Talk:Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1

Early
I've removed my original note that BWV 150 is believed to be Bach's earliest surviving cantata. Now I come to check a few things again, I see that the balance of opinion certainly seems to be with BWV 131. I really can't remember where I got the idea that it was BWV 150 (I didn't recheck this when writing this article, I just lifted the info from what I'd already written some time ago at Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich)--if anybody has a source that states it is the earliest, it may be worth mentioning, but it seems I, at least, do not. Sorry about that. --Camembert

Help!
Can someone help me make a sucession box for Bachs cantatas? Gareth E Kegg 19:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really worth the effort, for several reasons:
 * The BWV catalogue isn't ordered chronologically, so the claim that BWV 1 is somehow "succeeded" by BWV 2 misleading and confusing.
 * There are too many cantatas that cannot be dated specifically enough to produce a proper chronological succession.
 * Related to #2, Bach frequently re-used cantatas that he had already composed in lieu of composing a new one, particularly in the years following 1727.
 * Microtonal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Help!
I have gone through the twenty-some pages currently existing on Wiki for the Church cantatas, after editing a Bach Cantata Pilgrimage section, and thought I'd make an effort to standardize their presentation inasmuch as possible.
 * Consequently, I've created a few sections: a general intro that contains the German title, alongside a literal translation to English, BWV number, and type of cantata (sacred vs. secular).
 * This section also contains the prescribed readings and the authorship of the texts, when known, as well as the authorship of the chorale theme.
 * The articles are completed with a scoring and structure section, followed by the complete German text, in three columns, a list of complete recordings (as I can find online, obviously. I'm sure there are many more recordings).

I plan on applying this template to all articles (existing or to be created) on the cantatas. Any advice/recommendation would be greatly appreciated and surely taken into account. Campelli (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Application of a uniform template for Bach's Cantatas
I have gone through the twenty-some pages currently existing on Wiki for the Church cantatas, after editing a Bach Cantata Pilgrimage section, and thought I'd make an effort to standardize their presentation inasmuch as possible.
 * Consequently, I've created a few sections: a general intro that contains the German title, alongside a literal translation to English, BWV number, and type of cantata (sacred vs. secular).
 * This section also contains the prescribed readings and the authorship of the texts, when known, as well as the authorship of the chorale theme.
 * The articles are completed with a scoring and structure section, followed by the complete German text, in three columns, a list of complete recordings (as I can find online, obviously. I'm sure there are many more recordings).

I plan on applying this template to all articles (existing or to be created) on the cantatas. Any advice/recommendation would be greatly appreciated and surely taken into account. Campelli (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed
I removed the sentence "The vocal parts are embedded in the independent concerto of the orchestra." from the Music section as being essentially meaningless -- "concerto" is misused and the sense of "embedded in" is unclear. What could be said, if a source supports it, is that there's an obbligato part. --Stfg (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Intention ?
Lucifer makes a conspiracy theorist wonder whether the atheist intellectual elite deliberately challenged the competence of the conservative elite by tagetting the linguistic prerequisites required to attain higher clerical offices during the age of reason advancing from the Netherlands eastwards through the Germanic states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.61.25 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, fail to understand the connection with this article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308060019/http://atticbooks.co.uk/default%284%29.htm to http://atticbooks.co.uk/default%284%29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-integrate discography?
I think it would be best to re-integrate the discography list (recently split to Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 discography, where it has been cleaned up in the mean while). My rationale: the GA version of this article had a discography section with a list, the short paragraph that remains of the section now leads to an unbalance, bad enough to damage its chances for a FA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kindly wait. My model is BWV 4. Yes, it had a discography as GA, but not FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion already happened with you, me and then Graham87 on User talk:Gerda Arendt. Historically, there was no idea of merging Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 and Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 discography. So why here? Indeed there does seem to be a WP:consensus for a separate discography (you, me, Nikkimaria, Graham87, ...). But Gerda, you can always the FA reviewers for their opinion, in case of doubt. Doesn't BWV 4 set a precedent? Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, when BWV 4 was promoted to FA it had a recordings list. The extraction of the recordings list was done later. Anyhow, what remains there in the main article is a three-paragraph summary, quite different from the single paragraph section we have now in BWV 1. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite generally, the details of a recordings list are hardly relevant for the understanding of a piece of music. Neither is this article "finished", nor its summary in the cantata article which will be longer than today. Please wait. When I said "I want to focus" I meant I don't even have time to look here, in memory of Wilhelm Knabe. Other FAs of music without recordings: Falstaff (opera) and other operas, Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart). Different subject: Morihei Ueshiba, which had a list of students which during FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, go ahead, time enough, any workable approach may lead to an acceptable solution. In the mean while tags indicate where the work is to be done. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * & still a question: you write "... details of a recordings list are hardly relevant for ..." – can you describe, in your opinion, what a detailed recordings list of the BWV 1 cantata is relevant for? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) No. What I know is that these lists have been done (operas, oratorios, students, Busoni repertoire), and I like to preserve the work of editors who created something before me. They seem to find a few readers every day, so why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

From memory, systematic tagging for HIP, etc, has not happened on other cantata articles: perhaps an RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music might be required, to prevent time being wasted by bad faith edits. Anyway—as you've already written—precedent, WP:consensus and wikipedia policy suggest a merge would be ill-advised. The edit history of this article and the main article shows attempts to prevent the main article being promoted to WP:FA. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, firstly I said more than once that there's no rush for anything about this nomination. The earliest day it could appear is in 2022 (while articles such as Arik Brauer and Wilhelm Knabe need immediate, focused, uninterrupted attention, or the hard rules of WP:ITN about newness give them no chance for exposure]). I am determined to assume good faith, wanting to ensure article integrity. I hate tags in Main space, especially if massive and distracting, but styles are different. It's not without irony that I removed the tags from the discography article, and you reintroduced them ;) - They bother me less in that article than in one with a GA sign, and I am sure that we'll find a solution, however slowly. We know where the work is expected to be done without demonstrating it towards our readers. I'll return to this later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I initiated a broader related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the merge suggestion tags: the separate discography appears broadly supported and it has been summarized in the cantata article; I don't want this to stand in the way of FAC proceedings. Since the recordings prose description is no longer a recordings section in list format, I have made it a subsection of "Reception". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Commercial link
In this edit, a script removed the external link in a postscript cite param. This change had already been reverted by an editor. Looking at the original, I see it is a commercial link to a seller of the boxed set. I question whether we should be providing this information at all, since a Google search provides other commercial sources, including Presto Music at about half the price. Why should we advertise one supplier? Pings for,. --Mirokado (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Wikipedia is not a marketing site and that this link is not required to establish the bone fides of the cite. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)