Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2020 [1].

Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about ... another cantata by J. S. Bach, a particular cantata, well beloved: Part one of the Christmas Oratorio. The article was the first attempt to give more attention to the six parts of the oratorio, composed to be performed on six occasions during the Christmas season. It received a detailed GA review by The Rambling Man. - Enjoy! Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today, the article was moved to the official name Jauchzet, frohlocket! Auf, preiset die Tage, BWV 248 I, without discussion, edit summary "more common". I had considered that when I created the article a year ago, but decided against it, as a lot of German, with two more commas, instead of the short and unique call that seems common enough (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reliable sources for the shorter title: you deciding to abbreviate based on a reasoning not found in reliable sources is imho not sufficient. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admitted that your choice is official (Bach Digital). I only informed, and gave my reasoning for a shorter and still unique and recognizable title. Adding: When the piece is performed (which I can't help having in mind), there's a long break between the two parts of the official title, one imitating the timpani, the other the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please cite reliable sources for the shorter title. The applicable policy is WP:AT. Quoting from that policy: "... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria ..." – so, starts with finding "independent, reliable English-language sources" for whatever article title you'd prefer, even if the current article title is the "official" one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Alt text should not duplicate caption

Ceoil

[edit]

I expect- hope- to support this article, but have quibbles, to follow shortly. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shout for joy, exult!; these lyrics should also be in the article body
    done, - I tried to present some variants, but understand. --GA
  • Lead: A choral introduction is..slightly confusing put - a very Germanic construction (have many german relations and do it myself at times :)); remove the opening choral and we have "A introduction", to give a sense of how odd this reads
    Do I get it right that you don't want to use "introduction"? - We could say movement, instead, or is there another word for that the first movement is not yet the story which begins with the first "scene" in the second movement? --GA
  • Lead:scored four vocal parts and a festive Baroque orchestra with trumpets - scored for four voices, don't like "festive"; too modern - themed?
    Which word would you suggest to say that this orchestra is unusually opulent - rich - multicoloured. I don't know any other music by Bach besides the Mass in B minor with so many different instruments. --GA
    I might have a try at this myself. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Link timpani
    Fine, but an exception, - normally in these cantata articles, we link instruments in the scoring section to avoid a sea of blue. --GA
    Dont assume that everybody is as absorbed as you. Anyway its not heavily linked already. Yes a blue word please. Ceoil (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see that I linked? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several movements rely - overstated: several out of 9?
    "three" then? which is a third in numbers, and possibly more than 3/4 in duration, because it concerns th long opening and 2 long arias, - how would you say that? "The extended opening movement and both arias"? --GA
  • Unusually for Bach, it opens with the timpani (kettledrums) alone. As the article is quite technical - "The chorus", rater than "it", as I gather that is why it is unusual
    Rather: the movement. Almost no choral first cantata movement by Bach begins with the chorus, that also would be an exception. But whatever music by Bach: no other begins with the timpani alone. - Our timpanist said he played more than 20 performances, but still has a funny feeling in his stomach before that lone entrance. It's five even-looking notes, but has to be like a spoken sentence, with stressed "syllables" and accent, such as a trill. - Everywhere else in Bach's music, timpani play with the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sequence comes from the secular model - 'Is inspired by', 'borrowed from', or is 'in the tradition of' (all very different things), rather than "comes". What is a secular model
    Let's begin at the end: the secular model for Jauchzet, frohlocket" (rejoice ...), as said a few times, is Tönet, ihr Pauken (Sound, you drums). If you were a composer wanting to express rejoicing, you'd probably not chose timpani alone, or singers singing like timpani, but Bach simply took what he had done in the secular cantata, where it expresses the text. What yould you suggest? "follows" perhaps? --GA
    Follows seems most apt in this case. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    done
  • I am pleased Gerda brought this here Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for a thorough look, very helpful already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant parse "Laßt uns den Namen des Herrschers verehren!" (let us revere the name of the sovereign)[1] is set mostly homophonic part with strings and woodwinds. - is set mostly homophonic
    sorry, muddled when changing, please check again --GA
  • Rathey observes how ontemporary listeners may interpret the dominant trumpets as royal instruments announcing the birth of a king; get they might interpret the trumpets as royal; its a stretch that they would be aware of their role in "announcing the birth of a king"
    The idea is that trumpets were used for the sovereign, be it the elector or God, - perhaps you can help wording that, - I tried. Could be even worth a line in the Dresden court section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the soprano sings line by line the sixth stanza - line by line? How is this different from "sings each line", and why are we even saying it. Ceoil (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Help, please, to say, that the lines from the chorale are interrupted/reflected by the recitative, line by line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources There are more sources than cites. Suggest you move those not used to "further reading". Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which one do you think of? --GA
Some of the sources are also external links. I would avoid this. Needs trimming, but otherwise all cited material is of the first rank, in that they represent the foremost scholars I would have expected after research today. Not seeing any formatting issues. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. CassiantoTalk 07:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: still reading through, and editing as I do so. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis

