Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1

Handled issues

 * Francis' suggestions:
 * (article lead section) – still active, see project page
 * ("not a chorale" explanation) – still active, see project page
 * (coherent use of "chorale"/"hymn"/etc. throughout the article) – still active, see project page
 * I suppose Spitta discusses the cantata somewhere? Maybe a summary of such discussion or at least a page number of where he discusses it (preferably of the English edition) would be welcome? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Spitta is probably the key to the (erroneous) "c. 1940" date of the LOC website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) Good point, I will use the sources you kindly provided, but not immediately (see below), - you are also welcome to do it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now two sources are added, and 1740 is not mentioned in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Spitta's erroneous chronology is at pp. 89–99, and endnote 3 (p. 285ff.) in Vol. 3 of the English edition. In both cases BWV 10 happens to be the 25th of the listed cantatas. (for clarity this is neither of the sources Gerda mentions in her comment immediately above – this history of the chronology is not yet in the Wikipedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) What do you think is not complete in the sentence in "A critical edition was published by Carus in 2009", which is expanded by a clause on who edited, and another that it came with a singable version + the title of that version. Feel free to improve the grammar. - It would be more transparent (generally speaking), if you'd repeat your concerns here, instead of just a diff. - "non sequitur" - I understand it, but kindly use less Latin. I don't understand what doesn't follow, though. - Also generally: I appreciate copy-edits and suggestions, but please don't put too much in one edit, again for transparency. Thank you for striking the alleged edit-warring which was about one single revert as you say yourself below. - I would normally put such information for you and only you on your talk, but was deemed "opened the same discussion in a fourth venue" and "forum shopping / disallowed canvassing" above. Can we try to stick to content? - This weekend, I have little time, - both "my" groups sing in a mass, + I will listen to a concert tomorrow. It's not that I neglect this, but also no rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the Latin... non sequitur is however the English Wikipedia name of the template that seemed most appropriate to indicate the situation (see template documentation by clicking the link). The half sentence tagged with that template is however not a continuation of the "Carus"-related sentence. That previous sentence ends with a period (followed by a reference), after which the "non sequitur" half-sentence starts without a capital letter. There is no apparent relation between the half-sentence and the preceding full sentence: they speak about different publishers (Carus vs. Bärenreiter) and different editors (Großpietsch vs. Uwe Wolf). The English translation seemingly mentioned in the context of the Bärenreiter publication ("Now my soul exalts the Lord"), is also not the same as the one mentioned for the Carus publication ("Magnify the Lord, my soul") --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I hope. I must have inadvertently deleted the beginning of the second sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see in a hidden comment that you'd like more clarification. What I see is that Großpietsch is named editor of the Carus edition, which I think is no conflict to Wolf being chief editor, - the chief editor can't do everything. The later Bärenreiter clearly lists Wolf as the editor, but do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited? - Could you please raise questions here, not in a hidden comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited?" – I don't know, but it seems rather unlikely that Wolf, while being a Chief Editor at Carus, would produce a new critical edition for Carus' competitor Bärenreiter. My guess is that Bärenreiter recycled Wolf's 1995 critical edition of the score (I also don't suppose the English translation of the libretto was a new one for the 2015 publication), and published it with a new introduction (the introduction of the 2015 edition is not by Wolf), thus producing something that could be sold as "new". Now, none of this can go to Wikipedia's mainspace without references to reliable sources (the story might still be different from what I suppose it to be), but that Wolf would have produced "another" critical edition for Bärenreiter's 2015 publication, i.e. another one than the one he had produced in 1995, is currently unsourced (no reliable source seems to say that), and what reliable sources say seems to go in another direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried it differently, making it a reissue. Where would we find if the first NBA had an English version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * NBA editions are in German exclusively (not a word in English before the NBArev sequel). Here's what usually happens: a NBA volume is, on first publication, a new critical & Urtext edition, usually containing several compositions (e.g. 4 or 5 cantatas). Shortly after that, Bärenreiter publishes (outside the "complete editions" series, so in this case outside the NBA set of publications) extracts (e.g. separate cantatas), performance parts, translations, vocal scores (i.e. voices with a piano reduction instead of the full orchestral score), etc. based on the new Urtext (they don't wait 20 years with that). I documented that for Bach's Magnificat (see Magnificat (Bach), start of second paragraph of that section). I suspect the English translation of BWV 10 being published in the late 20th century, with maybe the only new addition to the 2015 publication being a new introduction (if such introduction contains some updates to the former critical commentary the whole publication can be sold as a "new" critical edition...