? Or perhaps it's an AmEng/BrEng thing.)

  This one is translated because it has no article, while the other has, so you can be sure - if really interested - to find the translation there. These Baroque titles often mean nothing, - well, this one does, and perhaps I'll change my mind. --GA

  I added two translations after all, because it helps clarifying "Anhalt" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "dialogue of two allegorical figures" > "dialogue between two allegorical figures"?

  if you say so, - these subtleties remain a secret, so thank you! --GA

• "remained in manuscript...not printed in his lifetime": I think the sentence could be tightened—perhaps something like "stayed a manuscript, like most of Bach's cantatas, remaining unpublished during his lifetime". Although almost seems tautological: if it stayed an MS, then it wasn't published. You might consider dropping the reference to the MS?

  (see further up) This sentence (now changed) was in the article before me, and I have this tendency what others brought in before me. Feel free to tighten it. --GA

• "Bach led the first performance of the cantata on..." lots of cantatas! Suggest "Bach led its first performance on...", as you've just mentioned the cantata a few words earlier.

  done, thank you, - in another article, a reviewer counted mentionings of the word and arrived at a three-digit number ;) --GA

• "Bach used the secular cantata later in Leipzig as a basis for the Easter cantata": can this be rephrased? The double cantata jars a little, how about "Bach's later Easter cantata in Leipzig reused/was based on the earlier...", or something? If I've just got confused, apologies; but it's quite a technical sentence.

  will see, - it's a key fact of his (parody) method to reuse material --GA

• "The new text, by an unknown poet..." Here's a thing! To the layman—i.e., me—this could sound like it was re-written; can we have a little more o why this happened and (if we don't know who wrote it) why we don't know the author? It sounds like a Big Deal—and if it isn't, then something to tell us why it wasn't (maybe it was a common occurrence, for example?)

  We don't know the authors for most of his church cantatas, - do we agree that we talk about the Easter cantata? How else can we say that it is so for this one also? --GA

• "The instrumental parts were usable unchanged": this is complex—something like, "The instrumental parts could still be used as they were"?

  I don't get the meaning of "still" here. Would you suggestion be alright without that word? --GA

  "still" = "continue to". I modified this from "could" to avoid interpretation as "might be possible". Later I saw that the source used "could". Current wording also serves as looser paraphrasing. --JM

• "and likely wrote a new score on this occasion"> "...for this occasion", assuming that he didn't sit there and write it in front of the audience :)

  good catch!

  Changed. --JM

• "...who wrote a...": suggest "...author of a..."; also, how about "discovered" rather than "found"? The former makes it clear that she was (presumably) searching for things like this, while the latter suggests serendipity.

  will do --GA

  done now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• " found the printed text"; now, this is interesting. I think some clarification would be good here—unless I've missed something (perfectly possible!), the last we heard was that the original cantata was never published during Bach's life, and it was a manuscript at that point. Now we hear that there is a printed text. This suggests that some more detail on the printing history is needed—basically, what happened to the MS after JSB died? This sentence also implies that the printed text itself had gone missing (otherwise, presumably, Spitta wouldn't have needed to find it). If Bach does in 1750, and Spitta discovers it c.1870, what had happened in the meantime?

  Printed text: Hunold published his works. --GA

• If "Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe" is a publication (rather than the name of a society), wouldn't it be italicised? (MOS question which I'm sure you know the answer to better than me!)

  Well, it's an edition in many volumes, printed over many years, - would that be italic?

• "However, the Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe did not make..."; tighten, "However, the Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe did not print..."

  I tried differently, avoiding the "not", please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "with a critical report the following year": What is this exactly?

  same question by Wehwalt --GA

I need to drop everything at this point, so please be patient, and not surprised that where I said done, is not done, and will likely have to wait for tomorrow. Many thanks for good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "While the derived Easter cantata was included in the complete recordings of Bach's church cantatas by Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Gustav Leonhardt, Helmuth Rilling, Ton Koopman, Pieter Jan Leusink, John Eliot Gardiner and Masaaki Suzuki, the festive secular cantata dedicated to the specific occasion was recorded only a few times" > wow  :) can this be broken up at all? I'm not sure how but that's a long list of names in the middle of what's already quite a complex sentence. I'll have a think about it myself in the meantime.

