Wikipedia:Peer review/Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172/archive1

Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the topic and music of this early inspired cantata by Bach was dear to the heart of the composer and is to mine. I want the article to be as good as possible. I am not sure if "arts" is the right classification, - it seemed closest of those offered.

Thanks for improvements and suggestions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Nothing much to add. The article is clear, judiciously laid out and its author's enthusiasm for the piece shines out of the page! Some very minor drafting points:

• Lead
  • "Bach noted an unusual repeat" – I think this should be Bach "specified" or "stipulated" an unusual repeat
• Background
  • "Bach applied successfully for the position, but declined" – If, as I suppose, this means that he changed his mind, I think it would be clearer to say something like, "Bach applied successfully for the position, but decided not to take it up."
  • Third para - "enjoyed" comes twice in quick succession.
• Scoring and structure
  • "In the Weimar version, Bach noted after the chorale Chorus repetatur ab initio, to repeat the opening chorus" – another "noted" that I don't think is quite right. I'd rejig the sentence as something on the lines of "In the Weimar version, after the chorale Chorus repetatur ab initio, Bach called for a repeat of the opening chorus"
• Music
  • Musicologist Julian Mincham – This is one the bees in my bonnet: in good BrEnglish one writes "The musicologist Julian Mincham". Omitting the definite article is fine in American English, but in British usage it is the province of tabloid papers. I know I'm fighting a losing battle on this, but I continue to fight nonetheless.

That's all I can find to suggest. It's a lovely article. – Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim! I think I got it all in, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

Lead only, for the moment:

• The English rendering of the title requires "O Songs" not "o songs"

  No, it doesn't, only if the English is a title itself. (It isn't. There were many discussions of this topic)

  What is the authority for your assertion? I have never seen this form before. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  The latest discussion was this.

  That discussion is about translating foreign titles. My issue is one of format, not translation, namely that in English usage the vocative "O" is invariably capitalised. "O songs" would be OK, but not "o songs". Scroll through any number of hymnals, biblical texts, poetry anthologies etc, and you will find this to be the case. Brianboulton (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  Now I understand, sorry. However, the source given does not capialise.

  For a compromise, I now use a different translation. Problem: it is more interested in the number of syllables than the exact wording.

• The year of composition should be given in the first sentence, as well as date of first performance

  How would I do that, without a never-ending sentence? The lead for the c. 200 Bach cantatas should be similar, no? The date of performance is in the infobox (and the second sentence), composition time is never so clear for Bach, parts may have bee, composed earlier.

• Who is "Nicolai"? Was it Philipp Nicolai? If so give full name and link. If not, give full name and a brief description

  I would give full name and link, if the hymn didn't have a link (which would lead anybody who doesn't know to the author). I heard "sea of blue" on other occasions, but am ready to discuss.

  You need the link in the lead. Most people with musical knowledge (e.g. me) think of "Nicolai" as the composer of The Merry Wives of Windsor. Forget the "sea of blue" argument; that only relates to overlinking of generally familiar terms. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  I follow, reluctantly.

• What will "festively scored" convey to the general reader?

  tried

• "Bach noted an unusual repeat of the opening chorus after the chorale " – what does "Bach noted..." mean?

  Changed, see above,

• "Bach performed the cantata later as Thomaskantor in Leipzig several times, in revisions sometimes in a different key and with partly different scoring, as a work that he particularly valued." This sentence is awkwardly expressed. I suggest something like: "Bach particularly valued this work. While serving as Thomaskantor (musical director) in Leipzig after 1723 he performed it several times, sometimes in a different key, and with changes in the scoring".

  The value thing is a conclusion, can't come first. It may work the other way round.

  I don't understand your reply. The present form of the sentence is not only awkward but could mislead; it sounds as if Thomaskantor is an alternative title to the work, rather than the post that Bach held. I had to struggle to understand this; a person with little musical knowledge will struggle more. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  I don't understand your reply, because the version you saw is not the "present" version. I took your wording, only wanted to explain why the several performances are mentioned first, the appreciation second, as concluded from the unusually many repeats we know.