[edit]

I'm going to redo this edit – also drawing attention to the terse, and incorrect, prose in these two paragraphs that have now been moved to the general article, with partial rewriting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.g,

  • Incorrect: "...Thomaskantor (director of church music)..." Bach was both Thomaskantor, and Director musices of Leipzig's principal churches. These are two independent functions: before Bach's time these offices were sometimes held by different musicians. Only "Director musices of Leipzig's principal churches" translates to "director of church music". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terse and incorrect: "They allowed him responsibility ..." The responsibility was "given" to Bach, not "allowed" (it was his job description, not something he could choose to do or neglect). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Francis, I think you should have discussed your move of the background section once reverted.
  2. In a FA, there should be brief background, not only a link to another article. A see also to a broader coverage somewhere else would be fine, but I don't think moving it away from here completely, to the other article, serves the reader of this article.
  3. For Bach's time and after, Thomaskantor has become a synomym for his position, correct or not, therefore that posiotion needs a brief description. The fact that in earlier times, parts of his functions were held by different people, seems truly of little interest for this article. I need to jump, real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk)
Re. "For Bach's time ..., Thomaskantor has become a synomym for his position" – incorrect: Bach definitely preferred the "Director musices" title, which, in this context, is also the correct one. In Bach's time Thomaskantor rather referred to his job as teacher. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow,
--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This source sees is it differently: The Thomaskantor, with obligations at different churches. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I think this ineligible for FA qualification: I commented on one sentence (the first one I read...); similar comments can be given about almost any other sentence: the quality is far below what is expected of an FA, and its GA qualification should, imho, probably best be stripped from it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hack job
When I said "for Bach's time" I didn't mean "in Bach's time" (but: when we look at Bach's time).
Regarding the "terse" prose, my initial wording (1 November, taken from another cantata where a bit of background seemed needed because it is too little known that he was not only responsible for the Thomaskirche, nor are his cantata cycles that well known) was this:
"Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig, in the Electorate of Saxony, as its Thomaskantor (director of church music) in 1723. The position made him responsible for the music at four churches, and the training and education of boys singing in the Thomanerchor. Cantata music was required for the two major churches, Thomaskirche (St. Thomas) and Nikolaikirche (St. Nicholas), and simpler church music for two smaller churches: Neue Kirche (New Church) and Peterskirche (St. Peter).
Bach took office in the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. In Leipzig, cantata music was expected on Sundays and feast days except for the "silent periods" (tempus clausum) of Advent and Lent. In his first year, Bach decided to compose new works for almost all liturgical events; these works became known as his first cantata cycle. He continued the following year, composing a cycle of chorale cantatas with each cantata based on a Lutheran hymn. His third cantata cycle encompasses works composed during Bach's third and fourth years in Leipzig, when he composed new works less regularly. He thus accumulated a repertoire to draw from for the occasions of the liturgical year, including Christmas."
It was changed, possibly by Jmar67, a good copy-editor, and/or Ceoil who wrote many featured articles. You are quite welcome to copy-edit as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These two paragraphs are largely off-topic to the current article & rather terse reading, with several questionable (e.g. Thomanerchor is to a large extent an anachronism) passages. I have no time to devote to something that comes so far from what should be eligible for a GA (leave alone FA) context, and isn't even in the text of the current BWV 248/I article. BTW, I did rewrite it: see current opening paragraph of the Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I#Background section. I threw out the off-topic, and added a summary of the current Christmas Oratorio#History section (WP:summary style approach). What are you complaining about? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for a GA or FA eligible article I expect better than a hack job (with minimal adjustment) of text written for other articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, "four churches, where he trained and educated boys singing ..." is missing the point big time: he didn't (certainly not in 1734), and that is well documented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception topics: missing (at least) Spitta's less favourable comments about the parody operation, describing the first movement of BWV 248 I as one of the least successful of such recastings from Bach's hand (Spitta doesn't use the expression hack job but his comments are not far from it if I remember correctly – the author appearing exceptionally harsh on his favourite composer). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below: "... If you can't address the concerns, just say so, and we'll have done with this FAC – if you expect others to do the work for you: OK, I'm candidate, but then first stop this FAC procedure which rather hinders than helps." --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda frankly its not on Francis to add. The burden of comprehensiveness is on the nominator, and this looks like a great suggestion for making the article far more resonant and interesting. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(was below before but belongs here:) I was not up to write "reception" for this individual cantata, - perhaps for the oratorio as a whole, same as for recordings. If you, Francis, however, think it should be there, then feel free to write it. We obviously have a different concept of collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about collaboration, its about comprehensiveness. The two points being disputed above are addressed by FA criteria 1.b: the article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I was not up to write "reception" for this individual cantata, - perhaps for the oratorio as a whole,..." – well, my point really: this article should not have a "legacy" or "reception" section that is larger than that of the general article on the oratorio. Currently it has, like this morning it had a larger "context" or "history" section than that of the oratorio article: imho it is simply not possible to get this article past the post of FA criteria as long as the general article on the oratorio is so wanting, because content has to be distributed rationally between the general article and the article on an individual cantata. This morning, thus, when I tried to get that straightened out for the "context"/"history", I was immediately countered by a revert based on counter-productive GA/FA reasoning. So for clarity: let's strip GA from this article, stop the FAC procedure, and build the articles in harmony (which indeed will require moving around content back and forth between the general article and the individual cantatas' articles), after which can be decided whether individual cantata articles and/or the oratorio article are up for GAN and/or FAC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, before I forget (rather for the general oratorio reception section): if I remember correctly CPE Bach is very much at the base of giving much importance to the cantata vs oratorio distinction which we've become accustomed to (e.g. thus also in the BWV in a different chapter) – also not something we'd want to repeat in six cantata articles and leave unmentioned in the oratorio article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page manner
Gerda Arendt (and others): please refrain from modifying my comments on this page (including, thus far, partial deletion, moving around, changing the comment before my reply without following the applicable talk page rules, sectioning off with new subtitles thus cutting up a discussion, etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a discussion from where - in a FAC - (only) the nominator's introduction should appear, and yes, I inserted a new header to a question which should have been answered by yes or no, with a brief explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should a cantata article have background about Bach's job in Leipzig and his cantata cycles?

