Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

(
)
  • Reviewed: Christians, awake, salute the happy morn
  • Comment: There were many authors who contributed to this article. The user who brought it to GA quality does not want to be named, see article talk and DYKTALK. - Best on Bach's birthday, 21 March. (Yes, I know, old-style date, but still the day celebrated.)

Improved to Good Article status by User wants no name (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC).

  • All hooks proposed above are beyond the 200 character limit (even when removing the English translations in parentheses), so new hooks will need to be proposed that meet requirements. Perhaps the hook could be simplified to simply:
  • Surely just the mention of it being partly based on a religious text is enough to interest non-hymn enthusiasts? It's honestly going to be hard to include the "complex symmetrical structure" wording in the hook without going over the limit, unless you are fine with focusing on that without mentioning Romans. Like:
  • To be honest I'm not too keen on the lack of context as to what this "complex symmetrical structure" is, though maybe that could invite readers to click and find out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
There are hundreds of motets in the world combining two kinds of biblical sources. There's only one in the world with this kind of a complex symmetrical structure, strictly alternating the two, in eleven movements (!), offering five different chorale settings, one of them in radically free style, three-part fugues, a five-part fugue ..., actually we still say way too little. Would you say about the Mount Everest that it is a high mountain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Saying that Everest is the highest mountain would raise reader interest, yes, though Everest being the world's highest mountain is admittedly common knowledge. As for your explanation above, more people probably know about Everest being the world's highest mountain than monets commonly being based on the Bible, and it doesn't seem like a bad idea to promote said common knowledge. As we've discussed about many times, the goal for DYK is to make articles as interesting to the broadest audience possible, not the narrowest. Meanwhile, it would be difficult to give your explanation justice in a hook of less than 200 characters, so perhaps the best way forward is to just highlight a single interesting aspect that could entice readers to take a look at the article instead of overwhelming them with words? I remember in a recent WT:DYK discussion that you were lamenting that your classical music hooks sometimes had less views than you had hoped for, perhaps this could be one step towards helping address those concerns? I actually thought the hook facts in this nomination were very interesting, it's just that it would be difficult to give them justice while still meeting guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Repeating: I try to say something unique to this piece, not something that could be said about hundred others as well. NEVER have I lamented about lack of views (and it makes me almost angry, sorry), just said so as a fact that fewer people care about that kind of music which is alright. See also (about that it's one of the most important pieces in my biography).--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Trying to give this another shot without going over the limit. How about:
ALT3... that Bach's six-stanza motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy) alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans and is set for three to five voices? (168 characters excluding the parentheses)
ALT4... that Bach's six-stanza motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy), based on an eponymous hymn, alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans and is set for three to five voices? (181 characters excluding the parentheses)
ALT5... that Bach's six-stanza motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy) features a complex symmetrical structure where the eponymous hymn alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans? (182 characters excluding the parentheses)
Per your request I tried to include the "complex symmetrical structure" wording and all of your preferred information, but it proved difficult without making the hook more complicated or going over the limit (the best shot I could write was ALT5, but at the cost of dropping the voices angle as its inclusion would mean the hook would go over the character limit). I did find another fact in the article that still relates to the structure, would you be okay with this?
ALT6... that with eleven movements, Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy) is the longest and most musically complex of Bach's motets?
If your wish is to have a hook that's unique to this particular monet, then I don't see how "longest and most musically complex" (a fact that's right there in the article) doesn't fit, and if anything is a decent summary of what you're trying to say while at the same time inviting readers to read about what this complexity is. To be honest, trying to turn complex symmetrical structure, strictly alternating the two, in eleven movements (!), offering five different chorale settings, one of them in radically free style, three-part fugues, a five-part fugue into a hook less than 200 characters has proven to be very difficult. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I admire your energy. Sorry, "Bach's six-stanza motet" doesn't work, you can say "motet in eleven movements" or "hymn in 6 stanzas" (never heard "six-stanza hymn"). I thought our dear readers will be able to tell that 6+5=11. "sets the hymn" is shorter than "is based on the hymn". "eponymous" is long as well. So, sadly, none of ALTs3-5 works. We could say "up to five voices" instead of "three to five voices", but it's not that much shorter, and "five voices" is rare in Bach, - only 2 other pieces, of the hundreds for voices. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say that ALT6 is focused too much on the sheer number of movements, without a hint at the carefully planned interplay of 17th-century hymn text and the Biblical letter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
How about:
  • ALT7... that Bach's eleven-movement motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy) features a complex symmetrical structure where the eponymous hymn alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans? (187 characters; note that I tried to use "hymn of the same name" as opposed to "eponymous hymn", but that version lead to a hook that was over 190 and thus could potentially be declined by a reviewer.)
