Talk:Church cantata (Bach)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconClassical music: Compositions
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Disambiguating[edit]

I've started disambiguating some of the cantatas with duplicate incipits- not systematically, just as I come across them. I've done it in the form [[Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid (BWV 58)|Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid]] etc. It would be nice to be consistent about the way we do it, since we have more than one list to do it on. Mark1 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed anymore because all the Bach cantatas have now a unique name "title in German, BWV #". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Time[edit]

As expressed in a discussion of Classical music and here I would like to eliminate the mostly Catholic term 'Ordinary time' from the headings in this list, and certainly from "in the middle of Pentecost" which was celebrated for 3 days in Bach's days. I will watch here for a discussion and wait for two weeks. I hesitate because the headings might involve links. - Btw I noticed by chance that a title's spelling in this list differed from one in the list by BWV# and advise to watch for that when dealing with the cantatas which I hope you do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about possible incoming links to headings – I doubt there are any. The one you mention, "Ordinary Time", goes anyway against the guideline that there shouldn't be identical sub-headings.
However, you can cater for the eventuality of incoming links to sections by inserting the template {{Section|target}} wherever you remove or rename a heading. E.g. if the hypothetical heading "Foo bar" gets removed, the template {{Section|Foo bar}} can take its place. The second occurrence of the section title "Ordinary Time" in this article can be replaced by {{Section|Ordinary Time 2}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Perikopes[edit]

Some time ago I had suggested to include the prescribed readings to this list and was advised not to blow it up even more. Recently the titles were expanded and readings added, but without a link to the actual bible text. The cantata articles have both a link to the text and an explanation of the feast day. I do not consider this information useful in the list. Please discuss such a change before applying it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, change of the directory titles broke the links to the sections. Please discuss such a change before applying it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reformation Festival and Festivals with Fixed Dates[edit]

The annual Reformation Day Feast is not outside the liturgical year in the Lutheran (or any other "Protestant") Church, but rather is a fixed Feast day on 31 October every year (and thus should be placed in the Trinity season). Also along the same lines, the Marian feasts should be placed in their respective seasons (Purification in Epiphany, Annunciation in Lent, and Visitation in Trinity). So too the Feast day of St. John the Baptist and the Feast of St. Michael should be placed in Trinity season. Thus the only items outside the liturgical year are items such as Funerary Cantatas, Wedding Cantatas, Cantatas for the Changing of Town Councils, Cantatas for Church and Organ dedications, and Cantatas for Bussgottesdienst (Confession service). Dgljr5121973 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be difficult, because where to put Reformation Sunday, which comes after (or on) a different "Sunday after Trinity" depending on the position of Easter. This year we had six Sundays after Epiphany. I suggest to have instead an additional section "Festivals on fixed dates within the liturgical year" - which would include Christmas, strictly speaking. Please discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Buß- und Bettag" (Confession) was/is also "in" the liturgical year, the Wednesday before the last Sunday after Trinity. But I couldn't find out yet if already in Bach's time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, only Anglican and other "Protestant" groups celebrate Reformation Day on Sunday. The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church celebrates it on the day it is supposed to be celebrated on (31 October), which very rarely is a Sunday, but is more often a weekday (Monday-Friday). As you can notice in the list already, the Evangelicals still keep many of the Feasts of the old Roman Catholic calendar on the days they are supposed to be (i.e., Easter Monday, Whit Monday, Easter Tuesday, Whit Tuesday, etc.). We still celebrate the Feast of the Visitation on 2 July, the Feast of the Annunciation on 25 March (even though more often than not it falls in Lent--Even in Bach's day, this was the one occasion where the Tempus clausum restriction on elaborate (large-scale) religious music was relaxed [along with Holy Week]; only super-super-conservative groups [like the congregations in Hamburg] observed the rule even then). Secondly, as far as I know, "Buß- und Bettag" was also in the Liturgical year in Bach's day as well. That being said, however, I don't think that the works that were written for Bußgottesdienst (Confession service) were necessarilly written for "Buß-und Bettag", but were rather written for a separate Conessional service. Here is what I mean: Even now, there are Evangelical (Lutheran) churches that, in addition to the general Confession in the standard Liturgy, reserve a day in the week (usually Wednesdays) in which they open the floor (so to speak) for anyone that desires to make Confession outside of the general service. At the same time at such special services, people would offer up special prayers and petitions for individuals, and even come up for blessings from the minister (i.e., individuals who are sick, etc.). This was established even by Luther himself, who, although he did protest private and multiple masses and other abuses of the Mass, did retain some Catholic practices to maintain good order and discipline amongst the unlearned and ignorant. For the same reason, he maintained the practice of reserving Baptisms in some cases to certain days (i.e., Holy Saturday, etc.). Although he did argue for weekly celebration of the Sacraments, he also held that this was up to the congregation, and there is evidence (I can't remember where I saw it off the top of my head) where he did argue for the reservation of the Sacrament of the Altar to certain days. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Reformation Day above (not Reformation Sunday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications requested[edit]