[edit]

I think yes, and believe that it may be the same wording as for other cantatas. What do others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But did, however, fail to mention:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have restored a shortened version of the removed 2nd para, but would expand per Francis' comments directly above. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that we have to mention Picander and late cycle. Both contain only few extant works, and seem a bit off-topic to me. They can be found in the navbox. This cantata "belongs" among the late cycle only by no better grouping. As part of an oratorio, it seems to be outside the normal cantatas, - actually some debate with energy if it is even a cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, is it possible so to give a brief sentence or two on the arguments around its inclusion within the late church cantatas. For lay readers like me, such grounding is very interesting, and useful. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hard for me, ask Francis who wrote all the cycle articles. An obituary for Bach mentioned five cantata cycles, and musicologists tried/try to match. Only the 1st and 2nd are more or less complete, filled with extant works for the many occasions of the liturgical year. The cycle that we call 3rd is already a combination of cantatas from two years, and the later two cycles seem really more the imagination of musicogists than reality, - or we lost much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Picander's is a rather complete cycle of librettos! Only we have rather few compitions by Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's resume:
  • BWV 248 I has no relation whatsoever to Bach's 1st cantata cycle (1723-1724)
  • BWV 248 I has no relation whatsoever to Bach's 2nd cantata cycle (1724-1725), nor to any chorale cantata later associated with that cycle
  • BWV 248 I has no relation whatsoever to Bach's 3st cantata cycle (starting 1725, and concluded likely some eight years before BWV 248 I was composed)
  • The Picander cycle of 1728–29, fairly early in the Picander-Bach collaboration, shares with BWV 248 I, of which at least the music resulted from a later collaboration between Bach and Picander, that both were the result of Bach-Picander collaborations.
  • The late cantatas are still the group to which BWV 248 I belongs, whether it is a loose group or an incompletely transmitted cycle (several cantatas in this group are secular cantatas on a Picander libretto later turned into a church cantata, as is BWV 248 I), and, furthermore, some of the context of BWV 248 I is explained in the Late church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach#Christmas to Epiphany section.
In short: 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycles should *not really* be mentioned in this article, Picander cycle and late cantatas group are indispensable to sketch the context of this cantata. All I see is Gerda not prepared to admit what shoddy work her hack job had resulted in. To put it clear: if the Picander cycle, the late cantatas, and BWV 248 I's relation to both, are not represented in the article, then 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle should absolutely not be mentioned while not related, and the worst kind of WP:COATRACK I saw in a long time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was me rather than Gerda restored hoping to kick start more than a one sentence background section, but now am clear, and this last point on context seems actionable. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to Thomaskantor: I believe that "Thomaskantor and Director of Music" would be misleading, - readers might think that the St. Thomas parish hired him for the church, and the city for the other tasks, while he had no church contract, afaik. "Thomaskantor" is a common term, but wrong, - same as Frankfurt Cathedral, no cathedral. We could write a more "correct" section without "Thomaskantor" but wouldn't readers miss something? I really don't know. Thoughts welcome.
Thomanerchor: of course - like Thomaskantor - it's a name from a later time, buut it's our article title, as the current. Open to suggestions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, please take it from me, I should, if I were you, stop defending the indefensible, afaics you're only showcasing your incompetence in Bach-related matters. If you can't address the concerns, just say so, and we'll have done with this FAC – if you expect others to do the work for you: OK, I'm candidate, but then first stop this FAC procedure which rather hinders than helps. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vami_IV

