Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This will be interesting as it will be my first classical music review! Will begin shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Couldn't access the wmtools page to check for DABs, so I'll just have to take it on faith.
• File:Jesu Meine Freude Praxis Cruger 1653.jpeg needs a PD-1923 tag

  I hope my image helper, RexxS, can deal with this and the below. --GA

• File:Picardy third Bach - BWV 81.7, mm. 12-13.png needs the same tag
• is one of few works "the" few works

  taken --GA

• In the context of late 17th-century Protestant Germany, where and when previous generations of Bach family members composed their motets, a collection of which was preserved in the Altbachisches Archiv (ABA), motets were choral compositions, mostly with a number of independent voices exceeding that of a standard SATB choir, and with a German text from sacred scripture and/or based on a Lutheran hymn. A very long sentence that needs to be broken in two, I'd suggest one about the Bach family motets and the other about German choral traditions about motets. The next sentence might be able to be folded into the latter sentence.

  I agree, but that's not worded by me, so I'm reluctant to change. Francis perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Rewrote the paragraph, and added the Schneider source to further support it. I add an issue which I encountered yesterday to this review below. Gerda, can you take a look at it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Tell the reader that JM Bach was his father-in-law
• If you're referring to JM Bach in like his ancestor's that's not precisely true since JM Bach's blood relationship to JS Bach was that of a cousin. So rephrase

  This is also a question for Francis. Is an ancestor only someone in a blood-line. (English is not my first language.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  The Schneider source which I added (see above) includes JM Bach in the "Vorfahren" (forefathers). So, "ancestor's" could be replaced by "forefather's", which is covered by the source added to that paragraph. But afaik, there's not much difference between both expressions, them being used here in a wider (maybe somewhat less accurate) sense. Note that such usage of the word ancestor is fully covered by dictionaries such as Webster's and OED: for the literal sense, the first of these dictionaries indicates that, for an ancestor, the relationship does not necessarily needs to be "lineal", but can be "collateral"; and both dictionaries indicate the figurative sense of "prototype". --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Re. "Tell the reader that JM Bach was his father-in-law" – I don't see why. Sources do not usually mention this in the context of (extensive) discussions of the motet. I rechecked Spitta II, pp. 600–602, where Johann Sebastian's motet is discussed, and where it is linked to Johann Michael's: nowhere in that discussion is the "father-in-law" aspect mentioned, nor do I think it is necessary, while, as far as composition of motets goes, Johann Sebastian does not seem to distinguish between the handful of his forefathers known to have composed motets. In the context of this motet, the information bit about the "other" family relation between JS and JM seems completely redundant. At least, I don't see a reliable source mentioning that other relationship in the context of a discussion of this motet, and we wouldn't want to add an OR layer of interpretation to this article suggesting that that other kinship connection would be in any way relevant for this motet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Y'all are kinda missing the point. There are a boatload of musical Bachs (see what I did there? ;-) ) out there and I think it worthwhile to to clarify the relationship as I'd expect that JSB to be intimately familiar with his FiL's work. Remember your audience, they're educated laymen not usually going to be anywhere near as familiar with Bach and his times as you and your sources, are, so I think that it's important to detail the relationship for historical reasons, not musicological ones. I object to ancestors and forefathers as they're not how we describe people we've actually known. I'd never describe any of my grandparents as ancestors or forefathers, however technically correct that might be. Their parents or grandparents, sure. So rather than use some vague adjective than ancestor, be precise and tell the reader their exact relationship by using father-in-law as the last word of the paragraph. Otherwise, I'd think that "ancestors" referred to "the generations before JSB" referred to in the opening line.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Re. "... as I'd expect that JSB to be intimately familiar with his FiL's work" – which is indeed your (wrong) prejudice, which should *not* be suggested to the readership, whether lay or specialized: lay readers may jump to wrong conclusions (like your wrong prejudice); and more experienced readers would find it odd that this is mentioned in this context, where it is completely irrelevant.