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the "reissue" solved that problem, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and no: what we get now is a somewhat WP:WEASELy declaration that may or may not be correct: I "suspect" the English translation of the 2015 edition not being new at that time, but for a FA grade article I expect clear information: when was that particular English translation first published (still possible that Bärenreiter had a new English translation produced for their 2015 edition), and who was the translator? I suppose some footwork is needed, e.g. Anna-Lena Bulgrin's introduction of that edition may be enlightening (is there no way to find it in a library or so?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that we need the name of the translator, nor the date of translation. Nice to have, when available, but not adding much, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "hidden comment":
 * It is not "hidden", it shows up on mouseover (one does not need to go to edit mode to read it);
 * Sorry, was in a hurry when I wrote it
 * Nonetheless, I'll use tags and/or comments here whatever works most efficiently to make clear what a problem is (won't write a paragraph here when I see a straightforward issue that can be made clear with a simple tag) and/or will solve the issue myself when I have time to do it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had no idea about the mouseover, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "He performed it at least once more in the 1740s":
 * This sentence is in the Readings, text and tune section: a first suggestion is to place this somewhere else in the article or, alternatively, update the section title while this information doesn't fit in the readings, text or tune domain. The same goes for the preceding sentence ("Bach first performed the cantata on 2 July 1724"): that information is already elsewhere in the article, with other references (so maybe this sentence can be removed from this section, and applicable references grouped with where this information is first introduced after the lead section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, a section "Performances" might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For now, the performance on 2 July 1724 is mentioned early, and no other because doubtful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently the article provides the context of the Visitation/Magnificat compositions of 1723 (period of Bach's first cantata cycle) – maybe an idea to cast that "context" net a bit wider: Magnificats and Visitation cantatas associated with Bach which were performed in Leipzig before his first cantata cycle and/or after his second cantata cycle (if solid sourcing turns up for a 1740s performance of BWV 10 that can be added to the overview):
 * 1715 or earlier: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV Anh. 21 (Nicknamed "Little Magnificat", BDW, by Bach's predecessor Melchior Hoffmann)
 * Visitation cantata (no date): Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 (the text of this cantata is a Magnificat paraphrase, its composer may be Bach or Hoffmann, and the cantata has audio files at Commons)
 * Visitation 1725: Meine Seele erhebet den Herrn, BWV deest (BDW, libretto extant, not certain whether Bach composed its music – if so it may belong to his third cycle)
 * Visitation 1726: Der Herr wird ein Neues im Lande, JLB 13 (BDW, performed by Bach, associated with his third cycle)
 * Visitation 1728: Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn (libretto extant, third cantata of Bach's fourth cantata cycle)
 * c. 1733 (Visitation?): second version of the Magnificat, BWV 243
 * Early 1740s: Bach copies and modifies Caldara's Latin Magnificat for performance (the modified movement is BWV 1082, i.e. BDW )
 * Around 1742 Bach copies a Latin Magnificat for double SATB choir (BWV Anh. 30, BDW )
 * Not sure whether all of these need to be mentioned, but at least the Visitation cantatas of 1725 and 1726 seem interesting enough to mention (if we mention the Magnificat/Visitation cantatas of the preceding first cycle, seems only logical to also mention those of the ensuing third cycle). I'd only mention the early 1740s Latin Magnificats if a repeat performance of Bach's German Magnificat around the same time can be ascertained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write that section, and be a conom. I thought that it was good to know what Bach had done before (not later). The readers interested can find most of the information in Church cantata (Bach) under Visitation. This article is for readers of this cantata. Again, what do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Gardiner 2010, the only reference given for the 1740s performance, is a concert program (CD booklet of a concert recording?) that doesn't cite any research as basis for its assertions. I submit that a concert program or liner notes not citing any sources are insufficient WP:V-wise for this assertion (not even talking about the possible COPYVIO of the site that presents the PDF of this text linked to from Wikipedia). This ties in with "1740"-related issues probably based on obsolete 19th-century assumptions already mentioned before: sources contradict, and Wikipedia's current partial rendering of that contradicting information appears (at least) confusing to the reader and/or substandard for a FA candidate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The information about a second performance "1740s" or "between 1740 and 1747" is found in many other sources, even distinguishing use of the CF instrument in #5 for both versions. I will look. Comment out so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggesting two more sources (mentioned at the Bach Digital Work page ):
 * Dürr Chr 2 (i.e. "Alfred Dürr. Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke J. S. Bachs, 2. Auflage: Mit Anmerkungen und Nachträgen versehener Nachdruck aus Bach­-Jahrbuch 1957. Kassel, 1976"), p. 16.
