Talk:Sacred concerto

Move problem
This article was moved from the specific Geistliches Konzert to a translation Sacred concerto, with both parts of the composite vague. What would sacred be linked to here, and - more problematic - what concerto? Certainly not to the meaning suggested by the lead of Concerto: instrumental, for a solo instrument with orchestra. I'd be happier with the difference clarified by intentionally using the specific term, as it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I intend to further improve the article, with clarifications etc. But as that is a bit more complicated than I originally thought, that may take some time. Feel free to participate. Anyway, I'm happy with the first step, which was moving the article. uses "sacred concerto" without the German version of that description, so it seems logical to use, per this English-language source, the English name of the concept. Note that also Grove's uses "sacred concerto" as translation of "Geistliches Konzert", so there's no ambiguity afaik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining and reasoning. I am sorry that I wasn't clear. While sources seem to agree that Geistliches Konzert should be translated to Sacred concerto (not Sacred concert, nor Spiritual concerto, among other possibilities), the meaning of both "sacred" and "concerto" is ambiguous. My approach would be to move back to the distinct Geistliches Konzert, and explain the many possible meanings in the article. - As for my participation, I have (estimated) six requests on my talk where I promised help, and would like to take of those first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The linked concerto, as said above, is misleading, - better no link than to the 19th-century type of instrumental solo concerto, - unless a reader goes beyond the first sentence. Section Concerto is there, but doesn't say anything this article wouldn't already say, - a needless detour. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem of the Sacred concerto article: if the intro and/or further content of the Concerto article need an update, then please proceed with that update, i.e. WP:SOFIXIT, and/or discuss on the Talk:Concerto talk page. The link is correct, and not misleading. You've been perfectly clear, but the discussion is largely off-topic here (see also below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Idea
What do you think about making THIS the article about Early-Baroque concerto, covering sacred and secular, and Geistliches Konzert as one type? It seams already a better redirect target for that term than Concerto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, contemporary distinctions are sometimes subtle (and contradicted by later scholarship), but I feel like that suggestion would rather add to the confusion than clarify anything. If you feel like Early Baroque concerto would make sense as a separate article, feel free to proceed. For the time being such titles (maybe also Concerto (early Baroque)) may redirect to Concerto. Note that many sacred concertos were composed in the middle Baroque period (like e.g. Pachelbel's P. 60 and a handful in the Altbachisches Archiv) so an "early Baroque concerto" article can't really cover the complete "sacred concerto" topic. Most of these authentic geistliche Konzerte were in the 19th and 20th century recast as "motets" or "cantatas", or, depending on source, as *both* [sic] motet and cantata (hence truckloads of confusion), but afaics 21st-century scholarship returns often to the authentic qualifications (e.g. the Perreault catalogue for Pachelbel and Bach Digital for members of the Bach family). Further, I intend to explain why Bach mostly used the term "concerto" when referring to his (sacred) cantata compositions – and that's late Baroque era. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense, and any better name for that completely different type of concerto would be fine. I just took what Concerto offered. We miss such an article. The little bit - as part of Concerto - is not enough. I dab page about what concerto can mean might be another option, - there's Concerto grosso and possibly more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, but all of these are other articles. Please proceed wherever you think useful. This article is about the sacred concerto = geistliches Konzert. So if that's the topic of *this* article, that's the title of *this* article, which means the English-language variant of the name. This talk page is for discussing the content of the article under that title, not for a myriad of possibilities elsewhere, and/or article content under different page names. If you want these articles, or want them improved if they already exist, please proceed, but I'd appreciate less distraction here about articles elsewhere and other content, that is, in the discussion on this talk page. I have no time to discuss all related topics here. As said, getting the content of this article right is more work than I anticipated: I'm reading a lot and see a lot of contradiction in reliable sources, so might take some time before further content starts appearing here. And you're free to contribute to this article too, of course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Geistliches Konzert
The correction from "geistliches Konzert" to "Geistliches Konzert" was reverted citing Grove. Forgive me, in this case - use of a German term - perhaps better ask German sources than Grove. Quoting from a ref: "Aus den Gattungen Geistliches Madrigal, Motette und insbesondere Geistliches Konzert entwickelt sich nach 1650 die ältere Kirchenkantate als geistliche Vokalmusik mit (relativ) unabhängigen Sätzen." When used as a genre name, capital G (Geistliches Madigal, Geistliches Konzert), while lowercase g is correctly used when just an adjective, as for for Vokalmusik, in the same title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, that German source was the only source for the article till a short while ago. English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources, if available and of comparable quality (see WP:RSUE). That's certainly the case here. If Grove's is used to translate the German expression (for which the German source can't even be used), then we follow that source: you can't make that source say something it doesn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)