  For clarity, JM Bach was dead for more than a decade when JSB married his daughter; JM Bach had died two or three decades before JSB started to write this motet; and if this motet was written in Leipzig (which is true for at least the bulk of the work) then JSB wrote it after JM Bach's daughter was already dead, and after he was already married for some five years to Anna Magdalena (who is only "Bach" by marriage). JM Bach indeed belonged to "the generations before JSB", that is the 17th-century generations that were long dead by the time JSB started composing. And indeed, JSB was more acquainted with the music of the Bachs closer to his own generation (whose music is not in the Old-Bachian Archive like JM Bach's), such as Johann Bernhard Bach, his colleague in Eisenach, and Johann Ludwig Bach, of whom JSB copied & performed around 20 cantatas. Yes, there is a "boatload of musical Bachs", but JSB likely knew them all (he devised a family tree illustrating that), and didn't distinguish between their music depending on how "far" or "near" they were as relatives.

  Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Other than that, this is Gerda's GA candidacy: I've given my opinion, the rest is up to Gerda. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• The reference to his church cantatas kinda blindsided me as I was unaware of any relationship between motets and cantatas. Can you make the connection a bit more clear?

  Don't you think that's the job of the articles of Church cantata (Bach) and Motet (Bach). - We can't repeat it in all (around 200) cantatas for which Bach is famous, while motets happened rarely and occasionally. --GA

  I think that the current phrasing makes the reader think that they're two unrelated forms. Especially since the second sentence sets them up as that way. Just clarify that motets are are a type of cantata.

  But it is not. Major difference: independent instruments in (Bach's) cantatas - a rather progressive genre, while instruments play only with the voices in (Bach's and his musical ancestors') motets, a genre already then considered old-fashioned. I think Vorläufer would be a better word than Vorfahren, family relationship playing less a role than being a model (or not) in compositional style.

  Fine, but the historical discussions over the classification of some of the motets appear to argue otherwise. At any rate this is awkward and needs to be reworded: Church cantatas for weddings and funerals fall outside such scheme, and also his motets appear to belong in this latter category Perhaps, "Much like the church contatas composed for weddings and funerals, the motets do not appear to have been composed for liturgical purposes." And possibly being combined with the first sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Francis, please. Sturmvogel, would you say weddings and funerals are not liturgical purpose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  You are correct in saying that they are, but they are not part of the liturgical calendar which is what I should have said. I offered a more concise version of the first two sentences, but that doesn't mean that y'all can't alter it to suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Motets have always been distinguished from the cantatas listed at Church cantata (Bach)#Occasions outside of the liturgical year. "Not belonging to an occasion of the liturgical year" is not a synonym for "not a liturgical composition", that seems to be the basis of the misunderstanding. There are many distinctions between sacred cantatas and motets, including that motets were more or less continually kept on repertoire before the Bach Revival. Another distinction is that where, when and how each of the church cantatas was performed in Bach's time is fairly well documented. For the motets, there's only one, BWV 226, about which some of that detail is available, all the rest is educated guesswork for the motets. Thus resulting in a wide variety of theories about the motets, i.e. educated guesswork without much consensus among scholars. They were likely some kind of liturgical music. Even if Wolff's theory is correct (exercises for choristers), that doesn't exclude performance in liturgical context, for instance at a funeral, after the choristers managed to master the work, etc. All of these theories for all of the motets don't belong in the BWV 227 article: those concerning the BWV 227 motet are currently imho sufficiently covered in the BWV 227 article, and that should imho suffice for what is expected of a GA-level article on this topic. "the motets do not appear to have been composed for liturgical purposes" is anyhow POV (pushing a one-sided interpretation of one scholar's educated guesswork above all other theories), and thus doesn't belong in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  I really shouldn't have made that semi-snarky comment about classification of the motets as it set off another rant; I agree that it's not relevant to this article. I see little to no difference factual difference between the awkward prose currently used in the first two sentences and my proffered reformulation, so who's the POV pusher here? Might I remind you that all the theories about the history of the motet are covered later and not in this paragraph? This paragraph is a general summary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Re. "I see little to no difference factual difference between the awkward prose currently used in the first two sentences and my proffered reformulation" – your proffered reformulation is POV (for the motets) and plainly incorrect for the church cantatas for weddings and funerals (which were most likely composed for liturgical purposes, which is the liturgy of a church service for a wedding or a funeral – for funerals that includes commemorative church services around the time of the actual burial). I am sorry that the current formulation is awkward, which it is, but it is no POV, while it contains what all referenced authors would agree upon. You went overboard with your "..., so who's the POV pusher here?", which is quite inexcusable. I'd be very happy if someone could reformulate it more fluently, without changing the meaning, while your proffered reformulation indeed changed the meaning to something that should under no circumstances be in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's good that you linked to SATB choir, but please spell out the voices on first use.