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of making some small copy edits. They include small grammatical corrections (spellings and punctuation), the removal of edit scars such as forlorn brackets, and the elimination of duplicate links per section.

Prose
  • The two links to the Gospel of Luke on WikiSource "Readings and text" both go to Luke 2:1. The second of these pieces of linked text also references a "3-7". I do not know if this means Luke 2:3-7 or chapters three to seven.
    Not sure if I understand the question. The first link and a later one begin at 1 and list the verses that Bach set: 1, 3-7. (He did not compose verse 2.) A further link also begins at 1, and goes to 14, because those were verses of the precribed readings for the day, from which Bach deviated. Perhaps that might be said specifically? The third link (mvmt 2) has 1, 3–6, and the last (mvmt 6) has 7. --GA
    So "3-7" is Luke 2:3-7? Could you add the "2:" suffix in that case? —Vami
    Sorry, I don't see 3-7 alone, - where would that be? ---GA
    "Luke 2:1, 3-7". —Vami
  • "viola (Va) and basso continuo." Preface these with an "a" to better denote the singular.
    it means "a viola part" which can be played by several players, and "basso continuo" is a group of players (here: cello, double bass, and organ). --GA
    "A viola part" is still a singular viola part. Please add? The basso continuo part is also still a basso continuo part. It might be plural in referring to musicians but not to parts. Speaking of, adding the word "parts" somewhere to the sentence would really clarify what's being discussed. —Vami
    When you have a concerto, you won't say "for a violin and orchestra", but "for violin and orchestra". ---GA
  • "at first timpani then trumpets." the timpani?
    again not sure, - timpani is a plural word, because - see picture - the (one) player needs two for the opening motif. --GA
    Ah, my error. —Vami
  • "the voices, now in imitation, dominate" Imitation of what?
    link added, - one voice imitating the other, singing a similar phrase but later. --GA
  • "but arrived at the solution in a revision" Solution to what?
    the original and unique thing we now have - which better word would you suggest? --GA
    Something like "but devised the existing version in a later revision". —Vami
    taken, missing however how unusual that version is ---GA
  • "contrasts the birth of Our Lord with poverty." I would not say this is exactly neutral.
    I don't recall having written that, - will check copy-editing. --GA
    • "While the compassionate text addresses the baby"
      what else? "tender" perhaps, "loving"? - You have the translation to go by. --GA
      I'd just change it to "refer to baby Jesus". —Vami
      There's more: the attitude of the singer to that baby, called "herzlieb" which - as existing translations show - is not possible to translate in a simple word, - I though "compassionate" might be it, but else? "beloved" seems already not stong enough. The whole stanza is about the singer offering room in his or her heart for that baby, - not only about the baby. I tried a more literal translation in the article, - did you see? ---GA
    • "refer to his godly nature"
      For Bach, the trumpets were royal instruments, King or God made little difference. How would you say it, contrast of helpless fragile baby and powerful ruler? --GA
    Oh, didn't know that. That is worth putting in a footnote, in my opinion. You could even use it more than once with the right syntax. That, combined with removing the above highlighted text, is my recommended course of action. —Vami
    • This another question about how much background do we need, The thing about the trumpets is in linked articles Bach cantata and Baroque instruments, - do we need such a footnote in every cantata with trumpets? --GA
      They should be where they're relevant or interesting, like here, with the same trumpets used for addressing royalty addressing Christ. —Vami
  • "Christmas tradition for many German-speaking people" The weasel word 'many' could be deleted here with no loss in quality to the article.
    Without qualifier, it would mean "all", no? --GA
    No. The omission of a qualifier does not constitute an absolute "all". It has wiggle room. —Vami
    taken then ---GA

