Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2016.

Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161

 * Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an unusual cantata among the many of Johann Sebastian Bach. We look at it because it was (most likely) performed 300 years ago, when Bach's productivity in Weimar dwindled. Later, when he composed cantatas again with enthusiasm in Leipzig, he wrote new ones instead of using this one again. The thought expressed in the title seems strange to our thinking: "Come, you sweet hour of death". Please read why scholars and performers love the work. - The GA review was performed by Ceoil, about a year ago, who also helped with the prose. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Just the lede for now, due to limited time and spotty internet:
 * "Bach had taken up regular cantata composition two years before when he was promoted to concertmaster" two years before what?
 * should it say "before this piece was probably first performed"? - (Probable) date given the previous sentence. --GA
 * Something along those lines, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The date is now given, the details about the "probably" would be hard at that point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Shloss I would add a suitable translation (palace, most likely) in parentheses.
 * We have an article Schloss, linked for those who don't know. Weimar - unfortunately - is a complex thing, started as castle, palace added. --GA
 * Should Knoll be linked in the lede?
 * yes, done --GA
 * "appears already in the first movement" I'm not sure what is meant by "already"
 * The closing (or concluding) chorale is the last movement. It's an unusual feature of this cantata and a few others to introduce the melody already in the first movement. --GA
 * OK, but there's a prose issue. I would replace "already" with "unusually for Bach" or "unusually for a Bach chorale" or whatever it is unusual for, with commas before and after.
 * What do you think of improving the wording first in the body, then decide up to which detail it needs to be said in the lead? - Help to better English is always welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "continuo" link?
 * In the lead and infobox (of these similar articles), we link the group Baroque instruments (... ensemble), later in Scoring the individual terms. --GA
 * "While the libretto was published in a collection in 1715, Bach possibly led the first performance only a year later on 27 September 1716, due to a period of public mourning." I'm having trouble grasping this. Was it usual for a longer period between publication and performance?
 * No, usually it was composed immediately. Written 1715 would normally have been composed 1715. But now, as there was mourning in 1715 - no cantata music - it was either composed in 1715 but performed in 1716, or composed and performed in 1716. --GA
 * Then you need to make that more clear because it's not clear what "due to ... mourning" relates to. W
 * Public mourning after the death of a young man from the duke's family, - seems a lot of detail for the lead, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the prose does not convey what you think it does. You need to rephrase it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added more detail in the body, and some of it in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bach revived the cantata in Leipzig, but not during his cantata cycles when he composed three new works for the 16th Sunday after Trinity." I'm not sure what is meant by "but not during his cantata cycles"
 * He composed three cycles of cantatas, one a week, in 1723 / 1724 / 1725. We have articles for the second and third so far, but not the first. Would a link to Bach cantata help? --GA
 * No, again it is prose. perhaps for the text I've quoted above, "but did not include it in his cantata cycles" or similar, and continuing "composing instead three new works ..."
 * But the new compositions were rather the expected thing, - unusual that he revived earlier works, for example never composed a new cantata for Easter Sunday in all three cycles. I hesitate, therefore, to say "did not include". Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "He also assigning it to the occasion of Purification," should be past tense, "assigned", though I'm not sure that is the proper term. "designated", maybe?
 * yes, better --GA
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, helpful already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Background:
 * I might begin with Bach’s year of birth, so the reader knows when his teen years were.
 * Will do. I will look in detail tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done now ---GA
 * He was appointed concertmaster” I might say “he was promoted to concertmaster” to tie in with the headnote. I would begin the following sentence “In that position” to avoid the repeat of “concertmaster”
 * following sentence done, - I was criticized before for using exactly the same wording oin body and lead, - a fine difficult for me to judge ---GA
 * I would add a comma after “Specifically”.
 * done ---GA
 * "the regular chance to compose and perform a new work” possibly “the chance to regularly compose and perform a new work”
 * yes, better ---GA
 * ”program” consider “programme” since you are using day month year, this spelling is more common in the UK, which uses day month year.
 * I usually stick to British, but "programme" seems so needlessly long, and "bar" ambiguous, therefore I am not consistent for those two, using program and measure ;) - In this case, perhaps we can find a better word altogether. ---GA
 * ”Cantatas in 1716” I might say “of” rather than “in”.
 * taken ---GA
 * In the second sentence, I might add a “have” before “survived” and “contemporary” before “interest” (assuming I have grasped what is meant correctly)
 * "have" taken, don't understand the other ---GA
 * "Bach turned again to prolific writing “I might rephrase “From the start of the liturgical year on the first Sunday in Advent, Bach wrote prolifically”
 * taken ---GA
 * Why is the table of 1716 works necessary in this article?