 * NBA I/28.2 – Critical report (1995), p. 67
 * Alas I have currently access to neither, but they may be instrumental in getting the confusion sorted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (Recordings) – still active, see project page
 * (provisions for a table-less layout) – still active, see project page
 * (comprehensive approach to reception topics) – still active, see project page
 * (origin of German doxology) – still active, see project page
 * Navbox collapse options (one of the idiosyncrasies I had in mind in this section's OP – I'm not sure whether the topic is part of a FAC assessment, anyway here it goes): the article currently has two navboxes, Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach and Bach cantatas. The first of these boxes is collapsed, the second is uncollapsed. The first lists the cantata BWV 10 in the context of Bach's second cantata cycle, so between the 4th and the 6th chorale cantata of Bach's second year in Leipzig; the second navbox lists the cantata in the context of the numerical values of the BWV catalogue, so between BWV 9 (composed a decade later) and BWV 11 (which isn't even a cantata, and also dates from much later). Currently the article goes in great detail about the first five cantatas of the second cantata cycle, linking to the four other cantatas of that series of consecutive cantatas. A reader who might be interested what Bach did next after the first five cantatas of his second cantata cycle (so the next cantata he composed after BWV 10) is not helped by the second navbox, neither is that cantata linked from the body of the article. For clarity: BWV numbers are completely random w.r.t. what happened in Bach's time and w.r.t. subgroups of cantatas by type, and moreover the latest published version of the BWV catalogue no longer collates all compositions according to their numerical value (case in point: in the latest printed edition of the BWV catalogue BWV 11, the one that follows BWV 10 in the second navbox, is now collated between BWV 249b and BWV 250 – see pp. 282–284 of the 1998 edition of the BWV catalogue – officially the number of BWV 11 has been changed to "BWV 11/249b->" to indicate its new position in the catalogue ). The second navbox is probably of great use for Wikipedia editors who regularly edit articles on Bach's vocal compositions, but as far as I can assess of less use (or at least somewhat misleading in the context of current scholarship) to the average reader. My preferred option is to autocollapse both boxes. If, however, one of them should be preset to its uncollapsed state it should, imho, be the first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two navboxes, right. One is in every article on a Bach cantata, permitting convenient access to the other numbers. To have it open is another item of consistency. In order to see what Bach did before and afterwards, a reader can simply click on "show" in the other navbox, or - what I would do - don't use a navbox but read an article, such as Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata cycle, Bach cantata, - enough possibilities. All these articles are linked from the traditional basic navbox by number (but only when it is open), - I don't use the other nabox at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) – was still updating some of the text, underlined now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "what I would do" – "I don't use ...": yes, as I said, this is about idiosyncrasies. In this case deplorable idiosyncrasies, e.g. neither Church cantata (Bach) nor Chorale cantata cycle nor Bach cantata has any significant information on the next cantata in the cycle. The first of these proposed links is particularly unhelpful for finding any information on the next cantata in the cycle: the 5th and the 6th cantata of the 2nd cycle are in entirely different sections of that very long page, separated by dozens of subsections. A non-specialist reader would have no clue where to look. Currently the presentation of the navboxes is skewed towards the specialist editor of these cantatas (i.e. an editor who knows that the BWV numbering is in no way a logical organisation of these compositions – which a non-specialist reader/editor would not know, e.g. ), and I propose to treat a non-specialist reader/editor at least on the same footing as a specialist (i.e. both navboxes collapsed: I don't propose to uncollapse the first – but if anything, per user-friendliness principles a non-specialist reader/editor should get precedence over a specialist editor because a specialist would find their way around anyhow while the same can not be presumed of a non-specialist, but as said, that's not what I'm proposing to implement: just treat the specialist and the non-specialist on the same footing).
 * Re. "I still believe the article is better without this outlook to something created later ... under a header it doesn't fit" – The cantata for Trinity IV of a cantata cycle which would have contained ideally over 60 cantatas, covering more than a calender year, and starting with Trinity I, is situated at the "Beginning" of the cycle. Unless you mean "by composition date" of the first cantatas that ultimately got inserted into the cycle: in that case BWV 4, composed over a decade earlier would be "beginning" of the cycle: that cantata is not mentioned, so there's nothing unusual when indicating the cantatas for Trinity I–V, and for the two feasts that usually fall in this period, as the "beginning" of the chorale cantata cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we move ahead with this now? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (Oron website as source) – still active, see project page
 * (in-text attributions) – still active, see project page
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yunshui's comments:
 * - I'd suggest " with the exception of verse 54 in which he also kept Luther's wording."
 * taken --GA


