Talk:Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit

Article title

Proposing to move the article to Nun, liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit – this seems to be the more common spelling in reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Depends. The original has Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit. Yes, most sources related to Bach's use - and agreed that is the most famous use - have the (now) more grammatically correct Nun, liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit. Terry, quite an authority on the Vach chorales, fixed a different grammar issue of the original, Nun liebe Seel', nun ist es Zeit.

I'd be happier about a move if Bach even used the text, but he used the fifth (other sources say sixth) stanza only. Performances of the original today, sometimes as the title of a program, use the original spelling. There is no difference in meaning, and the first version flows better. (compar what Bach used: "Dein Glanz" - your radiance - no break between the first two syllables which a printed comma would suggests). Why move then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I also question whether the comma would be compatible with the melody by Eccard. It would tend to imply a pause, as Gerda notes. I am looking for the printed melody. Jmar67 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit → Nun, liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit – Seems most common spelling of the German title of the hymn in Modern, English-language and Reliable sources, e.g. Luke Dahn's website, Bach Digital. See prior discussion at Talk:Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit#Article title, which couldn't convince me otherwise than this page move proposal: a lot of reasons were given, but quite far from the reasons that should actually matter: occurrence in up-to-date reliable English-language sources. Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. Detailed reasoning in the thread above. The original title had no comma, and is still used that way. Most literature around Bach's usage of a later stanza of this hymn, so not including the title line, has the comma which makes it grammatically correct by today's standards. Pointing that out seems enough. - Adding: the article is about the hymn, not only about Bach's usage. Unfortunately, the hymn is no longer in regular use, German or English, - otherwise we would have the sources you request, Francis. Abundant sources are not about the hymn, but about the specific use of one its six stanzas, not even the first one. That seems no good reason to name the article about the hymn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Still, lack of up-to-date reliable English-language sources which spell it that way. Even no references to reliable sources which can confirm what you contend. We shouldn't let the article title be decided by WP:OR (original research), so cite sources, or agree to move the page. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I didn't conduct research but took the title as our page on the author had it. See also [1], [2], [3], IMSLP, ChoralWiki, - in short all sources dealing with the Eccard motet (vs. Bach's usage). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
      • This article is primarily about Weissel's Lutheran hymn text. I say "text" while the hymn does not seem to have a hymn tune of its own (See Zahn V, p. 538). The main topic of this article is not Eccard's setting (which is a motet, not a hymn – I'd suggest Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit (Eccard) if you want to write an article about the motet); nor is the main topic of this article the hymn tune for "In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr", although that seems to be the hymn tune commonly associated with Weissel's hymn text (e.g. Bach, Ulmisches Kirchen-Gesang-Buch, p. 40). In sum:
        • Eccard-related sources seem irrelevant for the article title of the current article: these are about a motet, not a hymn. Further, in the current version of the article I count (only) two sentences relating to Eccard's setting, vs. at least a handful about settings that use the Calvisius melody. So also regarding weight given to Eccard in the current article it is clear this is not the main focus (not even when only talking about settings of Weissel's hymn text).
        • The article has many shortcomings, and I'll be tagging more of them: afaics the current article title seems to have been a suboptimal choice, based on largely deficient article content. Could the article please mention more publications of the hymn text, particularly regarding when it changed from motet lyrics to usage in hymnals (FYI: Terry doesn't call Preußische Festlieder a *hymnal*, another questionable statement in the current article)? Anyhow, I'd give preference to reliable, up to date, English-language sources that talk about the hymn text and/or hymn tune context for the article title of an article on a *hymn* (as in: not on a motet). If that are mostly sources relating to Bach's usage of the hymn, so be it, but I suggest to look for more sources on the hymn outside the "Bach" context.

      --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

    • Even some RS about the Christmas Oratorio have no comma. Not only Terry, also Spitta, Rathey. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Re. Spitta (= Spitta) – in German, old. Alas the English-language version of the same does not translate the footnote that mentions the title of Arnschwanger's ([sic] – ???) hymn, where it appears to be the 6th [sic] stanza: can this Arnschwanger connection be explained in the article, it seems to have a particular bearing on the content of this article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Re. Rathey (= Rathey, p. 325) ticks the boxes "English-language", "recent" and "reliable" – except that is of no help, as in *no help at all*, for the article title issue: Rathey mentions the hymn exactly twice in his book: the second time he writes "Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit", that is p 325, which is the link you gave, and for which I provided a better alternative above. The first time, however, that is p. 127, he writes "Nun, liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit"... this inconsistency doesn't help us in any direction for the article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I wonder how many more words we will accumulate about a comma that doesn't change the meaning, and looks like the grammar-pedantic addition of later editors. Do you have access to the Leipzig hymnal Bach used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
          • This was of course both pedantic and wrong. It was not my edit, so please don't get me started on pedantic. It was wrong,
            • because it was inconsistent with the reliable sources at that time used in that article;
            • because going around changing viable redirect links to non-redirect links is not OK.

          Re. "Leipzig hymnal Bach used": afaik Bach used the Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch to which everyone has access. Some wikignome (yours truly) even listed all its hymns in Wikipedia, in a sortable table. Weissel's hymn is apparently not among them (I checked). The 1729 version of the Leipziger Gesang-Buch, and subsequent versions of the same, all seem to have the hymn, e.g. No. 94 pp. 50–51 of the 1729 edition (with comma). All 18th-century versions of the Leipziger Gesang-Buch are entirely accessible via the references in Gottfried Vopelius#Later editions of the Leipziger Gesangbuch (for Vopelius's 1693 version the provided link shows only a few pages).