  We could just say "in the complete recordings" and link somewhere, but if we mention names we should mention all, for fairness. - Some of the redordings have their own articles, such as Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, and there's a summary on Bach cantata#Complete Recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "on the occasion of the 80th birthday of Bach scholar Alfred Dürr": you've already mentioned Durr above, so suggest the career detail is moved up there. That would shorten this sentence, which could be reformed as (something like) "to celebrate Durr's 80th birthday" perhaps.

  Most readers of this rather speacial article will know Dürr. It's just nice that Time (the timing of Bach's works) was one of his main topics, and so important in the cantata. I'd prefer to have that together. --GA

• " with published results": they later published the proceedings of the conference?

  "proceedings"? --GA

• "The cantata was performed in a public celebration of Dürr's birthday": we know whose celebrations they were from the previous sentence; suggest, "As part of the birthday celebrations, the cantata was performed..."

  done --GA

• You might want to link musicological.

  done --GA

• In fact You should probably recast the "Legacy" section—just that, as it is, you mention the proceedings being published, then mention the celebratory performance, and then go back to the publication. Combining my couple of suggestions above, this could read something like:

  In 1998, an international musicological conference was held in Göttingen, Germany, to celebrate Durr's 80th birthday. It was titled "'Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht': zur Chronologie des Schaffens von Johann Sebastian Bach", and featured a public performance of the cantata.[29][30] The conference proceedings were subsequently published, and a reviewer later noted that the topics covered by international musicologists such as Hans-Joachim Schulze (de), Andreas Glöckner and Jean-Claude Zehnder (de) generally focused specifically on the person's field of expertise in relation to Dürr's achievements.[3]

  I adopted it somewhat, please check. --GA

• Actually—that last sentence ("the reviewer noted that..." is a bit of a mouthful, and, if you don't mind me saying, I'm not sure of the relevance: it seems to be discussing what various musicologists said about another musicologist at his birthday, rather than discussing the cantata itself.
  ——SerialNumber54129 11:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  it's just he is The Bach scholar, so please forgive me a sentence of honouring ;) - shortened as part of the above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I assume a source review is still needed. As a potential new formal process within FAC or elsewhere, I thought I'd get some (more) practice.

Thank you very much! --GA

Bibliographic information

• I was confused by the section that begins the sources, "Bach Digital". As an online resource, can these three links just be included with "Online resources"?

  Bach Digital is The source for sources for Bach's works, access to where the origonal documents are, and much more. It was separated in other similar articles (BWV 4, BWV 125). --GA

• Can you use {cite book} appropriately to make Richard Jones a translator, in the first book entry?

  I could but feel that he did more than translate, revising 30 years after the book was written, and as a scientist, not a translator only. --GA

  OK, I figured (book says "revised by Jones" or such).

• Can you mark all German sources as such? A few are marked "in German", but no others are. Alternately, can you remove any remaining marks, as it should be fairly clear to any person interested in this topic that German is involved. Looking for consistency here. :-)

  good idea, done, I hope --GA

• "1.4" is actually "I.4"—aren't you happy I'm helping?!

  I am happy ;) --GA

• Wolff 2001 is 2000 according to the copyright page of the book. (Both GBooks and Amazon say "2001" but 2000 is right there on the page, and in the provided library call number.)

  fixed --GA

• I think the conference report could be cited more fully. If you click on "cite this", APA, they provide "Internationales wissenschaftliches Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Dürr (1998 : Göttingen, Germany) & Dürr, Alfred, 1918- & Staehelin, Martin (2001). "Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht" : zur Chronologie des Schaffens von Johann Sebastian Bach : Bericht über das Internationale wissenschaftliche Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburstages von Alfred Dürr, Göttingen, 13.-15. März 1998. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen". You don't have the "author" beginning there; perhaps there is a better cite template for such reports?

