Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2016 [1].

---

Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) and Thoughtfortheday (talk · contribs)

This article is about a very early cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, who supplied a wealth of them later in life. The extraordinary work remained his only extant cantata for the First Day of Easter, as if his first statement to the battle of Life and Death, based on the unchanged hymn by Martin Luther (based on Medieval models), was final. Read yourself ...

Thoughtfortheday and I worked on an article from Wikipedia's early years for a while, Corinne copy-edited, to have it ready to appear on Easter Sunday. All comments and improvements welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In response to several comments, we have

• restructured and expanded the background section, including the list of early cantatas in the context, more on the church and circumstanzas in Ansbach and Mühlhausen
• added where the autograph parts and a manuscript later score are kept
• improved referencing

Please let us know what could still be improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• I'm not very sure that the Bach's early cantatas section belongs in this article, and doubly unsure about the table it contains. Will defer if others think this is significant/useful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please compare O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165 and other FA, - these articles establish the context for periods in Bach's life (so far 1714, 1715, early 1723), planned to cover his life eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The title of the original parts..." Is there something I'm missing here? This seems very repetitive, as if this sentence could be deleted and the next sentence left in its place. It reads like "a basketful of apples was in the basket full of apples." Or does it? Did I miss some germane detail?   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's what Bach wrote himself, and not in German but Italian and French. I think it allows a look into his workshop. --GA

What I mean is, this sentence and the sentence immediately following it (including the bullet points) seem to present precisely the same information in a somewhat different format, rendering the first sentence redundant. If that's the case, then from my perspective, if you want to keep the first sentence, I would make it a footnote. YMMV.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right, the two sentences describe the same thing: the title including the scoring. I find it interesting what Bach himself wrote, as a glimpse at the style at the time. I would not like to move it to footnote. The following one has more or less the same information, but with some links and introducing the abbreviations. I will move the translation to a footnote, and perhaps that is what you meant? ---GA

• "a work in the style of an overture to a contemporary Venetian opera" do you mean that the sinfonia or the melody is in that style, or both?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's first to have a sinfonia at the beginning at all, then also the style, while the melody, derived from the mediaval hymn tun, will be different from any Italian one. Note that the majority of Bach's later cantatas has no sinfonia --GA

Please let me rephrase: I'm not sure whether the appositive "a work in the style..." refers to the sinfonia or the first line of the melody. SO --Is this rephrasing of the sentence correct ( I am only guessing): "The cantata begins with an instrumental sinfonia, a work in the style of an overture to a contemporary Venetian opera, that introduces the first line of the melody with chordal passages and occasional polyphony".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it now and tried to untangle, please check. ---GA

• I never read articles about music (not my field), but most articles I read from other fields develop "from general to specific". So why is the "Overview" after the "Music and scoring" and "Tune"? Is that customary in this field? Or is the "Overview" really more specific than general in nature, and the section heading is misleading? And it gets a little repetitive at times, e.g two instances of "The cantata begins with an instrumental sinfonia." Ah, maybe "Movements" or "Overview of movements" ( I tend to prefer the former, but defer...)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

In "normal" Bach cantata articles - perhaps compare GA BWV 23 - we have simply: History - Structure and scoring - Music - Recordings. This one is more complex, "Overview" - a term inherited from earlier editors - is only the overview over the musical aspects. If you can suggest a better term or even structure, I'd be grateful. --GA

I don't like the term "Overview" here because I think it indicates the highest possible level of generality (and so would encompass all other aspects, including "Scoring and structure" and "Tune")... Can you think of a better word for "musical aspects" (you used that word in the sentence immediately above this one

I tried "Movements"now, how is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would copy edit, but I'm afraid that in my lack of expertise I'll disturb some domain-specific detail(s)...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You could make proposals here, or point out where you think changes are wanted. - Thanks for doing what you "never" do, - input from such a reader is most welcome, because we get blind for things we take for granted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I understood two more things - and thank you for your patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• The bottom half of the Online Sources section puzzles me. It seems to lapse out of alphabetical order, and one stokowski cite is never linked (but should be, I assume).. and ""No. 171–180" points to a page where I don't see any 171 or 180 (though perhaps I missed something.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure my last little quibble (immediately above) will be resolved one way or another. Everything else looks sterling.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the ref, probable a rest of something that left the article when trimming. I also fixed the numbers, - sorry about that, copied from BWV 172 and forgotten to change ;) - The online sources are alpha as long they have authors,- I don't know what to do about the few others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Looking forward to supporting, but a few minor comments first.

• Statements that could do with a citation:
  • First performance
    • First para: second, third and last sentences
    • Third para: in toto
  • Scoring and structure
    • Most of the fourth para

Will look later. -GA

I will ask Thoughtfortheday who wrote the passages and can probably simply add the sources, while I would have to search for them. I dropped the outlook to Mozart, - see below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is more I could say. John Eliot Gardiner, for example, doesn't use a solo bass in the aria in question. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Selected recordings
  • I'd be inclined to omit the adjective from the heading, as the section is an overview rather than a selection. I'd also omit the uncited six words at the beginning of the section: WP:PEA, you know.

Header shortened, agree. - If you look into the article history, it was first the other way round: saying that the many recordings demonstrate how important the work is. That it is unique in many respects should be clear by the time a reader gets here, and why not tell someone (again) who only reads this section? --GA

• Spelling
  • English or American? We have "colour" but "center". English strikes me as preferable, of course, but we should be consistent one way or the other.

