Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden

Year and article title
Is this the same chorale as in de:Christ lag in Todes Banden? My first guess would be, it is, but the different years confuse me. This article says: published in 1533, the German article and the German Wikisource say 1524, as does bach-cantatas.com.

BTW, the original incipit was "Christ lag in Todes Banden", or rather "Christ lag yn(n) todes banden" (Walthersches Gesangbüchlein/Erfurt Enchiridion), but according the the de:Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch, contemporary usage is "… in Todesbanden". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Re. BTW:
 * ngrams:
 * German
 * English
 * Google books:
 * "Christ lag in Todesbanden" "Luther" -"Banden" → number of results 2550
 * "Christ lag in Todes Banden" "Luther" -"Todesbanden" → number of results 653
 * In view of WP:UCRN ("...Wikipedia 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 criteria...") I'll undo this bold page move: the rationale of that move "... original name" seems questionable at best: the original name is "Christ lag yn(n) todes banden", which nobody advocates, and "original name" doesn't suffise as a WP:AT argument (WP:UCRN: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred", bolding added). The "most typically used in reliable sources" has been demonstrated above. "... contemporary usage..." is indeed clear (and preferred over a usage that is neither more common in English, nor the original German usage). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding external links and audio examples

 * As I explained, the MIDI file is neither Bach's nor Luther's melody (it is similar, at least in the beginning, but the later part has some modern "improvements"). Unless it happens to be the melody present in modern hymnals (which I would tend to doubt as other Luther hymns, such as Ein feste Burg, have survived in either the Luther or the Bach setting, but not in some other variation), there is no reason to include it; and even if it were, it would be preferable if it were not a MIDI since the sound quality is dubious at best; and if we truly seek to merely illustrate the tune then a lilypond example should be enough.
 * The MP3 given as an external link seems to be merely a recording of a MIDI rendition (the break between stanzas is particularly obvious); and in any case it is needlessly long (there are, by my quick reckoning, five stanzas, but the MIDI is the same every time so unless it is intended as a resource for congregational singing - which WP is not - there's no reason why we should link to it).
 * The version by the Tolzer Knabenchor has no obvious musical or melodic faults, and the video is from a topic channel, which are properly licensed (see here; "“As part of our deals with the music industry, we've licensed their other music that wasn't yet on YouTube or didn't have a music video,” the spokesperson said for Google. “When we did that, we created auto-generated videos for them to bring their music easily to YouTube viewers everywhere. That's what you're looking at with this link you sent.” "). As such, given that we have no vocal version of the hymn (which is, before all, a song, not merely some random melody) in the article and unless there's an acceptable one hidden somewhere on Commons (I checked: there isn't), we should provide listeners with an appropriate example, and given that we mostly speak of the German version (also, that I could not readily find an equally artful English version), this seems like a good one. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging since you appear to not have noticed... 23:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed, but had no time to check yet, e.g. what you said about the YouTube video etc. For the time being I'd like to keep as close to the WP:YOUTUBE guidance as possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Youtube video apparently does not exist (any more): I'm suspecting copyright problems as reason for it no longer existing. So I reverted (again). Please don't take fellow-editor's time with issues that go so clearly against WP:YOUTUBE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It might not work for you (somewhere in Europe?); but from here in Canada it works perfectly. "Not available in your country" is not the same as removed. The video description says "Provided to YouTube by NAXOS of America". See also the article which I linked just above; this video might be on YT but there's no copyright problem of any kind with it. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, had to go via a proxy to verify the video is not available in, I presume, mainland Europe; for your benefit the description is


 * The label (Winter & Winter) is listed directly on the Naxos website (for the exact cd ) so there's no doubt or possible ambiguity about this. I have added it back in. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to appreciate the fact that the YouTube url is a WP:DEADLINK, so no – removed (again). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have said, it's not a deadlink: it's geographically restricted (which is a different thing). Going through a proxy I find that the video is 'Unavailable"; not that the link doesn't exist. Since most English readers would be from North America (USA, Canada) this would be a minor inconvenience. If you're not satisfied with the evidence above then I suggest WP:3O. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, makes the EL unsuitable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked for something similarly suitable (the above is best since it has multiple verses and multiple settings all in one, but since you can't find it then not worth fighting over it). Is this (Augsburger Domsingknaben; licensed by Deutsche Grammophon / Universal Music Group) available for you? Otherwise there's also a recording by the Calmus Ensemble Leipzig (this )? Any of those available for you? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first may be available on the Deutsche Grammophon website, in which case it should better be linked to that website: at least clear that it is really the copyright holder who has made it available. But even then, I'd probably oppose it for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, (1) too much of a "teaser" for promotional purposes: Wikipedia is not in the business of managing record companies' publicity; (2) the availability of such videos is often limited in time (as well on the record company's website as their YouTube copies), which would make it necessary to return to the article numerous times to check whether the link is still live; (3) linking one and not the other seems like Wikipedia editors making a choice of which video represents the best rendering of the piece, which is a WP:NPOV issue – linking all recordings that have no (nor will have in the future) copyright impediments is at least clear: no choice is made among which are the best performers, who offers it for free (permanently) is the only criterion; (4) I avoid short teasers myself: everyone knows that most musical pieces can be found in multiple versions on YouTube – offering a short video, while any Wikipedia reader can go to YouTube and make their own choice of whichever version they like best, is rather steering.
 * Anyway: same for the Naxos video (probably on their website; don't like short ones; etc, see 4 reasons already given for DG; and as said there is more). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case, both of them are "complete pieces" (even if they're short, for crying out loud, it's a hymn, very few people sing more than a few stanzas of hymns nowadays...). The inclusion of such links in general has already been discussed at EL/N. By simply selecting one version we're not implying it's the best (unless you intend to say that the audios at, for example, BWV 140 are the best recording of the cantata... which they are not, they're "representative" and "good enough") nor is it being POV (especially if the descriptions are kept short and to the point, such as ""Song/Hymn", sung by Notable ensemble"). If "everyone knows that most musical pieces can be found in multiple versions on YouTube", then why are we even bothering having often inferior versions directly on articles? The prime function is as a demonstrative educational example (the same way you usually listen to a piece of music when analyzing it...); and in this case the primary concern should be whether it's sufficient in achieving that role (which I believe we can agree both examples are "settings of the hymn as it could appear in a contemporary environment", eg. sung from a Hymnal in a church, or as part of a concert...) and whether there are any copyright issues, which is the other requirement of WP:EL (both are fine).
 * Regarding this particular one, the DG page links directly to itunes and spotify (the first of which is no since it's not free, the second which is also a no per WP:ELREG); given that the YT page has no copyright issue and is yet provably there with proper authorization then I suggest that would be the most suitable example (since it's the simpler setting). WP:YOUTUBE only says that "there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page."; and WP:ELYES is rather clear that "An article about [... a piece of music] should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work," and that "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject [I contend that an audio of a musical piece is relevant to understanding it...] and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, [so long that what we link to is not a violation by itself, which I believe I have proved sufficiently here]" RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)