Eponymous is just a shorter way of saying "of the same name", it should be easily understood, same with "eleven-movement motet" which is just a shorter way of saying "motet in eleven movements" (would "Bach's motet in eleven moments" be appropriate wording in this case?) As I said earlier, I understand you wish for all the important information to be included in the article. However, despite my best efforts, I was unable to come up with a hook wording that mentions both the alternating lines and it being set for up to five voices without going over the character limit. Right now, I understand that your preference is a focus on the complex structure, in which case wouldn't a reworded variant of ALT5 or ALT7 be acceptable? At the rate things are going, you may need to accept one of the suggestions as it seems unlikely that any hook that includes all the information would meet length requirements. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I like the original better. Why start with eleven? Why not have active voice? Why use the monster of a word eponymous (when a link to "the hymn" would do)? Why not the unusual five voices/parts? Much about text, nothing about music. - Thank you for trying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
As much as your preference for the original hook is noted, none of the variants of the original hook so far went under the character limit so they could have not been approved in their state; as such I have regretfully struck them. As for your questions: the reason why I went with the mention of "eleven movement" first was simply because writing it any other way would make the hook longer and bring it closer to going beyond the limit. It's the same reason why I omitted the "five voices" aspect from some of the proposals: its inclusion would bring the hook above the 200 character limit. Indeed, just adding the words "for up to five voices" anywhere in ALT7 would bring the hook to around 205 characters. And what exactly is wrong with the word "eponymous"? It's just another way of saying "of the same name", conveying the information that the motet is named after a hymn that shares its name. Simply saying "the hymn" wouldn't have worked in this case since readers at first glance would not get which hymn was specifically being referred to. Besides, it wasn't my wording, it was based on RandomCanadian's suggestion. With regards to word order, does it really matter if the hook is in an active or passive voice when the end result is still the same, describing the motet as a complex one? I did try writing a version of ALT7 that mentioned the hymn's title first, but all my attempts were longer than 190 characters, which is under the "hooks slightly shorter than 200 characters may still be rejected" guideline. Gerda I understand you care a lot about hymns, but being picky about exact hook wordings can be very counterproductive. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It appears that the nomination is now at an impasse and needs a reviewer to do a full review. For reference, the following hooks are offered for consideration (I have struck some of my earlier suggestions due to inaccuracies, as well as all versions of ALT0 due to going beyond 200 characters):
ALT4a ... that Bach's eleven-movement motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy), based on the eponymous hymn, alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans and is set for three to five voices? (187 characters)
ALT4b ... that Bach's eleven-movement motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy), based on the hymn of the same name, alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans and is set for three to five voices? (193 characters; included here as a starting point for potential hooks)
ALT6 ... that with eleven movements, Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy) is the longest and most musically complex of Bach's motets? (116 characters)
ALT7 ... that Bach's eleven-movement motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy) features a complex symmetrical structure where the eponymous hymn alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans? (186 characters)
ALT7a ... that Bach's eleven-movement motet Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, (Jesus, my joy) features a complex symmetrical structure where the hymn of the same name alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans? (193 characters; included here as a starting point for potential hooks)
ALT8 ... that Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227 by Bach is a motet for up to five voices, which features a complex symmetrical style where the eponymous hymn alternates with excerpts from Paul's letter to the Romans? (201 characters which is above the limit, only leaving it here in case someone else wants to give shortening it a try)
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict, will look at yours after saving this:) You don't understand, sorry. ... Also, generally, I try to avoid passive voice wherever I can. The composer created something, not "it was created" as if he wasn't active. Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 is based on Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, - it's just normal that the higher structure is named after the hymn, no need to say so unless it's not. Would it matter if it was a different hymn? I'd say no.
