Jump to content

Talk:Magnificat (Bach)

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

I dedicate my efforts to get adequate Wikipedia coverage on Bach's Magnificat to the memory of Luc de Vos. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description based on D-major score

[edit]

The description below (from here) is entirely based on the D major score (D-dur = D major = BWV 243). Nothing there that can't be included in the Magnificat (Bach) article, except for errors etc...

1

[edit]

The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders which are assigned to a special function.[1] An instrumental ritornello presents the material with almost continuous runs in the upper parts, octaves and broken triads in the bass. The sopranos enter first, in third parallels: they sing the first word Magnificat anima mea (literally: makes great) with a melisma on the first syllable, ending in a figure like a trill, then a stressed dotted note on the the stressed syllable "gni", and relaxing on "ficat". The motif is abbreviated to a fanfare of just four notes, a low upbeat followed by three same notes, with the first one dotted. The sopranos sing it twice, reaching first E-flat, then G.[2] The interplay of the fanfare and the melismas shapes the movement. One measure after the sopranos, alto and tenor begin to imitate the sopranos, another measure later, the bass adds the short motif as an octave up. The text remains Magnificat for most of the movement, the conclusion "anima mea" (my soul) is heard by the alto for the first time, in measure 67, embedded in the other voices' Magnificat. All parts sing "Dominum" (the Lord) only once, soprano II beginning with a long note continued by a melisma in measure 73, the others in 74.[3] The closing ritorello is a shorter version of the beginning.[4]

2

[edit]

Et exultavit spiritus meus is an aria sung by soprano II, accompanied by the strings which introduce the motifs in eight measures. Et exultavit (And exults) begins with a broken upward triad and is followed by a rest, spiritus meus (my spirit) is a sequence of 16th notes, two for every syllable. Longer melismas illustrate salutari (salvation).[5]

3

[edit]

Quia respexit humiltatem (Because he respected the humility) is an aria sung by soprano I with an obbligato oboe. It is the only movement that Bach marked for a tempo at the beginning: Adagio.[6]

4

[edit]

Omnes generationes (all generations) is given to the chorus in the middle of the sentence, expressing the fullness of the praise. It is a complex fugue, with four voices starting together. The theme, beginning with five repeated notes, appears first in the bass, a measure later in SI on the same note, followed every half by entrances a fifth higher in SII, alto, tenor and bass, half a measure later in the alto.[7] Beginning in measure 10, the voices enter, again half a measure apart, with the bass beginning.[8] From measure 15, every entrance is one note higher, covering an octave as a symbol of completeness (omnes), again in the fast succession of half a measure: A, SII, SI, T, B, SII, SI, A.[9] In a final sequence beginning in measure 21, the voices enter from bottom to top on the same note, only one beat apart and doubling the word "omnes".[10] The movement concludes repeating the theme in homophony.[11]

5

[edit]

Quia fecit mihi magna (Because he did great things for me) is an aria sung by the bass, accompanied only by the continuo. The motif, again beginning with repeated notes, is introduced by four measures of the continuo, then repeated by the voice. Elements are a downward leap of a sixth and a downward scale of an octave, which appears in the voice on the word "sanctum" (holy).[12]

6

[edit]

Et misericordia (And mercy) begins in great contrast softly with undulating movement in 12/8 time, played by violins con sordino. It is a duet of alto and tenor, beginning in parallels of sixths and staying in homophony for most of the movement.[13]

7

[edit]

Fecit potentiam (He shows strength) shares key and scoring with the first movement. Based on a continuo line of octaves and repeated 16th, strength is expressed by irregular coloraturas in one voice and homophonic simultaneous calls of the other voices. The tenor begins the coloraturas of four measures, followed by alto, SII, bass and SI, leading to the climax of the movement, two homophonic calls.[14] The new text, dispersit, appears in various voices as broken triads, juxtaposed to material from the first section, but then isolated, in a sequence from the highest voice to the lowest and in downward triads.[15] The conclusion, mente cordis sui, is marked Adagio and illustrates the text in pompous long chords, with accents in the trumpets.[16]

8

[edit]