  I tried with this template, would not know a specific one. --GA

• no retrieval date for some online sources

  added --GA

• A date such as 2012 for Ridout - where is that from? And 2018 for ArkivMusic? I removed 2018 from AllMusic, which was "retrieved in 2016".

  The Ridout date is from the url, the website is organized by review months. The other, sorry, probably from copying and failing to change --GA

• "Translation: David Kosviner" on the PDF.

  added --GA

• Can I suggest "dissertation" be added to the d-nb.info link. It's also not marked as a PDF. This is fundamentally more of a "cite book" scenario with the dissertation mentioned, and a URL given.

  agree (but it's no PDF) --GA

  The link "https://d-nb.info/1106404866/34" loads a 245-p. PDF for me!

  Learning. It doesn't have .pdf as file type ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of changing domain names to web site names, where possible.

  Thank you! --GA

• I don't understand at all what is being cited in "9. Köthener Herbst". Is this a document storage site that happens to have this file/PDF?

  The concert at the palace where it was first performed is cited, p. 22, in the context of the festival. --GA

  I think I understand the citation now. So you say p. 22.--now I see where "9. Köthener Herbst" comes from--except that's "8. Köthener Herbst"

• is the publisher of second to last "Leipziger Universitätsmusik"?

  yes, better (the choir is part of it) --GA

• External links ignored.

  Among the external links is Julian Mincham, on whom much of the article relied before I expanded, but who - according authority Brianboulton is not a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for a diligent look at the sources, - relief, because I wondered whom I would molest with this. More replies (to the concerns below) to come soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Source quality

• Bischoff is in the dept of computer science, and provides primary text ("Here you can find the texts of all of J. S. Bach's vocal works"). Is there not a better source for this? Surely books or more authoritative online works include the text? It was in the article before you started, I expect from retrieval date.

  It was there, and is in the cantatas articles up to GA level. I moved it to the scoring table, and only supporting. If you feel strongly about it, I'll move it to the external section, like some others, but Bischof overview is the clearest overview at a glance. Dürr-Jones takes 3 pages, and is not accessible online for all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I think the table is relying on Bischoff for the columns "type, vocal, winds, strings", right? But Durr supports the whole table, hopefully? I accept your argument that an online source is convenient for people without book access.

  Both Dürr and Bischof support the table, but I confess that it's in a way original research that an oboe is a wind instrument ;) - The split of brass, winds and string makes sense - and is the same in other such articles - because it's typical for Bach to give an aria a certain colour/character, such as strings only for #4, and is nice to see that at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Source checks

• Note 9, p. 798: Where can we establish that the prince's birthday is 10 Dec.? His article differs (is this a calendar issue)? Nevertheless, not clear from the text, but I may be missing context given all the German involved. well, I found p. 816, not cited, which mentions the birthday, by searching.

  I now begin a page sooner, which says "the birthday of the reigning prince" (in general, not a specific prince), + added (before I even got to here) the Bach Digital page for this cantata which also has 10 December. All in English ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  I see your point, about the conflict with our article on him. "Old style" could be, only for Bach the difference is 10 days, for him 11?? Leap year somewhere? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Avoid this issue and just say "birthday in 1718"? --JM

  What do others think. If I was a reader, and saw in the quoted reliable sources "10 December" but the article only gives a year, I'd not know what to think :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Fine as is; the book says 10 Dec (while writing the original comment I think I saw 11 Dec in another source); whatever you decide is fine.

  The problem I see (but not really for this article) is that our article on Leopold says 29 November, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note 10, a (p. 809): When I search for "providence" in the book, I get something that looks like support on p. 285. I don't get it. You have literally linked to p. 809.