"originally planned to contain only chorale cantatas" seems left hanging; then "first" in what order? then "works such as", examples of what?

What is needed perhaps are examples of non-chorale cantatas, in the second cycle, identified as such? Marlindale (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All this is covered in Chorale cantata (Bach) and doesn't have to be repeated in this superlong list, imho.
This "originally" is not by me, and I think doesn't help. It was planned, it didn't quite succeed, possibly because the librettist died. This article is (mainly) for readers who have no understanding of the liturgical year, -the other article should serve the specialists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had put in the word "originally" myself and something more, maybe another sentence that you deleted, which was fine, but I had only been trying to implement a suggestion of yours. I find the article as it stands unclear in the ways I mentioned. If this article would not be lengthened, then maybe it should be shortened. I realize you are busy right now, I will look at the Chorale cantata article and see if I understand from there. Marlindale (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Started as List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, it can't be shortened, needs all occasions, all cantatas, and offers all readings. The introduction gives only a bit of background. If it is unclear that "O Ewigkeit ..." is the first cantata in the second cycle please repair that ("first" in the same way as "Die Elenden sollen essen" was the first cantata of the first cycle. "works such as": other chorale cantatas, both well-known, one for the beginning of the church year, the other the last new chorale cantata of the second cycle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the last, long sentence of the second paragraph of "Background" that was unclear to me and still is. Someone more knowledgeable than I about cantata cycles, such as Gerda Arendt or Francis Schonken, pleeeeeease straighten it out. I will return here a little later with more details about the mentioned cantatas BWV 62, 71, 1.. Marlindale (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, also moved it to the end, because it's better if you know some of the things about the occasions when entering the more complex things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany V and VI[edit]

The article says that the maximum number of Sundays after Epiphany didn't occur while Bach wrote church cantatas. I think a header Epiphany V and VI is almost misleading, when the paragraph only says that there are no cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cycles[edit]

  • While I think the introduction of the cycles is a good idea, I object to having the cycle number first, then the date, and finally the title which is the prime information, - all these numbers should follow, as secondary information, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't heard of cycle 0, and think it is a contradiction in terms. We can't speak of a cycle before Bach thought of a cycle. Is there a source for such a thing?
Asking again: two sources are given for cycle 0, Rifkin and Jones. I don't have access to Rifkin, and don't find "cycle 0" in the Jones. Pease say precisely what source is used for a "cycle 0"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Rifkin accessibility: Rifkin's liner notes are quoted here, but that seems like a copyright infringment to me, so I refrained to link to if from Wikipedia's mainspace. An echo of the same (also using "Weimar cycle") can be found here, but that seems to be too much of a self-published source to be useable as a reference in Wikipedia.
On the core of the matter: "0." represents "not generally grouped as one of the five cycles" (I just added a reference to that effect), so it would be inappropriate to number the collective pre-Leipzig church cantatas as if they were generally seen as a cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Rifkin, I find Weimar cycle. Cycle 0, even with an explanation, for something that is not a cycle, still seems inappropriate. Why don't you give cycles a number that clearly have one, according to sources (1 to 3), leave the early ones and late ones without such a label, perhaps use W for Weimar, P for Picander? A reader arriving at "Advent II" still gets a "0." as the first bit of information, with no explanation, no help. This may be a reader who only wants to know what cantatas Bach wrote for the occasion, not thinking in or of cycles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this edit made it somewhat clearer. (in other words: "Weimar cycle" was the WP:REDFLAG that needed explicit referencing, while "not a cycle" is far more obvious in almost any other source on the matter). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is fine, but I still think we should not call anything "0. [cycle]", if nobody else classifies like this. We could use W for Weimar cycle works and nothing for the early ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying out another option to display the information, or alternatively (would do so on this talk page but the internal linking wouldn't work). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever this non-cycle is termed, it's not equal to Bach's early cantatas, which do not include the Weimar cantatas. Perhaps "E" for early and "W" for Weimar would solve this, and in Weimar he thought already somehow of cycle: one per month.
  • I think the details about the cycles should be replaced by links, - it's too much detail for readers who just want to understand what a church cantata by Bach is.
  • A phrase such as "Trinity I 30 May 1723 to Trinity 4 June 1724" is not accessible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the "Early cantatas" and adding brackets. Before making more changes, would you please wait for input of other users, requested at project Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes[edit]

