Talk:Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd, BWV 208

Sheep may safely graze

There really must be a public domain version of this in Bach's arrangement performed by a good ensemble and singers? The present file is misleading as it completely reinterprets the intrumentation at the whim of the arranger (without telling unsuspecting listener this fact). --Jubilee♫clipman 01:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I propose to merge Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd, BWV 208a into Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd, BWV 208#Adaptations by Bach (apart from the 208a recording which can be inserted in the recordings list of the 208 article).

The 208a article is not much more than two paragraphs, about a third of which is repeat of content found in the 208 article, nor is there really much more that can be said about the 208a versions (the last sentence of the article already veers into "related, somewhat connected" content (other cantatas in honour of the Electors of Saxony), and I fear that further expansion of the 208a article would only get further and further from the core content about 208a.

The proposed target section of 208, on the other hand, is currently a single paragraph: expanding that paragraph, or adding a second one, with a little bit more explanation of the two 208a versions seems hardly disproportionate for the 208 article.

For clarity: there is no different extant music for the 208a versions, only two additional slightly different texts. Not even a difference in number of movements, so, musically, it's all the same cantata (there's no more than a single score for all three versions surviving from the first half of the 18th century), and the text variants, even if detailed per verse would take less than a paragraph to explain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, think it makes more sense to treat them separately. Addition of "related, somewhat connected" content can be removed if not appropriate for the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: this is not a vote. Without a convincing rationale that's merely a (throwaway) opinion. The only sort-of rationale you give (second sentence) only confirms that the 208a article is very unlikely to grow beyond what it is now (not much more than a stub), and would thus better be re-integrated in the 208 article, per my rationale above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome not to be convinced by my rationale, as I am unconvinced by yours. We will see what other views may be expressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Formerly, related works were handled in one article, later, they were split. I believe that it should be kept consistently that way, - it's more transparent. When merged, we'd have to deal with categories and infoboxes that belong to one but not the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Checked the categories – no problem in case of merge

Infobox would of course also be easier and more straightforward in case of merge.

Re. "related works ... were split" – nonsense: there's more documented difference between BWV 80 and BWV 80b, yet they were not split (and many more examples). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about my lack of English. Did I say that all were split, or that this one was split? But BWV 120 was split in three, to give just one example. I observed a tendency to split, - is that better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Afaics no-split would work better for 208 and 208a (that's why I proposed it). I reworked the 208a article a few days ago, and came to that appreciation after the rewrite. I could have spared myself the effort of the rewrite if I had been thinking all along that a merge would have been best: in that case I'd have updated the 208 "Adaptations by Bach" section first of course. Just shows that every case is different. 120, 80, 208: the reasons for split or no-split are in each case different. For 208 no-split seems most indicated: there's too little difference between the three versions, and as a musical composition they are undistinguishable (as said and repeated, there's only one version of the music which fits all three slightly different librettos). For clarity: between the original "208" (=208.1) version and the first 208a version (=208.2) one word was replaced by two other words in four verses. That's the entire difference between these two versions of the cantata. The difference with the second 208a version (=208.3) includes the replacement of just a very few more words, but no changes in plot, type of occasion or whatever, and most importantly, no apparent difference in the music. As said, the differences between 80 and 80b are (as documented) way more significant, yet the versions are not split in different articles. For clarity, 208.2 and 208.3 are more different (about twice as many words are different, i.e., kid you not, around ten different words) than 208.1 and 208.2 – yet 208.2 is currently grouped with 208.3 in the same article, and not with 208.1. So little difference warrants no split, afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: you did not give a rationale in support of your opinion, not any. The only half-rationale you gave rather seems to support the other direction. So, as implied in my previous response, could you please answer the question *why* you "think it makes more sense to treat them separately"? Tx. If you don't give a rationale I'm of course unimpressed, and see a failed chance at reaching consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

My rationale is that the topics are distinguishable and discrete, though related, and warrant their own articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:P&G-wise, "distinguishable and discrete" does not warrant a separate article. WP:GNG requires multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources for a topic to be in a separate article: could you list a few of such sources? In this case there isn't even a separate primary source, leave alone multiple secondary sources that would be giving significant coverage of BWV 208a without also giving significant coverage of BWV 208. For the single separate recording of the 208a version, I don't see how that could pass WP:NMUSIC, with the emphasis of that guidance on "... notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence". I haven't found a single non-trivial secondary source about the 208a recording – could you perhaps indicate one? Please remember that in the evaluation of a discussion outcome, P&G-based argumentation trumps mere opinion that has no base in guidance.

Re. "table doesn't work well in the lead" – is there perhaps some guidance about that? I don't see a reason why it shouldn't work well here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Per WP:MERGECLOSE, this is not a situation where it is appropriate for you to boldly implement your proposal - please seek an uninvolved closer at WP:ANRFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: – there are some unanswered questions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As per the previous 208a article, an analysis of the differences between the versions is provided in the NBA, also here [1]. GNG doesn't require significant coverage of one without also giving significant coverage of the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

BWV3

Lead & infobox in case of no-merge

What I see in the article right now is the following, after the implementation of BWV3:

Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd
BWV 208.1
Secular cantata by J. S. Bach
Jägerhof in Weißenfels, a former hunting lodge, where the cantata is believed to have been first performed
Related	BWV 208.2, 208.3, 1040 and possibly 1046a
Occasion	Birthday of Christian of Saxe-Weissenfels
Performed	23 February 1713 (1713-02-23): Weißenfels

Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd (The lively hunt is all my heart's desire), BWV 208.1 (formerly BWV 208), also known as the Hunting Cantata, is a secular cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, for the 31st birthday of Duke Christian of Saxe-Weissenfels on 23 February 1713. A performance lasts about forty minutes. The aria "Schafe können sicher weiden" ("Sheep May Safely Graze") is the most familiar part of this cantata.