 * It is not necessary, but similar to the list of the early cantatas in BWV 4 and the 1715 list in BWV 165, - for context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "expressed in words of desire to die soon” possibly “expressed as a longing for death” or similar.
 * taken, but let's think about it, - how to include the "soon" ---GA
 * You link and introduce Franck twice in close succession.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I got the new ones now. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "The prescribed readings for that Sunday were from the Epistle to the Ephesians" If they remain so, would say "are" rather than "were"
 * Reading schedule probably changed, --GA
 * "was first performed on 6 October 1715" This is clearly the 16th Sunday after Trinity, from the other dates provided. I would identify it as such, and use less text to identify the other dates (for example the November date could be identified simply as "the 21st Sunday"
 * not sure I understand what you mean, - the first line of the lead established the 16th Sunday after Trinity, and the readings, - it would not have been performed any other occasion than a 16th Sunday after Trinity, - until much later when he also took it for Purification (February) --GA
 * I would find a way to combine the first two paragraphs of "Performances". I think that argument can be consolidated into one paragraph, and I think the paragraph break weakens the structure.
 * tried --GA
 * Sorry, am traveling and doing bits and pieces. Will finish soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * no problem, thank for your feedback --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "he feast of the Purification of Mary on 2 February" year?
 * every year --GA
 * The German text beginning "Auf den ..." should likely be italicized.
 * In musical articles, we most often don't italicize quotes, - compare the incipits of the movements --GA
 * Why are the names of the movements italicized in the table but not in the following text?
 * because they are names of movements in the table, but just quoted text in the following text, - sometimes longer text than the movement name (= first line), to make more sense --GA
 * "In a later performance in Leipzig, a soprano sang the stanza with the organ" What year? If Bach supervised the performance it is important, but if he didn't, it may not be.
 * Unfortunately we don't know, see higher up: "some time between 1737 and 1746". --GA
 * In Movement 2, I would give the reader the English after each quote in German.
 * The first is a quote from the bible, you get the translation clicking on "Phillians ...). Do you think it should be repeated? --GA
 * " (My longing is, to embrace my Savior),[1] is the first movement with the strings, expressing a deep sense of longing" Yes, likely so, but the repetition does not give the reader more information than he already has (and "longing" awaits him twice more before he exits this short paragraph). Suggest a synonym here.
 * This was done by a helper, did you notice?
 * It might be helpful to add the date of the 16th Sunday after Trinity in 2000 in Later Performances where it is mentioned (in parentheses).
 * done --GA
 * That's it. I'll make a second run through once this is done but I expect to support. I've made some edits, feel free to revert any not liked.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for thorough reading, it's already improved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Well done. I've made some final tweaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria
Oppose pending a usable Recordings section. Meaning should not be conveyed solely by colour per accessibility requirements (someone who can't see the red would be very lost, and even someone who can would not easily understand the explanation). Sortable fields should not contain multiple values since only one can be used to sort. Happy to strike oppose and provide more comments once this is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After midnight where I live, so only briefly: the section looks like that of other featured articles on the subject, - what is different here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not having tracked down which articles you refer to, I would say if they really are the same, those others should be altered also. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I altered this one, - no more red. Will look at a different header line tomorrow. Compare BWV 4, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one needs editing also. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look again, at both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Colour now fine, just the sorting issue left to address. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I made column "soloists" not sortable. I think people might want to sort by conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You could then make conductor its own column. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I could, but some have long names. With typically four soloists, it's much better for the layout to combine the conductor with the groups of singers and instrumentalists, also they form a kind of unity. We could make a footnote saying that it's sortable by conductor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If width is the concern, perhaps combine the choir and orchestra descriptions, or even put them under title? I'm not sure I agree that people would like to sort by conductor but not by ensemble. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they wouldn't want to sort by ensemble, but for width reasons, I don't want a column for each, it would mean one for chorus and one for orchestra, no? With the added difficulty that some have both in one. - Actually I'd think to have the conductors in a separate column would give them a prominence I would not like to grant them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, so if conductors shouldn't be prominent and shouldn't be split, don't make that column sortable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon
Short and sweet article. Just a few comments.