Reading on, will post more. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Brian, I took some and look forward to more discussion. Probably you can help to word the lead better after reading more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

More stuff:

Background

• "...during his tenure in Mühlhausen". Dates would be useful here

  added

• (for the general reader) What is the "court capelle"

  tried

• "in 1711 to 1713" → "in the period from 1711 to 1713"

  Y

• "he was asked to apply..." By whom?

  The source doesn't say by whom he was invited, - it would be OR to say that the initiative came from the church. I will try to look for a different source.

• "a position" – close repetition

  Y

• "an honour which included a monthly performance..." Not clear; does this mean "giving a monthly performance"?

  tried

• "Conditions were favourable..." Do you mean "Circumstances were favourable"? And can you clarify what they were favourable for?

  "Circumstances" taken without pomp ;) - 3 following: space, musicians, poet

• "In Weimar, Bach composed using Franck's texts; ..." Colon, not semicolon, and would be better as "Works based on Franck's texts which Bach composed in Weimar include: ..."

Taken with thanks so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Occasion and words

• What is the special nature of a "high holiday" in the Catholic church? The link article only refers to Jewish holidays.

  (Catholic???) There is no link article, the three high holidays are all mentioned with a link, what else do you think is needed for this specific cantata (that is not in List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function )? For Leipzig, I could tell you that they are all celebrated on three days, but I don't know if it was the same in Weimar.

• "the series in Weimar" → "the Weimar series"

  Y

• Present wording implies that the "Holy Spirit" is a book from the bible along with Acts and John's Gospel. You could repunctuate and clarify: "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Acts of the Apostles (the coming of the Holy Spirit, Ch. 2:1–13), and from the Gospel of John, where Jesus announces in his Farewell discourse..." etc

  tried

• "Bach first performed the cantata on 20 May 1714..." One man can't have performed the cantata. Thus: "The cantata was first performed on 20 May 1714, with Bach probably playing first violin himself..." etc. Also, later: "Bach performed the cantata again..."

  Is there a way in English without the passive voice? A cantata is not performed, it's people performing it, and (at least in German) often the conductor is seen as the one who shapes it enough to be the only one mentioned. Learning. (And tried.)

• "obviously" falls under WP:PEACOCK and must be deleted.

  done, but how to say that it can be derived from the many repetitions and his work on it over the years that he appreciated it?

• From whom do the words "particularly valued" and "a pattern for his later approaches to the Pentecostal theme" originate?

  Gardiner, now mentioned. (I will think about mentioning the Pilgrimage here already.)

Taken with thanks so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Scoring and structure

• Again the unexplained "festive"

  but explained now

• In the table, the "Time" column will confuse (perhaps a little less if it was headed "Tempo", but not much). Non-musical readers won't have a clue what it means, especially the common-time symbol. I don't think this column is necessary, and I would remove it.

  It's a standard feature, see Messiah Part I, II, III. I provided the link nowand explained the symbol. ("Tempo" would be "Adagio" etc, but it doesn't appear at the beginning of movements in this cantata.)

Music

• The one-sentence summary that begins the section is too much to take in without a pause. It needs breaking up: How about: "The text opens with praise. It then concentrates on a line from the Gospel, before an address to the Holy Trinity. It continues by referring to the Spirit that was present at the Creation, before moving to a dialogue of the Soul and the Spirit and concluding with a stanza from Nicolai's joyful hymn."

  I will think about it and listen to others. The sequence from the general to the intimate seems to get lost in the repetition of "continues" and others. Actually, it doesn't continue, - just where you say "continues" is a sharp contrast between the three trumpets and the following gentle strings. - I would like to provide an overview before the details, but am no sure how to do it best.

• "In the Weimar first version, the key of the first movements is C major, the fourth is A minor (a third lower), the following two F major (again a third lower)." Before the table you say that "The keys are given for the Weimar version", so why is it necessary to repeat the keys here? Also, phrases like "a third lower" will be meaningless to many readers.