References

End of quotation (which shortens the parameters in the infobox to those mentioned in the lead, and renders the image smaller). The source, Bach Digital, tells us "Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd [1st version] BWV 208.1; BWV 208; BC G 1/G 3 / Secular cantata (Birthday)". I feel that the wording "formerly BWV 208" fails to represent the source which has the numbers BWV 208.1 and BWV 208 (and BC G1, and BC G 3) on one level, all as valid current numbers, while "formerly" suggest (at least to me) that the number is obsolete. Most sources refer to this work as BWV 208, which is a redirect, and should be bolded, anc should appear in the infobox. My approach to implement the added number would do the folling:

1. Mention Bach and cantata first, because these familiar terms come late after German title, translation (how about a literal one also, - no heart and no desire in the original?), the numbers, the alternate name
2. in the lead: list both numbers, the traditional and common one first, connected by the word "and"
3. bold the traditional number, not the other
4. refer to a cantata by the traditional number also, which readers may know better, also for consistency with article names
5. in the ref for the new number, list the complete title, not just a work number
6. avoid the link to the (very long) BWV
7. change the infobox to {{infobox musical composition}}, to avoid clumsiness on top, and to render both BWV numbers (and possibly the BC numbers also) as a plainlist in parameter "catalogue"
8. for consistency, I suggest to change the infobox for all Bach works, slowly, of course

My lead would begin like this (infobox without image):

Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd
Secular cantata by J. S. Bach
Catalogue	BWV 208 BWV 208.1
Related	BWV 208a (208.2, 208.3), 1040 and possibly 1046a
Occasion	Birthday of Christian of Saxe-Weissenfels
Performed	23 February 1713 (1713-02-23): Weißenfels

Johann Sebastian Bach composed the secular cantata Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd (The lively hunt is all my heart's desire), BWV 208 and BWV 208.1, also known as the Hunting Cantata, for the 31st birthday of Duke Christian of Saxe-Weissenfels on 23 February 1713.

References

Please discuss, suggest better replacement of "formerly", add ideas. Word a footnote about the surprising new number? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

IMHO you're making this much more complicated than it actually is. Re.:

1. No. Has been discussed before. Doesn't conform to actual guidance, without giving a valid rationale why there should be an exception in this case.
2. No. "... and ..." suggests two different works (compare: "... BWV 208.2 and 208.3 (both previously BWV 208a), ..." [2] with added emphasis).
3. No problem.
4. Of course. For the infobox, however, a choice needs to be made: two numbers is confusing when you're talking about the same composition, and one would need prose (or a table) to explain it.
5. For the Bach Digital pages: no. The title of these pages changes, the Work number (which is not a bare link) doesn't.
6. No. See my reply to #1: current guidance is what it is, and no valid rationale to deviate from it in this particular instance has been given. If you want to change the rules: go to the relevant talk page for the guidance, and find a consensus there.
7. ... or omit the infobox if it all results in clutter
8. Not a topic for this talk page: a merge of the infoboxes (with enough transition time) should be proposed elsewhere. But I'm glad to see you changed your opinion on that one.

Awaiting an appreciation of the merge suggestion (which would, of course, give a different lead and infobox: see #Lead and infobox in case of merge proposal below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

1. accept
2. I don't think that at the position, that "and " would be misunderstood, I also asked for a footnote to explain the new additional number. But if you object, what do you (or others) suggest instead of "and". "formerly" seems misleading, if not wrong.
3. -
4. The two confusing numbers is what BWV gave us, it's not our choice. The infobox - as shown - can very well include all these numbers. We could bold the common one.
5. If I read a reflist, I would like more than a 4-digit number to understand what it is.
6. -
7. The clutter of two numbers for one thing is what we have to deal with. We could omit the parameter, but it's no solution. Many compositions have more than one catalogue number, in different systems. Why not two from the same?
8. I began at Classical music, - it was you who sent to the individual pages.

I know too little about the works to comment on the merge in an educated way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Taking the above on board:

Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd
Secular cantata by J. S. Bach
Catalogue	BWV 208 BWV 208.1
Related	BWV 208a (208.2, 208.3), 1040 and possibly 1046a
Occasion	Birthday of Christian of Saxe-Weissenfels
Performed	23 February 1713 (1713-02-23): Weißenfels

Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd (The lively hunt is all my heart's desire), BWV 208, also BWV 208.1, is a secular cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach composed for the 31st birthday of Duke Christian of Saxe-Weissenfels on 23 February 1713. It is also known as the Hunting Cantata.

Lead and infobox in case of merge

See [3]. Awaiting appreciation of that proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Double Redirects

In the melee of the attempts to merge Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd, BWV 208a into this one against current consensus, we ended up with two circular redirects in this article: BWV 208.3 had redirected back to this one [4]. Ditto BWV 208.2 [5]. Both of them should actually redirect to Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd, BWV 208a. I've fixed them [6] [7], But perhaps those more familiar with these articles should double-check that this is now OK. Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is ok, Voce, thank you. I wonder how much work we will have to do, going over the quick and undiscussed introduction of the new (and yes a bit more systematic) BWV numbers pretending the ones we had before (beginning in 1850) were "former" of "previous". No, they are still valid, and dont blong in brackets. All Bach Digital sources have them on the same level. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)