Talk:Weimarer Passion

Improve

This article needs improvement. I don't have the time immediately, let's do it together, adding wishes and solutions. So far I did some copy-editing - trying to avoid phrases such as "has come down to us", breaking complicated sentences, removing clauses that don't relate to the topic, etc. I started to change names of instruments to lower case. Open:

• find references and apply inline citations
• format urls
• avoid overlinking
• make list of movements a table

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Gotha"

It's not clear whether the Friedenstein Castle chapel is a likely venue or whether Gotha should be piped to a church. Or whether one ought to even guess, for that matter. Sparafucil (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

As far as I can tell, this is a discursive essay which does not use any secondary sources. Using synthesis and original research, it expands the summary that can be found on the linked page in the Bach archive. I have added the journal article of Andreas Glöckner to the reference section that I created, but no secondary sources have been provided for the content. This article states that much has been written about the subject, but provides no evidence, which is not at all helpful. Because of the technical nature of the subject, I imagine that most of the sources can only be found in university libraries and not on the web. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wolff gives it a passing mention in his book (the one I cited). However, all that I could find in the book is already in the article. Regarding using "refimprove" - "primary sources": As you said, it lacks references (which is a much bigger problem than it just having too much primary sources). The proper quotations attributed to Mattheson and Schniebes are fine (though the quotation attributed to Mattheson would better be used to talk about Bach's contemporary reception), but I agree that more secondary sources are needed. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In his book, Wolff has a paragraph where he writes about documents recording payment for the performance of a Passion in Gotha. He concludes, "However, a later reference to a Passion composed by Bach in 1717 corroborates the Gotha documents, and at least some musical portions of this Gotha or Weimar Passion (BC D I) were probably absorbed into the second version of the St. John Passion of 1725." Wolff gives two references in that sentence: to the 1995 journal article of Glöckner that I added (the principal source that has been neglected); and a second to BC D I. The paragraph of Wolff is not an adequate secondary source for this lengthy essay. Primary sources like Mathesson can be used if they have been quoted in a secondary source. Bare annotated summaries in the Bach archive are also primary sources, which cannot be spun out into an essay. The 1995 journal article of Glöckner is a WP:RS. Having read one of his Critical Reports, however, it is likely to be rather technical. There is also a short but coherent discusson in the "Bach-Handbuch. Bachs Oratorien, Passionen und Motetten" (Laaber, 2000), but it defers to Glöckner again. Alfred Dürr makes a reference to Glöckner's article in a footnote on page 3 of his 2002 book on the St John Passion, also referring to a short note on pages 165-166 in the 1985 Bach-Jahrbuch by Eva-Maria Ranft "Ein unbekannter Aufenthalt Johann Sebastian Bachs in Gotha?" There is also a reasonable account in the 2016 book of Robert Marshall and his wife (written for a general audience), "Exploring the World of J. S. Bach: A Traveler's Guide", University of Illinois Press, pages 142-143. Perhaps some of the details in this essay can be found in Glöckner, but that has not been checked. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)