Deposuit potentes (He hath put down the mighty) is an aria for tenor, accompanied by only the violins united in powerful unison. The instrumental ritornello of 14 measures presents the material. The first motif, later sung on Deposuit, begins with a short upbeat and a long note, followed by a straight downward scale and a final leap up, while the continuo presents a broken triad, straight upward one octave. The second motif, later sung on potentes, begins with an upbeat of three 16th, followed by a rhythmic pattern which expands both the lowest as the highest note, while the continuo moves in steady steps down. For the third motif, sung on de sede (from the seat), the continuo picks up the rhythm of the second motiv, while the violins play a more ornamented downward motion in sixteen continuous 16th. A fourth motif is a sequence of three measures, each a sequence of a figure of a figure of four 16th which is slowly moving upwards. When the singer takes over, the violins accent the end of each motif one to three by a broken downward triad.[17]

The second thought of the verse, et exaltavit humiles (exalted them of low degree), is sung without introduction as a melisma of four measures, which includes downward runs but in a steadily rising sequence and ending similarly to the sequence of motif four, on exaltavit, but a modest downward line on humiles (the humble).[18] After a shorter ritornello, the tenor sings the complete text again, the first part in a slightly modified version, but the exaltation considerably expanded. Nonetheless, the ritornello in full length is repeated at the end.[19]

9

[edit]

Esurientes (The hungry) is sung by the alto, accompanied by two recorders which may symbolise the need of the hungry.[20] Bach used recorders also in his later cantata [[[Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39|Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). They often play in parallels of sixths and thirds. The ritornello of eight measures introduces a motiv moving up, on a continuo of steady quarter note, for four measures, later sung on Esurientes implevit bonis (He hath filled the hungry with good things), while downward lines and a continuo moving in eighth notes later go with et divites dimisit (and the rich he hath sent away). In Latin, the last word is inanes (empty), which Bach sometimes separates by rests.[21]

10

[edit]

Suscepit Israel (He hath holpen his servant Israel) is scored for an unusual combination of the three highest voices and two oboes in unison. The text continuoes recordatus misericordiae suae (in remembrance of his mercy) Bach "remembers" the Gregorian chant of the Magnificat, called tonus peregrinus, which the oboes play as a cantus firmus, on a continuo line changing only every measure, moving one step down or up. The voices imitate each other, also in gentle movement, the first a fifth up in a long upbeat, the second a fifth down oe measure later, the third up again, another measure later.[22] Almost the only leaps in the whole measure occur on the word recordatus, with a downward quart on each syllable,[23] a figure which Bach repeated in the Et incarnatus est of his Mass in B minor. The figure that has been interpreted as a symbol of the cross, because a line drawn from the fist to the forth note crosses one from the second to the third.

11

[edit]

Sicut locutus est (As he spake [to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever]), the last line of the Magnificat, is written in stile antico, the old style of the musical "fathers", as a strict fugue, one voice following the other as one generation follows the other. The theme has four distinctly different measures: the first repeated notes, the second flowing eighth notes, the third quarter notes in leaps, the fourth half notes leaping up a sixth.[24] The countersubject has leaps down and up an octave in the second measure, the flowing eighth notes in the third measure.[25] When the theme is developed the first time, four voices enter from bottom to top. In the second development, soprano I begins, followed by alto, tenor and bass.[26] The movements ends with a more homophonic section in which the bass has the theme once more, while soprano I sings long suspended notes covering almost an octave down.[27]

12

[edit]

The work is concluded by the doxology, Gloria Patri (Glory to the father), performed by the complete ensemble. Gloria is first presented as the major chord repeated three times, with a dotted note on the first syllable. In the second Gloria, leading to Patri, the voices sing the first syllable as an extended melisma beginning in upward moving lines, for three measures in the basses, half a measure less for each following voice.[28] In the third Gloria, leading to Filio (to the Son), in a similar pattern soprano I begins, followed by alto, soprano II, tenor and bass. In the fourth Gloria, leading to et Spiritui sancto (and to the Holy Spirit), in again similar pattern the voices follow each other from top to bottom, ending in a long cadenza.[29] The second part of the text, Sicut erat in principio (as it was in the beginning) repeats material from the beginning of the work but shortened, as a frame.[30]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Score, p. 5.
  2. ^ Score, p. 7.
  3. ^ Score, p. 14.
  4. ^ Score, p. 15.
  5. ^ Score, p. 16–19.
  6. ^ Score, p. 20–22.
  7. ^ Score, p. 23.
  8. ^ Score, p. 25.
  9. ^ Score, p. 26–27.
  10. ^ Score, p. 27.
  11. ^ Score, p. 28.
  12. ^ Score, p. 29–31.
  13. ^ Score, p. 32–36.
  14. ^ Score, p. 37–41.
  15. ^ Score, p. 42.
  16. ^ Score, p. 43.
  17. ^ Score, p. 44–45.
  18. ^ Score, p. 45.
  19. ^ Score, p. 46–48.
  20. ^ Score, p. 49.
  21. ^ Score, p. 49–52.
  22. ^ Score, p. 53.
  23. ^ Score, p. 54.
  24. ^ Score, p. 55.
  25. ^ Score, p. 56.
  26. ^ Score, p. 57.
  27. ^ Score, p. 59–60.
  28. ^ Score, p. 61.
  29. ^ Score, p. 62–63.
  30. ^ Score, p. 63–66.