 * - maybe link continuo as I for one had to look that up... it's linked later in the text, but who reads past the TOC these days?
 * Then I'd also to have to link violin etc, - there are all linked in Baroque instrumental ensemble, and then Baroque violin, not any violin. Please compare other articles mentioned in the intro. --GA
 * Fair enough - as I mentioned, it is linked later on anyway. 雲水


 * - "He was employed by the town of Leipzig in this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training" reads more easily to me.
 * It's probably something coming from German, where you'd first be employed, then have the position. Ideas? --GA
 * How about, "He was [offered/granted/given] this position as part of his employment by the town of Leipzig"? 雲水
 * Well, it was not offered, the town had hoped for a better man for the job, but their first two choices were not available. (Compare BWV 22, with details of the application. The sentence should clarify, that the term Thomaskantor could lead to the assumption that he was hired by a church, but instead he reported to the town, and was responsible for four churches. Would you have a better way to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what Kirk's done in this bit is a good solution. 雲水


 * - surely not the entire gospel; I assume this is meant to mean the Visitation?
 * You are right, not the whole gospel, just the passage mentioned as prescribed gospel reading for the day. I though that was clear. Ideas how to clarify? --GA
 * I'd just replace "gospel" with "Visitation" (and maybe include the link) - "The the Visitation is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes..." 雲水
 * I think it's "bad enough" that Visitation links to the Feast once, then to Bach's works for it, let's not introduce a third. I tried it differently, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, just adding "reading" is enough here, I think. 雲水


 * - should be "In Bachs time..."
 * taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * - presumably that last word should be doxology?
 * yes --GA


 * - "has been kept" agrees better with "since".
 * taken --GA


 * - I'd use an Oxford comma here, but that's more a matter of taste than correct punctuation (at present, it can be read to mean "the composer named Johann Andreas Kuhnau, and some guy called Christian Gottlob Meißner").
 * right --GA


 * - "The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA)"
 * fixed --GA

Haven't checked refs, media etc, this is just looking at the text itself (which is generally pretty readable, if a bit technical in places). Yunshui 雲 水 13:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for good points. Could you explain by one example what you think might be less technical? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can skimp on the technical stuff - the Movements section is a good example (lots of other articles that need looking up in order to fully understand it) but without that information there wouldn't be much point in having that section. All the things that would need to be linked are linked, but just as an example, in the Movements #1 section, I would have to look up the following terms: chorale fantasia, doubling the violin, rhythmical propulsion, measures, cantus firmus, polyphony, melismas. As a non-musician it's not a super-easy read, but I would imagine the general reader of this article would have more musical knowledge than I do anyway! Yunshui 雲 水 09:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess if such things should be explained, it should happen on a higher level, such as Bach cantata and Chorale cantata, not in every individual such work (around 200 cantatas, around 40 of them on chorales). Some of the terms I think even explain themselves, such as chorale fantasia (fantasy on a chorale) and cantus firmus (firm chant), even polyphony if you know other words starting with poly- (polygon) and ending with -phony (symphony, cacophony). Some of our readers would be bored if we try to explain measure and melisma. It's one of the great ideas of the Wikipedia links that a reader who needs it can dig deeper but the one who knows already can move on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I linked "measure" now. "It is a trio of the violins and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violin, and the viola filling the harmony." that sentence tries to explain why the many instruments play a trio (three voices): the oboes double the violins, which means they play the same thing (voice) as the 2 violins, the viola plays (only) a supportive role, leaving the bass (= continuo = a group of players) for the third voice. How would you say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like: "It is a trio of the violins, viola and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violins, and the viola filling the harmony." That makes the three voices of the trio clear (violin, viola and continuo) and then explains why the oboes aren't included in that list and what the viola actually does.
 * Sorry, I was not clear: the three voices of the trio are the two violins and the bass, while the oboes play the same as the violins, and the viola has no independent melody, just fills chords. Don't support too soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)