  taken --GA

  Not done on first use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure then that I got what you meant. Do you want to explain what SATB means, with the parts linked? I tried it, but am not convinced. Would you explain what the letters mean in BBC each time it's mentioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Depends on how common the abbreviation is. I'd argue that BBC is common enough not to need it, but outside music circles how common is SATB? Not at all, IMO. Remember that you're aiming at general readers, not specialists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'd simply go by "when an abbreviation is an article title it's fairly well known", + whosoever doesn't know can click on the link. SATB is - to my knowledge - used a lot in articles without explanation (examples Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) and Messiah (Handel) from the first 500), and why should this article have it, when hundreds of others don't? I inserted it, though, but my heart is not in it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• it is surmised there I presume that Bach scholars believe this, but it should be spelled out. And try this phrasing, "it is believed by X that there was one"
• I'm a little confused about the chronology of the scholarship about the date of origin. Can you provide more dates so the reader can track the evolution of the scholarship? Is Melamed the most recent? If so, he should probably follow all of the others.

  I added "early biographer" to Spitta, in case that's not known. The others are more or less in chronological order afaik, but the problem is that there's no final word all would agree on. Some think this range of years, others that, some think funeral, but at least one simply education. I guess we'll have to live with it, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Who made the first recording. Scott or Vaughan Williams?

  I spelled out Scott, as it was a while ago, but wouldn't "they" refer to those mentioned last? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  The quote threw me off.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• There's a lot of overlinking going on.

  I checked for duplicate links, is that what you mean? Or do you think common terms are linked? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  They're fine now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your subheaders in Cited Sources need to be lvl 4 headers, not italicized

  Are you sure? I learned that in Kafka. --GA

  See MOS:APPENDIX--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  What I see there is to avoid listing per semi-colon, for accessibility reason, which I support. It doesn't say replace italics, and for these rather short groups, edited rarely, I see no reason for level-headers which would clutter the TOC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  The whole thing is about using header code. It specifically prescribes level 2 and 3, and level 4 by logical extension of the principle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  I read it differently, as explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your English-language titles are in a mixture of sentence and title case. Pick one or the other and be consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  I try sentence case, but learned that God, Jesus and (Holy) Spirit should be upper case. There were authors before me and after me, - could you point out where it's title case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  I fixed them for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I am more or less away for private reasons, so please be patient. I should get to the reminder on Thursday the latest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Given how long it's taken me to start this review, I can throw no stones. Take as much time as you need.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll look again later today, but will first deal with my open FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional suggestions

• Additional issue: yesterday I read

  ... [in BWV 227] stanza 3 [of the chorale = movement 5 of the motet] is freely composed with no connection to the hymn tune.

(emphasis added), while in BWV 227#5 I read:

... without the chorale melody, which is freely paraphrased in the soprano.

(emphasis added). So, which one is true: "no connection to the hymn tune" or "chorale melody ... freely paraphrased"? Or, alternatively, would both opinions need to be mentioned for neutrality? Note that BWV 227#Epistle text and chorale contains

The hymn tune appears in several variants in the uneven movements of the motet.