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, - I will look and reply after two article which need finishing today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked now, - please see what I understood and what not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and some action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem, directed at yours truly, moved from above:

  • I cannot accept your comments at face value or see merit in them through a varnish of bias. You have a history of disruptive editing that has been repeatedly taken to ANI, to your detriment. You also have a history of argumentative and disruptive behavior towards Gerda Arendt, this article included, and other WP Classical Music editors. I recommend that you withdraw your comments and desist in your edit warring with the nominator of this article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: I've placed this on the Urgents list hoping to get some more attention, as it hasn't seen enough activity. Usually we archive nominations without support by now, but things have been unusually slow this month. --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving this open a little longer, because people might now be in the mood of rejoicing and banishing complaints, and thus comment. I apologize for not having much time to offer right now, therefore only dealing immediately with questions of correctness and prose.
We do face the question of the topic of this article being part of a larger structure, the Christmas Oratorio, comparing to an episode within a series. We will have to discuss and decide how much (background, reception ...) content should be - once for all of the parts - in the oratorio, and what should still be here to make it readable without too many clicks elsewhere. I believe we can solve that with some patience. I don't see any harm in a bit of bachground, even if it's the same wording as for similar works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 December User:Gerda Arendt invited, in a comment addressed at me, to fix issues at the Christmas Oratorio article ([2]). Yesterday I found time to start taking up that suggestion, and, time permitting, will continue to do so. Like happened yesterday, also in the future updates to the Christmas Oratorio article might necessitate updates to the Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I article. I hope, different from what happened yesterday, to proceed with such updates without red tape formatted in the way Gerda framed her revert yesterday ([3]) – in other words if the FAC hinders again in sound updating of article content it should immediately be suspended. Gerda, can you live with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some things I don't understand, such as "red tape" for the simple request to discuss when reverted. Can we keep it simple? Please look how Ceoil and Vami structured factual comments, which can be handled one by one. I fondly remember peer reviewing by Brian Boulton, the best model for us all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... don't understand ... "red tape" ...": red tape (click the link and read).
Repeating the question: if the FAC hinders again in sound updating of article content it should immediately be suspended. Gerda, can you live with that? Simple question, simple answer please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Magnificat. You didn't answer my simple question if this article could/should have a background question even if Christmas Oratorio has one. (I believe should.). Thank you for improving Christmas Oratorio! If this FAC caused it, it was already good for something. Go ahead, take over what you need there and improve, just please don't remove it from here where it has been discusse before you took part. - I can't answer a question that implies that I might not survive something on the internet, or do I misunderstand it? - Today is Sunday, - I need time for church, writing on a carol, take a walk, sing Magnificat. Please don't ping me until tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is leading nowhere good. To again reiterate my point above (1) Gerda please expand both the background and critical reception sections as recommended (2) Francis, your points are largely actionable, so no need to "cancel" the nom. Re hack job cobbled together from other pages, we have been here already as a community, and though its not ideal, see for example the 4 FAs on Nicholas II of Russia's daughters. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: could you please stop implying in edit summaries that my edits to the article are somehow not "correct", like you did here – Of course the edit was correct, so I had to revert your less correct version. Such "correcting" of something "correct" into something "less correct" is somewhat irritating: I still propose you withdraw this FAC, and such irritating behaviour does not really help to change my views on the matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about the hat note the usefulness of which I dared to doubt. I am sorry that you feel intimidated by me adding a "!", to link to a redirect that I know exists. I am also sorry that I didn't check that the other redirect also exists. - The coordinator can archive this any time, as made instable. - Thomaskantor: I'd like to point out that the sources used in this article say that Bach had not two positions, Thomaskantor and director musices, but that these are two names for the same functions, director of music for the city of Leipzig (not a specific church). - I have singing to do these days, not arguing, not writing a reception section which I plan to do later. Merry Christmas to all, rejoice, rejoice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not commenting on the "I doubt that we need any hatnote ..." part of your edit summary (which was less irritating – although seemingly more or less ignorant of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidance), but on the "... let it be correct" part – it was "correct" before you changed it to something less correct, so I changed it back.
    Re. "the sources used in this article say that Bach had not two positions, Thomaskantor and director musices, but that these are two names for the same functions" – which sources? (see also St. Matthew, Leipzig#Neukirche: Before Bach the Neukirche had consecutive "director musices", including Telemann and M. Hoffmann, different from the then-time "Thomaskantor", i.e. Kuhnau). Bach had only one contract, that is true, which made him as well "Thomaskantor" (Thomascantor referring to his tasks at St. Thomas church and school, the place where he lived) and director musices of four churches. Also being director musices of the Paulinerkirche was not automatically included in the Thomascantorate (even in Bach's time: Kuhnau had been director musices there until his death, combined with the Thomascantorate, Bach never had full music directorship for that church). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To sum this up:
    • As *director musices* Bach had to choose which music was going to be performed in the churches where he held that position (only the music, not the text of vocal music: in 1739 Bach had to abandon a new version of the St John Passion while he had failed to have its text timely approved);
    • As *Thomaskantor* he was responsible that pupils and personnel of St. Thomas ***school*** (and other musicians including the Leipziger Stadtpfeifer) performed the music which he had chosen in his director musices capacity: Bach delegated the Thomaskantor part of his task to his prefects (which led to a conflict with his superiors a few years after the Christmas Oratorio was performed: on that occasion Bach was "humiliated" by having to conduct the singing of the St. Thomas school pupils in church himself).
    • Bach did not have to provide any new music: for this it is indeed indifferent whether one calls him Thomaskantor or director musices, while neither part (nor any other part) of his job description in Leipzig even mentioned composition of new pieces. Indeed, Bach would have kept his employers much happier if he'd continued performing cantatas by Telemann (which his employers estimated much higher than Bach's), the passions by Johann Walter included in the Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch, etc.
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis, you talking to me doesn't belong under coordinator notes, but once you started I reply here: the office of Thomaskantor at Bach's time (not before - irrelevant to this cantata) is described in two sources that I used, by Christoph Wolff [4] and the book edited by Buelow [5]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "once you started I reply here" – I didn't bring up the Thomaskantor/director musices issue in this section: in fact I think this the 3rd or 4th section on this page where you bring that issue up, thus splitting up its discussion over several sections. So, I'm completely tired of your fractioned way of discussing – especially when in the end you reproach others what applies to yourself.
    Wolff has "cantor and music director" in the chapter title (I used [6] instead of the link you gave, while that one didn't work): what is good enough for Wolff, is good enough for me, so please stop your resistance against that normal qualification of Bach's office in Leipzig, it is "cantor and music director", and there's nothing odd about using that double qualification.
    Buelow, on the other hand, seems a bit confused (and confusing), making a mishmash of different customs in different times, e.g. he has Kuhnau delegating choristers to the Neue Kirche, while in Kuhnau's time that church didn't resort under the Thomaskantor (see above), and several other inaccuracies and incompatibilities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is wether we link to Thomaskantor, specific about the position as dircetor of music in Leipzig in a long tradition which is kept until today, but then we need to mention the term, or would create an Easter egg, or some generic Director musices as your present version does, Francis. Merry Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm typing this they're giving Telemann's Jauchzet, frohlocket on Klara ([7] – 15:05). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Can I ask all sides to strike out the snark and comments on other editors, please? It's frankly unbecoming and not needed here. If it continues, we may have to ask some folks to stop commenting on this FAC, which would be a shame. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 may need to be alerted to the name change in the article, since that might affect bot processing of the close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second Ealdgyth's comment. In retrospect this has never really appeared that close to achieving consensus to promote, and with the recent comments from Andy and Josh I think it's certainly time to call a halt and to ask everyone to work together as best they can to address concerns and perhaps take to PR before another shot at FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Not getting involved in the intramural debates re Bach, but have a few comments. I see nothing that would bar a support.