 * "Herzlich tut mich verlangen" --> is this right with quotation marks, or should it be, like the names of cantates, in italics? Same question for choral tune "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden"
 * songs (including hymns) and poems in quotation marks --GA


 * "For details on Bach's promotion, see Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 § Background." --> Would it not be better to include the relevant info here, in a footnote?
 * I feel that the relevant info is here: that from then on he had the right to compose and perform a cantata per month. It's just a (rather long) paragraph for those who want to know more. --GA


 * "a complete annual cycle" --> might benefit from a little explanation
 * Would another link to Church cantata (Bach) help? (in the lead and in the infobox) --GA
 * Yes --E
 * done, and liturgical year added, with another link ---GA


 * "on Wolff and the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr" --> makes Wolff look like he is not a Bach scholar
 * You are right. Wolff was introduced before, Dürr not. I tried to drop the Bach scholar there. --GA


 * In the Readings and Text section, I find this repetitive: "The text for this cantata, as for many others of Bach's Weimar period, was written by the court poet Salomon Franck, and published in his collection Evangelisches Andachts-Opffer in 1715", repeating what was said in the earlier section.
 * Good catch, that happens when paragraphs are added at the beginning ;) --GA


 * "one of the most richly inspired of all Bach's Weimar cantatas" --> any indication how many all is would be helpful
 * by math it would be 4 times 12 (1 a month), however - as we know from above - there was mourning, and Bach stopped altogether the last year, so only 15 in 1714+15, and 6 in 1716, - I could write 21, or "around 20" but wouldn't that be original research? --GA
 * I assume there is a list somewhere with Weimar cantates. --E
 * If it was I'd link ;) - all we have so far is this on Bach cantata, ---GA
 * It will be a tricky question to answer, the number performed in Weimar may be different from that certainly composed there, and for some cantatas we just don't know, including the two which may have been composed earlier elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "according to a recent study" --> would be helpful to know the reason why. And ideally the reference is the primary source
 * The reason are stylistic considerations in that "recent study" by Rampe and Sackmann, which are summarized by Jones as "technical novelties". --GA


 * "In his first year as Thomaskantor" --> a bit more clarity would be good: which year?
 * ok, I keep forgetting that :) --GA


 * "also composed at Weimar" --> that is 2 times also in short succession
 * tried a change --GA


 * "He later used the juxtaposition of a chorale cantus firmus against vocal music later " --> repetition of later
 * yes --GA


 * " the version performed in Weimar in 1714" --> I think 1716
 * You are so right. (At least this time I didn't write 2014.) --GA


 * The movements table: a legend is more helpful, explaining A, Fl etc. I know it's in the text but readers should not have to hunt down the text. Table should work standalone. Therefore I think the continuo should be added.
 * will think about it (but we have a few FAs on Bach cantatas already, BWV 4, BWV 165 ...) --GA


 * "and the cantata Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis, BWV 21, among others" --> perhaps that "among others" is not needed, since we already have "one of several"
 * yes --GA


 * "the Monteverdi Choir" --> the Monteverdi Chor perhaps? And wikilink?
 * Monteverdi-Chor is not Monteverdi Choir, Bach Cantata Pilgrimage is a redirect to the latter --GA


 * "The table entries are excerpted from the selection on the Bach-Cantatas website" --> I don't think the source is that important. Better to introduce what the table is about.
 * other reviewers (in earlier FAC) asked for it --GA