... which also seems to assume that the "uneven" fifth movement contains some variant of the hymn tune. Anyway, some sort of inadvertent "content fork" between the motet and hymn article should best be avoided, I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you, I'll update the hymn article. The hymn tune is very freely paraphrased, especially in irregular rhythm to accent the word "Trotz" (defiance), so freely that it is almost hidden. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to User:RandomCanadian, the thing is now illustrated, showing that pieces from the chorale melody became part of the melody in that movement. If it also needs better wording, I'd welcome help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Another issue, which I just saw looking over some material related to the motet, BWV 227#1 has "... the ... movements related to the hymn are in E minor", which is incorrect for the 9th movement (verse 5 of the hymn), which is in A minor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  "most" added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I just noticed that Vopelius, Wolf and Zahn need translations of the German titles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's new to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to hear that, but some have translations and some don't. Be consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know to whom you talk. I don't translate. (I learned many years ago to not translate book titles, from Marrante, a solid GA writer, and ref titles seem similar.) Francis added some refs, and translates. Wouldn't consistency mean to stick to the formatting of the first editor? I believe that every translation means a bit of pov, which I try to avoid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Either or both of you since I'm not sure which parts either of y'all are responsible for. I think that Francis is correct as I believe that the MOS requires translation, but haven't checked for myself. All I ask for here is consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  A recent GA of many authors is Clara Schumann, where foreign ref titles are not translated. Where would the MoS require translation? As for consistency: I like it. Look at the last version more or less by me, - all foreign refs consistently not translated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the ones with translations were mostly imported by me (from elsewhere, where they already had the translation before being imported here). For these translations I'd also note that these are generally in sentence case (not title case), unless the title is actually a known translation of the work's title as published in an independent source. So I disagree that some of these were converted to title case: these translations are a service to the reader so that they can fathom what the source is about even if not understanding the source language. There's no obligation to provide such service to the reader. E.g. for the Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch one only has to click the link to find a translation of the title and of its paragraph-long subtitle. When I import a source I don't think omitting the translation, when there already was one before copying the source, would be the better option. But that doesn't mean that all of a sudden, by importing a source, the translations would become obligatory for all other titles. At least, imho, not as a condition for GA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Where are we now?

I confess that I lost track of what needs attention. Help, Sturmvogel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Sturmvogel 66, will you be returning to this review, or should we try to find a new reviewer? It's been over two months since Gerda Arendt posted her query above, the last thing that was posted here; the only edits to the article after June 26 have involved references. The review was opened four months ago today, so I'm hoping it can get moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To summarize the remaining issues

• Bach composed most of his church cantatas for occasions of the Lutheran liturgical calendar of the time and place where he was occupied. Church cantatas for weddings and funerals fall outside such scheme, and also his motets appear to belong in this latter category awkward, rephrase

  Francis, please. I don't want to mess with your sentence. --GA

• I am indifferent whether you translate the title or not. All I ask is that you be consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  Again Francis, please. I am consistent in not translating, in all FAs, including Bach cantatas. You, Francis, can make it consistent by removing translations, or by translating mine also. Or you, Sturmvogel, could realise that it's of little concern for GA quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  This GA review has become moot. Further,

  • If I'd known it is a good idea to keep a GA review open for months (instead of the time period of around a week recommended in the GA instructions) I'd have done so too.
  • If I'd have known that GA reviewers can respond to honest attempts to address an issue by insulting the editor who's actually addressing it (as is clear from some of the GA2 reviewer's responses above), I still wouldn't have done so. I'd recommend Sturmvogel to review their options, and at least apologise.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I see a failure to acknowledge that some of an editor's text is poorly written, to the detriment of the article, and a failure to address the issues pointed out. I acknowledge that I shouldn't have left this review in suspension for so long, but your attitude, Francis, poisoned the whole thing for me. I'm done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Your contributions, starting from insults (adding new ones in your most recent comment), were no longer helpful on this matter, so I did what seemed best to move the encyclopedia forward. Sorry I had to apply a WP:IAR, which I had rather avoided, for that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Closing comment

Francis Schonken, it is so completely out of process that for you to apply an WP:IAR—especially given the extent of your edits to the article—that I have undone your attempt to reopen a half-year-closed review and reimposed the failure by Sturmvogel 66, as well as your original failure. If you wish to bring this up at WT:GAN you are welcome to, but I'm sure you'll get the same answer there. Gerda Arendt, if you wish to renominate the article, you are welcome to, but Francis Schonken will not be eligible to review it, as they made significant edits to the article back in April. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)