  • "Bach hoped to become court composer, and dedicated his Kyrie–Gloria Mass in B minor, BWV 232 I (early version) to Augustus.[12]" can the (early version) be moved into text, say in "and dedicated the early version of his ..."
    You will have to ask Francis, because I'd never write that. For example I'd call the piece Missa as the title page does, not a Kyrie-Gloria Mass. The details of that work's history and versions seem pretty remote to a single cantata, part of the Christmas Oratorio, imho. --GA
  • " the alto aria an aria from Laßt uns sorgen, and the bass aria an aria from Tönet, ihr Pauken!.[17]" sometimes repeating a word is the smoothest way through, but can the second set see one smoothed? (perhaps, if the sources support, "and the bass aria one from ...")
    taken - I dropped "aria" twice, - it should be per default that an aria is modeled after another aria (not a chorus or recitativ, and the details can follow in the description of the movements. --GA
  • " The cantata forms Part I of his Christmas Oratorio, which was performed on six occasions during Christmas time, beginning with Part I on Christmas Day." This strikes me as ambiguous between whether the oratorio had six parts or was performed six times.
    Could you help with wording that the parts were assigned to the the different occasions? I thought "Part I on Christmas Day" would be enough, no? There should be list somewhere - such as in the Oratorio's article to which we could link. --GA
  • "in keeping with his endeavor to transfer operatic features from Dresden to Leipzig.[32]" A little greater clarity might be helpful.
    Should be UK English. He introduced some features (recitative+aria pairs, virtuoso vocal writing etc) from the operas he heard (and liked) in Dresden to the Leipzig church music, to say it simply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking! I just spent some pleasant hours singing numbers 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 from this cantata, and more from Parts II, III, V and VI! A great way to begin the new year in a group of volunteers who all love to sing the music just for the fun of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Bach hoped to become court composer". As you mention the hope, I think you should say that he was later appointed.
    no need in the context of this part of the oratorio, especially as it was just a decoration without consequences in money and work --GA
  • "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Epistle to Titus, "God's mercy appeared" (Titus 2:11–14) or from Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born" (Isaiah 9:2–7), and from the Gospel of Luke," Why or between the first and second alternatives, whereas it is and between the second and third?
    perhaps say how else it could be expressed that there was one epistle reading, a choice of two, and one gospel reading --GA
  • You refer first to "Dürr" and second to "Alfred Dürr". It should be the other way round.
    thank you, good catch, he probably got inserted further up after the linked mentioning --GA
  • " with the chorale comparing to the Amen confirming the prayer" I am not sure what this means and why is "Amen" capitalised?
    Perhaps it's too German: normally prayers end with the word "Amen". not so in English? Would a link help? --GA
    I am still not clear what you mean. Is it "with the chorale followed by the prayer, ending with amen"? You do not need a link but "amen" should not be capitalised in English. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Always learning. Here, we have a long quote from English, with Amen capital, and whe I sing music, I don't recall any lowercase amen, not in Latin, nor German, nor English, not only when it starts a sentence, but with every repeat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Further: it's not me speaking but the source, comparing the sequence 1) gospel recitative 2) recitative 3) aria 4) chorale to 1) Bible reading 2) reflection 3) prayer 4) amen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that amen is often capitalised, but I have checked three dictionaries and the Wiki article and they all show lower case as correct unless the first word in a sentence. The quote may be too technical musically for me to understand, but how about "with the chorale which is compared with the amen which concludes the prayer". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Laser brain