Adding:

  • So far, the article listed the the church cantatas in the order of the book by Alfred Dürr. Now we have many additional pieces of less importance, many occasions added for which no work is extant, and the overhead of the cycle numbers of which I find at least "0." unacceptable. Keep simple!
  • How about an article Church cantatas in their year-cycles (Bach) for all these details, or fancy a better name.
  • A basic article does not need any cycle numbers. People who know about the cycles (per the introduction) can easily deduct them from the dates.
  • To have the readings in a quote box looks charming at a glance, but I don't like cantata names - the major content of this article - split in two lines just because the readings box is broad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please make up your mind where you want to discuss this, multiple forums for discussing the same is not an option for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question that this is the right place? That a notice with an example at classical music is appropriate? - The language question if "0.:" makes any sense, ever, is independent from this article. I have seen enough links from you to both WP.OWN as WP:FORUMSHOP for life, kindly stop it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please make up your mind where you want to discuss this, multiple forums for discussing the same is not an option for me. No, this is not about which place is right or wrong (didn't imply any of that), but about not having the same discussion in multiple places at the same time. I'm suggesting you choose where to discuss this, and then keep it to that place. A simple way to keep discussions in one place is to say: "please keep discussions at XXXX" in the event you are posting notices about the discussion in other places (mind WP:CANVASS though regarding where to post and where not to post such notifications about a discussion going on somewhere). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made bold edits. There is a guideline for that which you will know. Assuming good faith, I didn't revert you and asked you to find consensus on this page first, which I could have done. Can we now talk about facts in the article, such as
"0." is a strange expression (but may be the only one, admitted)
"0." without saying of what should be avoided
"0." without saying of what should be avoided especially in paragraphs with anchors. There are multiple links to the occasions.
"0." seems wrong if there is no such thing, - in this case, there was no cycle before the first, and even if we see some sort of cycle in Weimar, the early cantatas are not part of any. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compare[edit]

On 10 April in the article, and remember that readers may arrive there by redirect, without explanation)

Advent II[edit]

Romans 15:4–13, call of the Gentiles
Luke 21:25–36, coming of the Son of man

  2. 6 December 1716: Wachet! betet! betet! wachet! BWV 70a (in 1723 expanded to BWV 170 for Trinity XXVI)
  4. (5 December 1728: Erwache doch mein Herze)

Gerda's version, reflecting the differences mentioned above, note a link to context (here Weimar) after the cantata name:

Advent II[edit]

Romans 15:4–13, call of the Gentiles
Luke 21:25–36, coming of the Son of man

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please, make up your mind where you want to discuss this, state it clearly, so that all other places can be directed to the place where the discussion is held. Note that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Keep Church cantata (Bach) simple a discussion on the same is still open. Please assume good faith on me for suggesting to keep this discussion in one place, and thus avoid a fractured discussion on the same in several places. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compare 11 April 2016[edit]

Regarding the alternatives by Francis (see above)

Advent I Francis[edit]