  Please help improving. Every reader should get the idea of "lower", whether a third or not. It's a concept that goes together with the scoring, both towards the more intimate. ("came down from heaven" comes to mind.)

• "A print of Franck's works..." English usage is "A printing" rather than "A print", which generally refers to a picture rather than a text.

  Y

• Franck is listed in the table as the text source, but here you say only that an earlier work of Franck's "may have served as a model". Besides which, this section is supposed to be about the music rather than the source of the text.

  No contradiction that Franck's earlier secular text may have served as a model for Franck's later text, more important: a (possible earlier) composition of the secular text may have served as a model for the sacred music. Better wording?

• You need to explain what you mean by "in de Capo form". The WP article da Capo is of little use.

  I think the article da capo should be improved then. The idea of an article like that is that not every article referring to it needs to explain again, no?

• "coloraturas" needs a link

  Y

• What is the meaning of the parenthetical (C2)?

  dropped, because it is explained twice afterwards

• "shows also three sections": do you mean "also contains three sections"? And, what is a "triple meter", and is the American spelling "meter" deliberate?

  fixed

• The second part of 4. is uncited

  is cited now

• "Gardiner, who reflected the season of Pentecost after about half of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage with his Monteverdi Choir..." Not clear what this is about. When and where was this pilgrimage, and was does "reflected" mean in this context?

  How much of the linked Pilgrimage needs to be repeated here? In 2000, all sacred cantatas within a year following liturgical sequence in historic places of mostly Europe. He wrote reflections.

• A general point: you use quite a lot of quoted phrases, but it is often not clear whose words they are. Direct quotations should uusually be aattributed as well as cited; it is sometimes more convenient to paraphrase.

  For me, it is very difficult to paraphrase, not knowing equivalent words well enough. I use quotes from the text referenced at the end of a sentence. Should I repeat "Hofmann wrote" etc? Could you rephrase?

Overall, I can't fault the content, but the presentation needs a good deal more polishing. I have included some suggestions in my review as to how the prose might be clarified. It is important to bear in mind that you are writing for a general readership, not a music magazine, which means among other things a greater level of explanation of terms than you might normally expect to give. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Many terms are treated in the linked "Bach cantata" and other linked articles. Let us find the amount of explanation necessary to follow this particular one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by SchroCat

A few copy edits here and there: feel free to revert anything you dislike or disagree with.

Lead

Done briefly, but will get back to this once I've finished the rest.

• "enriched": I think we're into peacock terms here

• feel free to change to something better
  • Minor tweak to "worked on" - feel free to rv - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Konzertmeister" I'd be tempted to put a translation in brackets, not least because you've done that with Thomaskantor—or possibly link the term

• hard to translate what it meant then, - responsibility not only for the organ but conducting the orchestra, - that is explained. Please no link because the modern term means the first violinist of an orchestra

• Fair enough! - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• "before which were set for modest forces": I'm not altogether clear what "modest forces" are

• the clause was added after "festive" seemed not clear, modest recorders and oboes compared to festive trumpets and timpani, help in wording welcome

• tweaked to "more restrained music", which is what I think you're saying (or possibly "restrained instrumentation", not quite sure) - feel free to tweak further of rv - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Background

• Do we need a link to Easter? It's common enough and it would reduce the blue links a little.

• Y

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your interest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Second, and final, batch.

Infobox

• Is "20 May 1714 – Weimar" the correct form? It looks slightly odd to me, although I presume you know otherwise.

• {{infobox Bach composition}}, - improvements always welcome, best on the template talk

General

• I think you've covered everything I would want to see when I look at a music article: it gives a nice background, good history and decent technical coverage. The prose is a bit stilted in a few places, but that is the only thing I'd flag up on this. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Feel free to work on the prose. I have a tendency to stuff things found later in the existing sentences, instead of breaking them up. - I plan to add a bit to the individual movements, text-music relationship, and perhaps point out where ideas connect to later works: "love-duets", an aria with only brass, both repeated in the Mass in B minor, - perhaps also compare ideas and music to later Pentecost cantatas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)