[edit]

Hi Gerda, I'm revisiting this and seeing lots of commentary but little in the way of solid support or opposition, so I'm recusing to offer some contructive criticism. I think the writing needs more work to be at the level required for a Featured article. I find the prose to be difficult to read and tease meaning from in many places. Examples:

  • "Bach had been presenting church cantatas for the Christmas season in the Thomaskirche (St. Thomas) and Nikolaikirche (St. Nicholas)" Here you've provided seemingly incomplete English translations for Thomaskirche and Nikolaikirche. I've had to click through to discover that they are churches and no English speaker would say something like "in the St. Thomas".
    Not my sentence, it's from the background section which Francis took to the oratorio article and replaced here. (subtitle: hack job. Germanchurches are often referred to by just the name of the patron saint, such as St. Martin (where I live), - however, Catholic churches. Protestants don't support sainthood, so trying to say St. Thomas for Thomaskirche is in a way misleading. Just musing. I'd prefer to write the German name with a piped link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The text of the opening chorus is a free paraphrase" You've paraphrased the cited source which reads "paraphrased freely" but just switching the word around from an adverb to an adjective isn't a good way to paraphrase. The modification actually makes the meaning more difficult to understand aside from being too close to the source.
    What would you say for "not a close paraphrase"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the remainder of this paragraph difficult to understand, particularly the comparison between a recommended Bible-reading method and the musical piece. "[W]ith the chorale comparing to the Amen confirming the prayer" is not something I can wrap my head around, although maybe I haven't had enough caffiene this morning.
    As explained above, it's not me but the source comparing the sequence of "biblical text - recitative - aria - chorale" to Bible reading - reflection - prayer - amen. I found it interesting. Perhaps you don't, or could find a better way to say so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout I think comma usage around clauses is much too dense and makes reading difficult. Many sentences can be rewritten to create a smoother, more cohesive reading experience. A good example: "One of Bach's secular cantatas, Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213, also known as Hercules am Scheidewege (Hercules at the Crossroads), on a libretto by Picander, was performed on 5 September 1733, on the 11th birthday of the son of the elector."
    This read in November: "Bach also composed cantatas in honour of the elector's family, such as Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213 (Let us take care, let us watch over), a dramma per musica describing the story of Hercules at the Crossroads. It was performed on 5 September 1733, the 11th birthday of the son of the elector." Afterwards, copy-editing took place, perhaps not always beneficial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a few examples but I don't think it's at the right level, yet. I'd be happy to work with you on copyediting outside of this process. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking. I'm on vacation, Christmas is over. You could just close, help with copy-edit, and take it from there. I had seen this as part of a six-year project, but as Francis began 4 of the 6 planned articles, I still hope life will be long enough for the remaining two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does Frances having began the articles affect your work? Is there some background I don't know about? --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you think about an article such as Herrscher des Himmels, erhöre das Lallen, BWV 248 III. I know that I won't interfer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and yes there's history --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Note that I started typing these comments a little while ago, so some things may not be current!