(See [1], [2], [3] and [4] for three four alternatives)

Advent I Gerda[edit]

Note: I prefer the cantata first. I would not mention repeat performances in THIS basic article, rather in one on the cycles. I would spell out the cantata type, instead of a cryptic ordinal number with a link, - this is still for a reader who may arrive at the section without preparation. Other possible terms for the brackets: "early cantata" (0), "first cycle" (1), "second cycle" (2 if not chorale), "early chorale cantata" (0), "late chorale cantata" (3 or 5), "third cycle" (3), "Picander cycle" (4). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced what I would do with links to both alternatives thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for the time being I'm still undecided which of the versions proposed by me I would prefer, so please don't display any of them here as if that would be my ultimate proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather display both and other and future possibilities at one central spot, - how can you possibly compare two things which are not together (see at a glance that one has three lines, the other six ...), (Personal attack removed). We could change the Bach cantata article, but why? BWV 61 appears in "Weimar", and for the first cycle (when it was performed again) only in brackets. I adapted my suggestion above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to all four possibilities: I don't think an ordinal number "0." should ever be used. I believe that all cycle information is of minor importance for this article, - it could be primary in a different article with a focus on the cycles. The focus of this is on the occasions. Speaking of them, "Fastenzeit" is a Catholic term for Lent, the appropriate Lutheran one is "Passionszeit". We have an article tempus clausum, why not use it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alas [[Church cantata (Bach)#0.|Weimar]] doesn't pass WP:EGG. I don't see a WP:EGG problem with |[[#0.|0.]]|. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you change the destination of the link then. "Weimar" - just the location - seems supported by major sources, while I haven't seen "Zero" or 0. in any source, and don't like to confuse the early and the Weimar cantatas. I am no friend of citing guidelines, but feel that this Zero cycle borders on WP:OR, which I think we should try to avoid more then EGG. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without links would be possible too:

etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "Fastenzeit": appears to be in the article for quite some time. I removed the {{in use}} template, so you don't feel inhibited to rephrase your former wording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For Advent, it's fine, - sorry, I misread that. I felt free to restore the table of contents. What do you think of moving the "Occasions" section to the general article, leaving the introduction and a link here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the Church cantata article is still very much under construction, for example it doesn't mention (yet) that "Easter I" can be used as a synonym for Quasimodogeniti (and the Church cantata (Bach) article uses the first currently, as explained in the "Occasions" section of this article). So I propose a two-step approach:
  1. Complete the Church cantata article until it is more or less "self-sustaining", has a uniform layout (which isn't complete either), and it has been decided what stays in and what goes out (e.g. I don't think all over thousand of Telemann's cantatas can be included there: so which ones to include as representative examples?) – a question for completing that article: for some occasions, such as Church cantata#Fifth Sunday after Epiphany (Epiphany V) the readings aren't indicated yet: do you have any idea where these can be found? Similar: hymns are only mentioned for a few occasions currently (see Church cantata#First Sunday of Advent (Advent I) how I'd see that): do you know where hymn-occasion associations can be found in reliable sources (also without wanting to list them all, but at least the ones that often occur in cantatas)?
  2. Then decide about which content has become redundant for the Church cantata (Bach) article, or can be more condensed in this article with a link to the general article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update on progress of Church cantata article[edit]

Preliminary (nothing definitive yet, just how things appear to be evolving):