ALT9: ... that in Jesu, meine Freude, Bach created a motet setting a hymn's six stanzas, alternating with verses from Paul's letter to the Romans, in a complex symmetrical structure for up to five voices? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The above hook is 193 characters long, which puts it more-or-less under the reviewer's discretion limit (I understand I had earlier also proposed hooks that were also that long, although they were only intended to be used as bases rather than the final hooks); I have however renumbered it to ALT9 as there is already an ALT7 in this nomination. Gerda I understand you are very knowledgeable abut hymns but frankly your explanation will likely not make much sense to the typical layman reader, who is unlikely to know about the history of hymns and their respective relationships to other works. When writing a hook, try to keep in mind you're writing for a broad audience, and not assume that every reader knows what you're talking and thinking about. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Gerda I'm very confused here, is mentioning that the motet is based on the hymn of the same name problematic? I honestly do not understand why you appear upset about the mention as it was also included in ALT0. Is it simply stating that the motet is based in the hymn that is the issue here or is it something else? As for ALT9, reducing the original hymn to simply "a hymn" means that the context of it being the original basis of the motet (and also its namesake) is now gone, thus making that wording more vague when it comes to referring to what specific hymn is being used. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I rather prefer ALT6 or ALT7, if anybody asks about my opinion. In particular, ALT6 seems to describe the complexity without dwelling too much on details (and shorter = better). As for the passive voice, I'll note that is the usual and more idiomatic English writing style; i.e. "X is a [work] composed by [author]", not "[author] composed X, which is a [und so weiter]." Also in German, z.B. "Jesu, meine Freude ist eine Motette von Johann Sebastian Bach" (de:Jesu, meine Freude (BWV 227), but simplified a bit for our purposes); and also in French (fr:Jesu, meine Freude (BWV 227)). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(ec) It was you (N) who told me it's too long, and that bit is what we can remove the easiest without loosing meaning. It is really sooo normal to have a cantata/motet based on a hymn "of the same name" that it's redundant. Compare: in the table, the hymns' names are not given, only their numbers, because they are always the same as in the Bach title. In the hook, I rather don't want to give up the title, nor the two text sources, nor the five voices, nor complexity, nor the symmetry. I don't recall having said "problematic". How about we let a reviewer look now.
RC: ALT6 doesn't say hymn and Bible, which leaves it very vague text even, and no sound of music. ALT7 is better. What you say about "... is by ..." is fine for an article beginning, but this is hook writing. May be it's my lack of English, but "a motet features" - as if the piece was kind of active - sounds very strange to me. - Well, Bach's birthday for which this was meant is over, and I unwatched the article so often, - perhaps I'll do it again. Nominated for GA on his birthday 2020, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"As if the piece was kind of active": if Trotz dem alten Drachen is anything but "active"... Ignoring completely this is arguing semantics (and hence not really helpful), but yes, a piece of music can "feature" something (such as an unusual instrumentation, ex. the viola da gamba used as a soloist in "Es ist vollbracht" (BWV 245)). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think most of our readers even know what a motet is, let alone know that they're mostly based on hymns, so it being "so normal" is probably not going to matter much to most of our reader base, what matters is a hook that would interest readership and encourage them to click on the article. As for the "problematic" comment, it was just me showing confusion at how it appeared that you didn't want the word "eponymous" to be used in the hook (even calling it a "monster" despite it being a fairly common and understandable English term) or even the simpler wording "of the same name", as well as how you seemed to be upset that the hook proposals more clearly explaining that the motet was based on a hymn, even though those terms were merely rewordings of a statement that was already present in the original hook. "Eponymous hymn" and "hymn of the same name" are just alternate wordings of the term "of the hymn" that was included in ALT0. I'm sure you've been told this many times by now Gerda but what may be obvious to you may not be obvious to the average reader, and hooks are supposed to be written with their interests in mind. This is especially when you consider that religious music, by your own admission, is a very niche topic that the vast majority of readers and even editors are unfamiliar with, and thus most people don't have the knowledge that you have. Finally, with regards to your comments about you being "unwilling to give up [those other terms]": as you've already mentioned in another nomination, you are aware that there have been comments about your hooks containing too much detail; however in this nomination I see no effort to try and address that concern that has been raised by multiple editors, and in fact have continued to push for very detailed and complex hooks. This is despite a comment from another editor noting that a simpler and (in their opinion a "hookier" hook is already available). Gerda, I know you are very passionate about this topic and your work is very much appreciated, but you really need to take to heart the advice that has been given to you by others because ultimately at this project, we do not work for our own interests specifically but for Wikipedia's readership as a whole. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