  • What does the MOS say about translating foreign titles? I think some readers might find the unformatted "Jauchzet, frohlocket! Auf, preiset die Tage (Shout for joy, exult, rise up, praise the day)" a little confusing. Further down, you have "Thomaskirche (St. Thomas) and Nikolaikirche (St. Nicholas)", which feels like a different style. You definitely use a different style with "Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214 (Resound, ye drums! Ring out, ye trumpets!)"
    I am not sure that I understand the question, sorry. I don't see the style difference. --GA
  • "is a 1734 Christmas cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach as the first part of his Christmas Oratorio" Do we need a verb for the as? written as, considered as, performed as...
    Can you help wording that? This cantata IS Part I. Not "writtem as", not "considered as", not "performed as". The oratorio - as Bach planned and first performed it - tool six days to be performed, in six parts, each part a cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the oratorio, the libretto by" I confess I don't really know what aoratoias or librettos are. This all feels a bit technical for the first paragraph. Nor do I know what "reflecting texts" are. And what does scene mean in this context? recitative? secco recitative? I worry this is all a bit technical for the lead.
    I am afraid that we won't get around these terms. A scene is the same as in theatre. "Recitative" is a good English word for the Italian "recitativo", and any wording around it would be unprofessional and clumsy. There's a link for those who don't know. - We do have featured articles on similar topics, such as BWV 22. --GA
  • Three further thoughts on the lead: First, I don't really have any impression of how significant this piece of music is. Second, I don't really like the one-line paragraph. Third, the lead is too long, according to WP:LEADLENGTH; the article is about 13,000 characters "readable prose size", which puts this firmly in the "one or two paragraphs" category.
    You are right, lead should follow content, and publication and reception are not yet written - as explained further up, so not yet reflected. --GA
  • "Dürr notes" Is it worth introducing this person? Also, I note two names in the footnote; should the claim definitely be attributed to only one of them?
    Now - because of a comment by Dudley Miles, above - linked, with first name, on first occurrence. Dürr is (still) the pope on the subject, having written The Cantatas by J. S. Bach. My mistake, sorry. --GA
  • "Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ" Worth a link? Nothing wrong with redlinks if the subject is notable.
    It was linked in the infobox, then (piped) under Christmas Day, and again under "Readings and text". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph one of the subsection titled "1": Could you check your quotes match with LQ?
    Nor sure what you mean. Don't even know for LQ stands for, sorry.
  • In the final line of the article, I learn that this is one of Bach's most performed pieces; I feel I probably shouldn't have had to wait until then. I appreciate the note about limited scholarlship, but more scholarly/critical appraisal would, I think, add to the article, which currently focuses on just describing the music.
    Yes, you are right, - my problem is that I am not sure about performances in the world, where German is less common. In Germany, it's what Handel's Messiah is in the English-spealing world, THE piece performed around Christmas - now often several cantatas in one concert, such as I to III and VI. I doubt, however, that it's true for the rest of the world. Help welcome. Thank you for looking, and valuable comments! - I hope that your concerns will be met by Christmas 2021 if not 2020. On vacation right now, with limited service ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Inspired by an ongoing discussion on the FAC talk page, I'm trying to be more willing to oppose articles that don't feel of FA quality to me. Right now, I think the inconsistent quoting/titling/translating style, the lead (long/technical/limited info on "impact"), and the lack of assessment (sholarly, critical, historical, etc.) mean that this isn't an article that feels FA-ready to me. I'd be happy to withdraw the oppose when these things are addressed. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Please note that I am participating in this year's WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jauchzet,_frohlocket!_BWV_248_I/archive1&oldid=934698840"