  I gave it two other sources. For Dürr, it's a bit later, but sadly on a page I can't see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Outriggr (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  For context, I wasn't aware/forgot that this FAC might not "need" a source review because Gerda is not a new nominator. (FWIW, image reviews, source reviews, and any exemptions therefrom are not mentioned in FAC materials at all, that I can see.) Outriggr (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  I am aware that this FAC needed your eyes ;) - and thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just to wrap up this section for coordinators, it'a source review pass. I didn't do as many verification tests as I hoped, but all the items mentioned here are resolved. Outriggr (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tourbillon

I'm familiar with much of Bach's instrumental work but not so much with his vocal pieces. It was interesting reading about this somewhat obscure cantata and I find no major issues with the article itself. There are several red links at the end - is there enough material to create those articles? If not, the links should rather be omitted. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tourbillon! There is only one red link, all others are {{ill}} links to the German Wikipedia which establish some notability and provide those who can read German with direct access (and others could translate what they find there). Having said that, all these links are planned to turn blue before the end of the year, - I just added them to my to-do-list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, would still think they're better off just linking to the German version without having a local red link, but it's no big deal. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Direct linking to any foreign is a no-no ;) - Imagine you are blind, and your screenreader tells you something written in German with English pronunciation. - Anybody reading: if you see a direct link to a foreign language, please convert it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Nice work, I suspect I will be supporting. Some quibbles:

• The singers are supported by - vocalists

  That would be the first time I'd use vocalist in classical music. --GA

  I don't understand this cryptic reply so have edited. Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• The character of the music - the music, drop "the character of the"

  and then what? "the style"? - we can't compare music and opera. --GA

  Wot? But your not distinguishing music and opera here? Ceoil (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• he made no changes - did not change

  reluctant, coming from German ;) --GA

  He, as somebody that spent his 20s living with a German lass (who still lives in Cork and chats so I cant be all that bad) Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• and replace the text by words for the occasion - with words

  taken --GA

• In an adaptation for performances in the 1730 - in a 1730s adaption

  sorry, not convinced, trying to avoid a year as an adjective, + it's two performances we know of which doesn't show --GA

  In 1730s adaptions. Trying to reduce verbosity. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Not sure yet. We miss "performance", - and it's rather rare that we know when a cantata was performed again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  ???In the 1730? We are not loosing any meaning or specificity here. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the first version of this Easter cantata, Bach made no significant changes to the music other than omitting the fifth and sixth movements - these seem like pretty significant 'changes' to me. Why not "Bach omitted the fifth and sixth movements"

  how then would you say - which needs to be said, that in this and one more case he simply had the music copied and wrote new text underneath? - omitting movements for reasons of time requirements is not really any change to what he had composed. --GA

  Thats not coming across. For a lay reader it seems like you are hand waving the removal of two structural passages. Ceoil (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• were thus aware - dont like 'thus'

  Any suggestion? (It was there before I expanded.) --GA

  Simply remove the word "thus". It was intended as a pointer for future editing. Have taken out. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• his structure is similar to other cantatas Bach composed in Köthen, but it is different from most of his church cantatas: "similar to his Köthen cantatas, but differ...

  that could be works by other composers, no? --GA

  No. Note "his" Köthen cantatas. Ceoil (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• the cantata culminates in a choral movement opened by the tenor's "Ergetzet auf Erden" - tense: "opening with"

  good catch --GA

• The middle section of the movement is again - The middle section is again Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  done --GA

• Of the twelve cantatas Bach may have composed for the two occasions during his six years in Köthen, Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht is one of two which survived, the other one being - Jesus. I'm okish with numbers, but this...needs to be broken down with more clarity. I think the difficulty comes in not properly defining the categories you are trying to distinguish. Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Will think about that one, RL.