 * The BWV note needs a source. Schneider?
 * It's in 100 articles, but nobody asked for a source. It's there to explain the abbreviation, - and the short explanation helps people perhaps not to have to click (to an immensely long article) --GA
 * I've added a source. I think everything should have a source. --E


 * I haven't been able to deduce the rationale for the grouping of the sources. Some general ones seem online.
 * Would you know a better word for general, to summarize basics such as score and collections of sources? --GA
 * I see. Difficult. Let me think about it. --E


 * The (in German) doesn't seem right for the Breitkopf and Carus online sources
 * good catch again --GA


 * the isbn numbers are a mix of 10 and 13
 * I fixed one, but where would I find a 13 number for the 1971 printed book? --GA
 * I have done it using an isbn converter. --E
 * For future reference, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * the second OUP is linked. Not sure if only the first should be, or all, but second doesn't look right
 * swapped --GA


 * Reading through the sources to see if anything else might be included, I came across this about movement 4, for your consideration: "the onomatopoeic effect of the striking of the hour", on bach-cantates.com
 * will look --GA


 * I noticed how FA Tosca has audio excerpts. I do believe that if any audio is available it should be included.
 * will check --GA

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking closely and asking good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thing to think about: I like the infobox image. Is there anything to add about the manuscript and Bach's annotations? Edwininlondon (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking Mathsci who made it available, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, two more answered above, ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw
Overall a nicely written and understandable, well-researched article. A few minor nitpicks:
 * I'd like to see a few more terms wikilinked for the benefit of the non-aficionado: concertmaster, duchy of Weimar ( I think Saxe-Weimar?), Schlosskirche  or palace church (looks like Castle chapel is the closest for a piped link), aria,  recitative, recorders (Recorder (musical instrument) for sure, as the non-musician may not have endured their use in elementary music class...), secco (glossary link exists:  secco), Tadashi Isoyama.
 * We need to split it:
 * concertmaster - no because that is a different fundtion today
 * duchy of Weimar Saxe-Weimar - done
 * Schlosskirche or palace church (looks like Castle chapel is the closest for a piped link) - well I don't believe we need to send people away for that article
 * aria - done
 * recitative - done
 * recorders (Recorder (musical instrument) - yes already, but not in the lead, where no instrument is linked but Baroque instruments
 * secco (glossary link exists: secco) - no good link, the secco section in recitative is better
 * Tadashi Isoyama - no, will stay red link. --GA


 * Might want to rephrase "period of public mourning of six months in the duchy of Weimar from August 1715." in the lead, perhaps something like "period of public mourning for the Duke's brother that fell during Trinity..." or something like that, still short, but giving context...
 * The sad story has not really to do with the music, - I thought too much for the lead --GA


 * Overall, I think a copyedit for phrasing and smoothing out would be helpful, nothing really jumps out, just overall some spots where a "the" or another word or two would improve the flow.
 * will ask Corinne --GA

Montanabw (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: My concerns have been addressed or answered appropriately.  Glad to support.   Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:BWV161-P124-staatsbibliothek-berlin.jpeg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Appropriate parameters have been added to the existing PD-Art template, based on the 1887 publication date given in the article.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  08:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "the 16th Sunday after Trinity": Very few Main Page readers will know when Trinity is. Perhaps "24th Sunday after Easter", instead of or in addition to Trinity.
 * No, sorry, it's a fixed term, those who don't know can click on the link. We can't explain in 60 or so cantatas the fifty days from Easter to Pentecost. --GA


 * "In Bach's time the story pointed at the resurrection of the dead, expressed in words of desire to die soon.": I'm not sure what that means.
 * I am afraid we all don't. It was a very Baroque approach. (Baroque originally means something strange and crooked.) --GA


 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, for diligent reading and especially for the prose help! - with a ping to Montanabw ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure Gerda, any time. Btw, I agree with all of Montana's points, and I fixed some of those as I went, such as adding a link for secco. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Coord note
Has this had a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review
All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited except as follows:
 * Dürr 1971: "(4 ed.)" Is 4th ed. meant?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.