  • I was able to track first readings applicable to Telemann's Harmonischer Gottes-Dienst cantatas. Apart from a few exceptions (that are easily indicated, see e.g. Church cantata#Second Sunday after Christmas (New Year I)) these are the same as for Bach's cantatas. If anyone knows where further information on readings (in 18th-century Protestant Germany) can be obtained, I'd welcome that.
  • Information on hymns that are associated with specific occasions would be still very welcome too.
  • Reasons for keeping Church cantata (Bach) as a separate article:
    1. Incoming section links (already mentioned above);
    2. Information not retained in the Church cantata article:
      1. Bach-specific introduction: introductions (the article's lead section and section introductions) are more general, shorter (too short according to Talk:Church cantata#Chorale melodies), and give somewhat less focus to Bach and Leipzig in the Church cantata article.
      2. Cantata texts without extant music (there's still a lot of that in the Church cantata article, but there I'd include only the ones that have a separate Wikipedia article, or would have one in the foreseeable future). The Picander librettos written for Bach without extant music are imho rather suitable for Church cantata (Bach), than in an article that rather aims at info about church cantatas in general (a libretto without music not really being a very notable example of a cantata; but when it is mentioned in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis it is always some sort of Bach-cantata).
      3. Information about cantatas that were once written for occasion X, and then later were adapted for occasion Y – also here that is not information relating to the "most famous examples" of church cantatas, but rather JSBach-specific (afaik it is also the only composer for whom such detailed information is available).
      4. Detailed cycle information: neither for Telemann, nor for Bach or any other composer it is really feasible to give a good overview of the cantata cycles they composed. Also here for Bach, where much of the cycle info is based on educated guesswork needing verys specific references, that rather seems something for the church cantata (Bach) article.

Again, these are only working directions I adopt gradually, without having made definitive choices yet, and would welcome input on how to proceed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort towards Church cantata: that article was sadly missing. I agree that we should leave this article Church cantata (Bach) separately. How exactly, we can discuss, but I will be busy with Reger until 11 May, the centenary. One wish for this article: et the reader see at a glance the primary extant cantatas for a occasion, as Dürr listed them, - that is how this article started, before my time here. Perhaps consider a third article, on the cycles, which could hold the details about repeat performances and cantatas for which the music is lost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...as Dürr listed them": nah, the article's title is not The Cantatas of J.S. Bach – if you want an article that only retains content from that book by Dürr, start an article on the book (and even then you'd need third-party sources for at least half of the article's content). Whether that was how it was "before (anyone's) time here" is immaterial, we don't exclude content on the basis that it is not included in one among many reliable sources on the subject. Things have evolved since Dürr's cantata research, which was ground-breaking half a century ago, but not where matters remained for eternity. E.g. Shabalina's Russian discoveries in the 21st century (afaik largely adopted on the Bach-digital website) made revision of some of Dürr's ideas necessary, and, among other things, made the existence of the Picander cycle more likely again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me, sorry, possibly because I didn't take enough time (because I don't have it): the article is not an old book, but it started to be one, our average readers are used to seeing that, we don't have to confuse them with latest research. This article answered the simple question: which cantata(s) by Bach do we have for a given occasion, with a link to those cantatas. If I look at six lines (above) for Advent 1, I don't easily see them. Please find a way, which may be to write an article on the cycles and keep this simple, as I tried to say before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Church cantata (Bach) ≠ TOC of Dürr's The Cantatas of J.S. Bach. Don't know how to say that any simpler. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation or symbol for "cantata composed before the numbered cycles"[edit]

List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Adaptations contains a link to List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni#Transcriptions (BV B 20 to 115) – clicking that deep link makes one arrive in the middle of a list where abbreviations and symbols such as "fp", "ded" and "＊" are used. What these mean is explained in the article's intro or by a link.

Church cantata (Bach) uses the abbreviation "Ascension I" for Exaudi Sunday, an abbreviation I have not seen used outside Wikipedia. Similar for Christmas 2 for St. Stephen's Day etc.

There's no original research or irregularity in choosing a suitable abbreviation like "0." indicating cantatas composed before the first numbered cycle, especially as the abbreviation contains a link to the explanation of what it signifies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above, I would prefer that nothing precedes the cantata title, sourced or unsourced, research or not, plain nothing: first the title, then secondary information. I still dislike "0.", even behind the title, because it assumes a numbering that is not there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I still dislike "0."" – I understand, but as such there isn't a problem with it. I'll give it some time, see whether another alternative pops up —will continue first on Church cantata anyhow—, after which I'll be adding Jahrgang information to Church cantata (Bach) with the best available layout option I see then. Those who want to split it to another page can do so, but for the time being that rather looks like a WP:CONTENTFORK liability to me, and layout issues will have to be solved there too (so just moving the problem elsewhere). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Church cantata[edit]

