User talk:Counterpartner

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Counterpartner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Thank you for adding to BW 147a, but please tell me how the unity of text and form tells us that it was performed? Also: every fact - including this one - should come with a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Durr did not suggest that the text was quickly assembled, as is said in the text you restored. I have his book in front of me. He only doubts whether it was ever executed. Durr makes this remark considering BWV 147 - which is the 1723 reworking of 147a. The text it self is published by Franck and forms a unity. It was expressly made by him for the 4th Advent. It is a meditation of the gospellecture of that sunday (John the Bapist, and Christ's coming). Don't know if this is enough ? I performed it two weeks ago. That is why I added this. Counterpartner (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Please notice intenting on talk pages, to show where a response begins.) - Thanks for the reply. Nobody said the text was assembled in haste, no? No need to argue about that. - I didn't restore anything, - what made you think I did? This is Wikipedia, where anybody can edit. What you mean was probably this? You can find the history of edits to an article by - you may have guessed - clicking on "view history". - What Dürr said was that the text was "picked" in haste, because the style of the text is kind of old-fashioned for 1716. - That a cantata which Bach reused can be easily reconstructed goes without saying, no? - I'll watch this page in case you have more questions. Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I was not clear. If one quotes the German Bach scholar Alfred Dürr wrongly, I think one has to correct this. That is what I did, with the book of Dürr in front of me. Dürr does NOT say that the text op 1716 was picked in haste. Dürr does NOT say that the text was oldfashioned. So that is what I tried to correct. The only thing Dürr says is that he is not certain whether the MUSIC for the original cantata in Weimar was ever completed and/or performed. But since there is no evidence, this guess is as good as another. Counterpartner (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to bother you again. Thankyou for the update of the page. Very nice. Adding the info by Chr. Wolff is okay, but for this cantata his sources are also Alfred Dürr. AFAIK : no autograph score of 1717 exists. Only the 1723. To write that "Bach broke of after the first mvmt", sounds too sure regarding the evidence. My theory is that he performed the original cantata. My argument: the music of mvt 5 has a signallike character, which befits the 1717 text (also in Martin Petzoldt, Bach-Kommentar). But this can also not be proven. So I would prefer just to leave it unresolved (= what Dürr says). Counterpartner (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

extra: quote from Dürr: "Bach hat die zum 4. Advent bestimmte Dichtung im Jahre 1716 zwar komponiert (Kantate 147a), aber anscheinend nicht augeführt" (p. 744).

We can speak German if that's better for you ;) - Bach-Digital has an autograph of movement 1 dated 1716, see external links. What is there "too sure"? - Of course no 1717 score exists because Bach didn't compose any cantata in 1717. What was published in 1717 was Franck's cycle of texts, of which Bach only took those three Advent cantatas, at least for the time being. - Your theories - sorry to say so - are of no interest to Wikipedia articles. - Do we agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know the autograph. It's the 1723 cantata, there is no music score from 1716, not even partial (Dürr p. 117 - referring to NBA I/1 - Musik verschollen.) But perhaps you know of a source that states otherwise ? Counterpartner (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read the commentary "Datierung: 1716 (Satz 1), 1723 (Satz 2-5 [bis Bl. 6v), ca. 1728-32 (ab Bl. 7r)]". It's the 1723 cantata as well, Bach didn't write the movement again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. But what does that prove about the composition or performance in 1716 ? I don't see that you can infer from this that 'Bach 'broke up at that point'. Of course the paper is different after the first mvmt, simply because Bach inserted new text in 1723 and had to compose new music. He also included the arias from 1716 in a different order etc. So, I stick to my suggestion a few indents back, to not say anything with certainty about 1716, since we don't know anything with that amount of certainty about 1716. Just leave it open. At least that is what I would prefer. Counterpartner (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolff doesn't leave it open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we are back where we began. But he provides no evidence. The circumstance that he is a formidable scholar does not magically transform opinion into fact. Overstretching the few facts we know about Bach and Hineininterpretierung are traps everybody occasionally falls into, even Chr. Wollf (In his biography he did much cleaning up in the field of legends and myths, but some remain, and new are introduced). Counterpartner (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]