No. Please don't tell me what do do. I offered a hook which is short enough, you offered others. I wrote in memory of Yoninah, and have no extra time for this, not even to read it all, sorry. - We have articles where someone translates, I look over it, am done, and fine with almost any hook. Here, in order to say one line about a topic dear to my heart, I expanded, went through two complex GA reviews and failed, a process that took almost a year, was now asked to nominate, overcame my pride, to just say one sentence, and here we go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
ALT10: ... that in Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), a motet by Bach, six hymn stanzas alternate with five Bible verses in a complex symmetrical structure for three to five voices? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The expression "structure for three to five voices" might be difficult to parse unless for quite specialized readers (I mean, I understand what it means, but would a significant part of the general readership?) – I have been thinking about how the wording could be fine-tuned so that it might be more intelligible for a general readership, but my mind didn't cough up anything usable yet. Apart from that, I think that with ALT10 we're finally getting somewhere, that is: near to what should make Wikipedia proud to have on its main page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Or perhaps we could just go with the easy to understand and simple ALT6? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I did not carefully consider all prior ALT suggestions before voicing my opinion on the tenth (in fact 15th if counting variants and base version)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
No, I just meant that if a simple and easy-to-understand hook was desired, then ALT6 is there as an option. As for ALT10, perhaps instead of saying "voices" you can instead say "singers", or to just m one part. Only with OVPP, we'd arrive at five singers. - Just "up to five" would be hopelessly ambiguous, sorry.
ALT10a: ... that in Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), a motet by Bach, six hymn stanzas alternate with five Bible verses in a complex symmetrical structure, set for three to five vocal parts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Appreciating the effort, but no, in my appreciation, that's not what makes it sound awkward. It's rather about it reading like Bach "set"ting "a ... structure". Composers don't set structures. Doctors set a bone that is broken. Composers set a text, or a number of movements, but setting a structure sounds awkward. Also, if he set a structure "for three to five voices (or: vocal parts)", what does that even mean? It sounds like he wrote an aleatoric composition, leaving it up to performers whether they choose to sing it with three, four or five voices, as if Bach was indecisive on the number of voices. Eleven movements, set for three to five voices is somewhat more understandable, "a ... structure [i.e., singular noun], set for three to five [whatevers]" does however leave a lot to be desired imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
ALT10b: ... that Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), a motet by Bach, has a complex symmetrical structure where six hymn stanzas alternate with five Bible verses? Proposing this, although I do not find either ALT10 or ALT10A confusing or awkward, but surely it is time for the discussion to converge and this article to go forward to DYK. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. My heart is with the music, not the nomination anymore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@HouseofChange: Would it work too if you added "from the Epistle to the Romans" at the end of ALT10b? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth I think ALT10b is fine, it's just that it's missing the context about the hymn being based on Romans. As no one has picked this up for a full review I will be doing one shortly. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Article was GA'd in time and appears to meet both DYK and GA requirements. Although Earwig's detected some hits, one was a site that copied from WP, while the other two appeared to be false positives. A QPQ has been done. As I proposed multiple hooks above (including ALT6, which is my preferred option; I have struck all other hook options), I do not feel comfortable giving a final tick at this time, although I'm open to approving ALT10b as a compromise option provided that Gerda is okay with it. Gerda, are you okay with ALT10b being approved as an option? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    I said thank you for it, no? There's not a word about music, but as you will have seen in the article, nothing could do justice to this especially inspired work of a genius. I miss the five parts a bit, because that really stands out, but our general readership will probably not appreciate without explanation how much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, if Gerda's okay with it, then we're good to go with ALT10b (AGF on the offline source). The nom got stuck for too long (admittedly the blame could be placed on me) and it's time for this to move forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jesu,_meine_Freude,_BWV_227&oldid=1017132980"