I think to have the prescribed readings and hymns central is a good idea. However:

For readings and hymns for the first Sunday of Advent see Church cantata § Advent I.

is not the most elegant way, especially if we repeat it 50+ times. How about:

Readings and hymns for the First Sunday of Advent

? or what else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Church cantata (Bach)#Estomihi. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seen, and found rather complicated, for a reader who possibly just wants to check what Bach wrote for the Sunday. I have no time for details now, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Church cantata (Bach) is a list/article crossover. I don't think limiting its content to a simple list is the way to go (in that case it should be renamed to List of sacred Bach cantatas, List of church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach or some such). How about this for the Estomihi section:

Estomihi[edit]

For further context see Church cantata § Last Sunday before Lent (Estomihi)

Cantatas:

BWV 22 and 23 were first presented in Leipzig on Estomihi Sunday 7 February 1723 as part of Bach's application for the post of Thomaskantor. He restaged both cantatas on 20 February 1724, and thus they became the Estomihi cantatas of his first year cycle. BWV 23 exists in three versions: a 1722–23 version in C minor (three movements), the 1723–24 Leipzig version in B minor (four movements), and a third version in C minor with four movements (1728–31).

BWV 127 is a chorale cantata first performed on 11 February 1725. It belongs to Bach's second cantata cycle. On 3 March 1726, in his third year in Leipzig, Bach presented a cantata by his second cousin Johann Ludwig: Ja, mir hast du Arbeit gemacht, JLB 5.[1] BWV 159, on a libretto by Picander, was first presented on 27 February 1729 and belongs to Bach's fourth cantata cycle.

References

  1. ^ Bach Digital Work 08208 at www.bach-digital.de

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, trying still another layout (e.g. for the Easter Sunday section):

Easter Sunday[edit]

Further information: Church cantata § Easter

Before 1723:

1723–24 (first year in Leipzig), 9 April 1724:

  • BWV 4 restaged (Leipzig version)
  • BWV 31 restaged (Leipzig version)

1724–25 (second year in Leipzig and/or chorale cantata cycle), 1 April 1725:

1725–26 (third year in Leipzig), 21 April 1726:

1728–29 (Picander cycle), libretto planned for 17 April 1729:

  • Es hat überwunden der Löwe, der Held (no known composition by Bach sets this libretto)

Other:

(casual readers might expect to find BWV 15 and 160 on the page; also the first version of BWV 249 *is* a cantata, so the list/article is incomplete without it)... --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments: While a simple "0." seemed too little, "1723–24 (first year in Leipzig), 9 April 1724:" seems too much. It's linked, I as a reader don't want to read that 50 times on one page. How about:
Before Leipzig
First cycle, 9 April 1724:
Second cycle), 1 April 1725:
Third cycle
Picander cycle
Late work
? Mentioning 1723 at all, when the date is in 1724, seems not helpful. - I am no friend of repeating 50 times "Church cantata §", - better explain that once. - "Restaged" seems an operatic term, unsuitable for church music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to make the captions shorter, see Church cantata (Bach)#Easter Monday; I'd variate the captions a bit depending on the cantata(s) listed under it: e.g. a JLB cantata staged by JSB in his third year in Leipzig can't be called a "third cycle" cantata, but it is a "Third year" cantata.
(just a sidenote: depending on eventual presentation format of the cantatas the content of Church cantata (Bach)#Cantata cycles would also need to be updated, probably including the section title, which maybe would better read something like "Composition periods" or "Cantata cycles and groups") --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plural vs. singular titles[edit]

It seems that article titles are supposed to be singular, as is true for this article only after a recent change. That seems to me questionable. I would vote for restoring the previous form "cantatas". Similarly, I would vote to keep "Mozart piano concertos" as it is, as opposed to changing it to "Mozart piano concerto". Marlindale (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on singular titles allows an exception for "names of classes of objects" which, arguably, is what we have here both for Bach church cantatas and Mozart piano concertos. That doesn't mean we should have an article "Beethoven piano concertos" (of which there are onlly four). Marlindale (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church cantata (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church cantata (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_cantata_(Bach)&oldid=1044135278"