Thats about it. These I suspect *are easily fixed. Ceoil (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you good points, some fixed, some questioned, no time right now for the last one, possibly also don't get the question yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Re the last pont, you are leaving too much for the reader to figure out - 12, 2, may, 6, 2, and maybe an other. I head scratched. Ceoil (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  I tried to avoid that six years in Köthen times two occasions is twelve, - any suggestion? - How about: "Only two cantatas survived of the twelve that Bach is thought to have composed in his six years in Köthen"? - It should be clear that this is one of the two, as it obviously survived. - Open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Much better Gerda; but i'd even go "while in Köthen". Ceoil (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  reworded --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving to Support, though some issues are unresolved, they are not material to promotion. Gerda, if you are ok with it, might give another ce pass tonight or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Brief comment from Brianboulton

I can't offer a detailed review, but the opening paragraph of the lead seems to be rather clumsily written and could, I think, be refashioned to provide a more welcoming intro to the article. For example:

• The English translation of the title should be given in quotes

In other similar articles (compare BWV 125), we use italics for translated titles that are used as titles in English, but not for a simple translation in English. --GA

• What is the purpose of including the "B 134 1" label as well B 134a?

Sigh. Anout the BWV, I mean. In 2018, the BWV was renumbered. What used to be BWV 134a is now BWV 134.1. While the new numbers are somewhat more logical, I am sure the old ones - which are used in all the sources - will remain to be used, so - sigh - we have to show both. --GA

Why not say "formerly BWV 134.1, now BVW 134a" - which would clarify things? Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I must have been unclear, if like that it would be just the opposite, I mean the traditional number was 134a. "Formally" is wrong, because even source which introduces 134.1 has both on the same level. If you ask me nobody will care about the new number, but it's (also) official as of 2018. When it was introduced to the article by Francis Schonken, he said "formerly" for 134a, but I disagree strongly. It's in all sources from the first NBA edition in 1963, and will keep being used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As you put "BVW 134a" in the article title, it is reasonable for the uninitiated such as myself to assume that this is the generally accepted index number. So what, exactly, is the status of BVW 134.1? This might seem like straining after a gnat, and I'm sorry that I originally misunderstood, but the issue remain confusing unless it is properly explained. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

BWV 134a was put in the article title when it was created, in 2010. The new additional number came recently, by the third version of the BWV numbers, called BWV3 by Francis, which came as a complete surprise to me. I don't think we should change historic article names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to specify that the work was written in Köthen, when you say it was written for the Köthen court?

I'll think about it. It's standard to give the location soon, - most cantatas Leipzig, some Weimar, some Köthen.

• Why is the work described both as a "secular cantata" and as a "serenata"?

Secular cantata is the genre. Serenata, for the evening, more specific, and afaik in historic sources. --GA

• I'm not clear what "congratulatory" implies. Who was being congratulated, and why? "Celebratory" might be a better word?

That was a sentence found, and try to keep what thers did before me. When reading further you'll see that Leopold is congratulated a lot, but I'll change it. --GA

Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• (The English translation of the title should be given in quotes--a-ha! I was reverted here, but then I wanted all similar constructions in quotes, which does feel "busy". Special:Diff/866110169 (said light-heartedly) Outriggr (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for looking, Brian, hope I could help. On vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You've made the odd change, though to me the opening still looks rather messy. But I'll leave the judgement to others. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We sadly can't help the BWV numbers, unless we take the new one that nobody knows to a footnote. We could postpone the translation to later in the opening, talking about that of course there's more than one, the one shown being a singable one (matching the music) rather than close to the meaning. What do you think. I was out all day, just returning, and will do something about the repition of Köthen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this slightly garbled post. All I'll add concerning the translation is that if it a paraphrase rather than a literal translation, all the more reason to put it in quotes. But as I say, I'll leave this and the other matters for others to determine. Good luck with the nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem to put a translation in quotation marks if it helps, - it would just just be different from any other article on a Bach cantata, several of them FAs and GAs, and I am not sure what exactly it would add. - I am sorry about typos in my post made in a rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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