Works cited

[edit]
  • Bach, Johann Sebastian. Magnificat D-dur. Bärenreiter.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnificat (Bach)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 06:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Will review. More soonest. Tim riley talk 06:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • Lead
    • WP:OVERLINK: "key" is linked twice in the lead.
    • link needed to the article on the E flat version
    • WP:LEAD: a lead must not contain information not substantiated in the main text. The statement that the work is among the composer's most popular is not backed up in the body of the article.
  • Information box
    • link needed to the article on the E flat version
  • History
    • As Rizzuti is a cited source for this and the companion article on the E flat version it seems odd, and confusing for our readers, to omit mention here of his contention about other possible feast days, mentioned in the other article.
    • "during a visit to the town" – a city, surely?
  • Extended settings of the Magnificat
    • Overlink: Schütz
    • "practiced" – if this article is intended to be in BrEng the verb is spelled "practised".
    • Overlink: Pachelbel.
    • Easter: why link here rather than at first mention?
    • "pregnant of" – the Oxford English Dictionary's examples have the preposition as "with" rather than "of".
  • The Visitation version(s)
    • "the very first version" – how is this different from "the first version"?
    • Overlink: Thomaskantor
  • The Christmas interpolations
    • Overlink: vespers
    • The block quote is 261 words long. There is no problem about copyright on this occasion as the text is so old, but putting such a huge slab of someone else's prose in the middle of our article sticks out rather, especially on what seems to be a matter more relevant to the BWV 243a article than to this one.
  • Other Magnificats by Bach?
    • "Bach's necrolog" – unhelpful use of obscure term, when the everyday "obituary" is available (and is indeed linked to from the word)
    • "A similar cantata…" – citation needed.
    • Overlink: Antonio Lotti
  • Structure and movements
    • "Note that the numbering" – WP:EDITORIAL
    • "A performance of the Magnificat…" – the comma splice in the sentence should be either a semicolon or a full stop. The statements about timings could do with citations to a WP:RS.
  • Scoring and key signature
    • Overlinks: tonic key and SSATB five-part choir
  • Symmetrical structure
    • The whole of this section from the start to the top of the table is noticeably short of citations. Do refs 48 and 49 corroborate all the statements in these 600+ words?
    • Table: not clear what the point is of having scoring details of the other version of the work (which are given in the companion article) in the article on the D major work. Confusing for the reader, and not easy on the eye on either of the screens I have viewed it on. [Later: I have tried a third screen, and the table is still no easier on the eye. Tim riley talk 11:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)][reply]
    • Similarly in the (excellent) analysis of the various movements why drag in details of the interpolations in and orchestration of BWV 243a? This needs to be looked at carefully with GA criterion 3b in mind: we need to stay focused on the topic of BWV243.
    • Overlink: cantus firmus
  • The hymns added in the Christmas 1723 version
    • Again, this seems to me to fall foul of GA criterion 3b. This information belongs (and is) in the article on BWV 243a and not here. That being so I refrain from listing the five overlinks in it.
  • Reception history
    • Overlink: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.
    • If in BrEng, we need "unravelled" rather than "unraveled".
    • Carl Philipp Emanuel: the piping to CPE's Magnificat took me by surprise. As we have linked to the man already it will be less confusing to the reader if we leave his name out of the piping here.
  • 20th century
    • Last sentence of first paragraph needs citations. Most of the second paragraph lacks citations, as do the first part of the third paragraph and most of the fourth.

There are the makings of a GA in this text, some of which is really excellent, but work is still needed. In particular, to meet the GA criteria the text needs to concentrate on BWV 243 and not keep straying off into details of the earlier work, and the uncited parts of the text need to be furnished with reliable sources.