          Gerda, could you please reconsider your choice in this survey? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

          • Thank you, gnome. I am sorry about the edit which you called pedantic, - it was meant only - as the edit summary said - avoid a redirect. I am not changing my position, because I believe it doesn't matter, so why change? Rathey seems to have thought the same when he wrote it this way here, that way there. I have no more time for this until Sunday. I had no time yesterday, but it was the day (for personal reasons) to begin an article on a song about radiance which in Bach's setting was premiered that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gerda. Also, of the first ten Google results, one is this article, two use a comma, and seven do not. As for "see prior discussion at Talk:Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit#Article title", the proposal to move the article received zero support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I tend toward leaving the comma out because I find the existing parallel construction of the "Nun..." phrases appealing. Purely subjective. In addition, it seems odd to be asking for the comma without also adding the apostrophe to "Seel". Jmar67 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Image missing

The Bach image is not showing. Jmar67 (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It does for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Period use to facilitate linking

I do object to this because the periods are grammatically Incorrect and it is not obvious what their purpose is. I would suggest using at least one nonbreaking space instead. Thank you for noting this problem. Jmar67 (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Re. "grammatically Iincorrect": the space (whether non-breaking or otherwise) would not address what should be avoided according to the WP:SEAOFBLUE style guidance, which is about consecutive links going to different places, separated by nothing or only by spaces. Other possibilities of addressing this:

• replace the periods at the end of the first three entries by semicolons (;)
• convert all four entries to full sentences (with a verb etc), so that they can be ended, grammatically correct, by periods (.)

There's also a difference between "don't need" (what you wrote in the edit summary) and "Incorrect" (what you write on this talk page). Something that isn't needed (more so if such interpretation is open to debate) is not necessarily incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right. What I meant was "not needed (and thus incorrect) because the bullets are not sentences". I do not understand the concern about the spaces. But your solution is certainly acceptable, and I nearly mentioned it myself. Jmar67 (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Singing tune (reversion)

This is redundant. What other tune could it be in a hymnal? Jmar67 (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

E.g. Schemellis Gesangbuch is a hymnal containing tunes for Lutheran hymns: only half of these are singing tunes.

Also, "hymnal" may be a fairly uncommon concept for many readers (apparently also for you, not knowing that not all tunes in hymnals are necessarily singing tunes): don't expect readers to know. The "singing tune" wording makes it more understandable to all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

SG seems to be a collection of hymn texts, only some with music (tunes). That is interesting. But what tunes would a hymnal (Gesangbuch) have that weren't intended for singing? Most readers seeing "singing tune" referring to a hymnal will not appreciate that they are being educated. The article at this point is talking about the melody for a specific hymn, and the link is to "Hymn tune", which does not appear to discuss tunes not intended for singing. Jmar67 (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

[[hymn tune|tune]] is a WP:EGG link. Of course the blue link "singing tune" should go to an article that only talks about singing tunes (duh). A "tune" can also mean a melody (line) to be performed by a musical instrument, like half of the tunes in Schemellis Gesangbuch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not my idea of an egg link. If you expressly said "hymn tune" it would not be one, but "hymn" (or "singing") would be redundant in context and thus incorrect. The link takes you where you would expect. An instrumental line played in conjunction with a hymn, if that is what you mean, would be a melody. Calling it a tune would confuse the reader, who would expect to sing it. Jmar67 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Now it's time ...

... to write the article In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr, which according to the German Wikipedia came with three tunes, of which Bach used two, mostly Mein schönste Zier und Kleinod, to make things more complex. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, "the German Wikipedia" is not a reliable source.
  • The tune also known as "Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund" → Zahn 1706
  • Straßburger Gesangbuch (1560) → Zahn 2459 → BWV 640.
  • The melody used for BWV 52/6, BWV 106/4, BWV 244/32, BWV 248/46 and BWV 712 is Zahn 2461. Bach Digital specifies Zahn 2461c for BWV 248/46 (Bach Digital Work 11265). Whether Bach uses the same "c" variant in his four other settings of this melody I don't know. Anyway, whether that is or is not identical to the "Mein schönste Zier und Kleinod" tune (afaics not mentioned by Zahn, nor by any reliable source mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia) I couldn't tell, but should surely not be mentioned in English Wikipedia without a reference to a reliable source (which "the German Wikipedia" is not, as said above).

All in all Zahn mentions around 10 melodies (around 15 if including variants) composed and/or used for "In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr" ([4]). For the ones used by Bach, see also the two entries for "In dich hab ich gehoffet Herr" in the "Usage of hymn tunes" table at List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Chorale Preludes (which has the references I used for the overview above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Two things you don't need to tell me: how WP:BRD works, and that no other Wikipedia is a reliable source, I learned that when I simply translated Siegfried Palm as my second article ever, in 2009, and thought a translation would do ;) - I'm still willing to learn other things.

[5] is identical to the "In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr" Zahn 2461c. "Mein schönste Zier" is a hymn in current German hymnals, - perhaps that is why it's referred to as "the tune". It also matches the metre better than the other where "ich" has a stress by a high note which seems not what someone who wrote a melody for the words would want. Compare [6]. Enough speculation ;) - tomorrow perhaps will be "now". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A good source for the Reusner hymn is this. I hope to make a start later today, and will leave the melodies and Bach's use of them to be added by you, Francis, taking it from this article to the (then) hymn tune article. Mein schönste Zier und Kleinod, which apparently became popular only in the 20th century but then pretty much so, even in Catholic hymnals, is planned to follow eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposing to continue this discussion at Talk:In dich hab ich gehoffet, Herr#Continuing discussion from Talk:Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)