I am putting the review on hold for a week to allow the nominator time to address these points. – Tim riley talk 10:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've started the processing of these recommendations, and will list questions here when they come up:
    • Re. "very" first version: I've tried to clarify by recasting the sentence somewhat [1] – However, not being a native English speaker language sensitivity may fail me whether this is an appropriate use of "very", and/or whether this clarifies Glöckners view sufficiently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine. My comments on the drafting points are merely suggestions: they don't affect the question of promotion to GA, where the criterion for prose is less demanding than that for FA. Tim riley talk 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re. Rizutti: all in all Rizutti is a bit of a problematic source, which I only discovered when working with it. Is it because he's an Italian writing English? Is it because the intent of his piece is first and foremost a theological contemplation? I don't know but a remarkable error like his confusing of Samuel Scheidt and Johann Schein, conflating them into a non-existent Samuel Schein was a first red flag that triggered my attention (others are his all in all confusing treatment of the tonus peregrinus, not knowing when to choose "translation" or "paraphrase", giving the wrong melody for the "German"-Magificat, etc.) As a rule I wouldn't cite Rizutti without another source saying the same.
    For the "on which feasts was the Latin Magnificat performed?" question Rizutti in fact doesn't say anything himself, except that it is "controversial", and then adds to the confusion. This is the link to his piece, the content on the question is footnote 2 p. 3. Please take a look. I don't know what to make of the sentence starting with "Moreover, the list of performances identified by Stiller can be implemented if we include..." near the end of the footnote. What I understand from that footnote is that Christmas, Easter, Whitsunday/Pentecost, Purification, Annunciation and Visitation are uncontroversial. That can be referenced to the sources used in the article for that content. The other possible feasts for a Latin Magnificat seem to make little difference for the composition discussed in the article. The more important remark in the context is imho the one derived from Spitta, that Leipzig had an uncharacteristic large amount of Latin for a centre of Protestantism. If we want to list more feasts as possible candidates for Latin Magnificats, I'd try to find the sources Rizutti mentions and take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re. city/town: I suppose I followed usage as in the sources I read, e.g. the English translation of Spitta referring to Leipzig most often as a "town" (Book 2, p. 276), and only in a few instances as a "city" (Book 2, p. 195) – I suppose this is a language sensitivity thing again, that maybe isn't comparable any more with the 19th-century when this translation was made. I propose to keep it with "town" as supported by that source, or is it best to follow a more modern usage? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re. excess BWV 243a material. Preliminary remark: the subject of this article is "Magnificat (Bach)", not "Magnificat in D major, BWV 243". As for its WP:BALASPS, the article tries to follow what the available sources do on average, that is: the sources that write about Bach's Magnificat in general, not about a particular version of the Magnificat. Some of these sources devote little attention to the E♭ version (Franz 1863 would be the most extreme example in that sense), but the bulk of them (Spitta, Steinberg, Marshall, Cantagrel, Dürr to name only a few) have extensive content on both versions when discussing Bach's Magnificat (including content on the Christmas interpolations). At the other extreme of Franz is probably Jenckins 2000 who has considerably more on the 243a version than on the D major version. Included in the scope of this article are the comparison between both versions, and covering the content of modern editions and performances that include transposed versions of the Christmas interpolations in the D major setting. That being said,
      1. The large Spitta quote is gone (it was supposed to explain Kindleinwiegen for which there exists a Wikipedia article now, that didn't exist yet at the time the quote was introduced – now a short sentence with a link to the new article suffises)
      2. the "comparison" table of the movements is slimmed to nine columns, I hope that it works better now on a variety of screens, and would like to hear about your perception in this regard.
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: pinging for the above questions. Once I know what to do with these I can complete the finetuning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just back from a week's absence. Shall deal with the above tomorrow. Regards. Tim riley talk 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies for my delay. RL getting in the way, but I'll do my damndest to get back here today or tomorrow, Tim riley talk 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking much more like a GA. I'll give it another (final, let us hope) close reading today and report back here. Tim riley talk 07:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

[edit]

In my view there is still more material about the E flat version in the current article than I would expect to see – or, I think, than a reader interested in the Bach Magnificat would want to see – but I recognise that there is no monopoly of wisdom on this point. The table now looks clear on all three screens I use, and my comments on the drafting points are merely suggestions, to be acted on or not as the nominator thinks fit. That being so:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

If you intend to take the article on to FAC I strongly recommend going to peer review first. Tim riley talk 15:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magnificat (Bach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magnificat (Bach). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magnificat_(Bach)&oldid=1188387086"