I agree to mostly English, but am not strict myself as long as it will be understood. "Centre", yes, but those English names for the shorter notes ..., "bar" - highly ambiguous to the uninitiated, "programme" ... - not necessary, I believe. Please feel free to change what I overlooked --GA

This is a fine article and I shall be glad to support its promotion once my few quibbles are addressed. – Tim riley talk 14:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reading and valuable comments! I will get to adding references only later. In case you have access to Taruskin's book: mentioning individual page numbers would be helpful. We inherited some sources and lack of them from users from the past. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Supporting now after further read-through (most enoyable). Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 21:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the melodic comparisons

good idea, done --GA

• File:Osterlieder.jpg: should explicitly identify the copyright status and details of the original works - these are not exclusively "own work"

please help me to understand whose copyright is in danger for these centuries-old,mostly anonymous melodies, and if, what can be done --GA

To be clear, we will not have to remove this as a copyright violation, but we should still use the correct reason for why. A life+100 tag would be correct for the melodies themselves, with some further details added to the description about who is really the author and what is the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to clarify the copyright status of the original works contained within File:Osterlieder.jpg. Does that meet your concerns, Nikki? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. We have three potential copyrights to consider here. First the melodies themselves, which are obviously PD; second, the transcription of these melodies into modern musical notation; and (arguably) the side-by-side comparison. At the moment the licensing tag reflects the status of the third, certainly; I don't know whether the second falls under this as well or not, as the exact source is unclear. Was it transcribed from the original by the user, or copied from a secondary source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Nikki. The uploader was de:Benutzer:Rabanus Flavus who edits regularly on the German Wiki. Perhaps Gerda would be able to ask him if he knows where the transcription of the music into modern notation came from? Her German is certainly better than mine (probably her English as well) :P --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I will get him here. We worked together on the list of Luther's hymns, his English is good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The notation of this file is my work and PD. --Rabanus Flavus (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so we're clear: you transcribed these melodies from the original, pre-1700 sources? Or did you derive them from existing transcriptions? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:Christ_lag_in_Todesbanden.JPG: given licensing is incorrect - a single note would be ineligible for protection, but a melody is not

It looks to me that {{PD-old-auto-1923 |deathyear=1546}} ought to cover the original work scanned in File:Christ lag in Todesbanden.jpg. Is there any reason why a melody published in 1524 would not be PD everywhere by now? --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:Nadia_Boulanger_1925.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can do anything with File:Nadia Boulanger 1925.jpg. The link is dead and neither the Internet Archive] nor a Tineye search turns up a confirmed source. The attributed photographer, Edmond Joaillier (1886-1939) has many photographs in Bibliothèque nationale de France, so there's no reason to doubt his authorship. As he died more than 70 years ago and the photograph was published in 1925, I would expect from List of countries' copyright lengths that the image would be PD in France (country of origin) but possibly not in the USA ("95 years from publication for works published 1923–1963" would end copyright on 1 January 2021). What do you think, Nikki? --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The question would be, published where in 1925? If it was in France, no, it wouldn't be PD in the US - it would still have been under copyright in France in 1996 because of the wartime extension (50y pma + 8y 120d), so the US copyright would have been restored. If it was published outside of France, though, that's a different story. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, we can't find for certain what country it was published in until we find the source. Joaillier worked in Paris, and Nadia Boulanger owned a house in Gargenville, so we would guess France, but she visited the USA from December 1924 to February 1925, so even that guess could be proven wrong. Maybe look for another image, Gerda? --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It was added by Thoughtfortheday, and is a thoughtful choice because it illustrates and thus highlights that it was recorded (unusually) early, and twice by the woman who influenced a bunch of notable composers. - We could take the same Gardiner as everywhere else, but it would serve the readers less, imho. As we could use the same Luther instead of the comparison, but same. I would prefer to be specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As well as the one that Lingzhi suggests below, there is another in the BnF: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9022360s which has no named photographer ("Agence de presse Meurisse") but was published in 1913. Unless there's something unusual, that ought to be in the public domain everywhere. There's a version on commons as File:Nadia et Lili Boulanger 1913.jpg but it needs a US copyright tag - maybe {{PD-anon-1923}}? --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, - I will notify my image expert, I still feel insecure when it comes to image licensing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost, but here's a press photo by Agence Meurisse. As nearly as I can tell (via Google translate), Agence Meurisse may have been folded into a department of the French government in 1937 (if that helps)(link here)...and finally, it seems our friend sometimes goes under the name of Henri, and died in 1935: [here)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for trying to find an alternative, but I feel the 1925 image is close to the time of recording, while the 1910 isn't, and the sister has nothing to do with it. Am I the only one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's your nom, not mine; I of course defer to you. I was only hoping to find one of rock-solid licensing,,, But is the photo I found the sister of the one in the article's photo? If so, then sorry.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry I wasn't clear that "sister" referred to the other proposed by RexxS, above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I won't argue and removed the two images questioned, a bit sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• The cantata is a chorale cantata, a type of composition in which both text and music are based on a Lutheran hymn, in this case Martin Luther's hymn of the same name, the main hymn for Easter in seven stanzas which is based in text and tune on Medieval models. - That's a lot of commas. Can you simplify this sentence?

tried ---GA

• Link the instruments?

better not,because violon would leed to (mostly) modern violin, etc.. They are linked below in the section dealing with the scoring, while in the lead (and the infobox) the baroque instruments in general are linked.

• Lead strikes me as long. I think you could nix the final paragraph without any issues.

Lead seems shortish to me,compared to all the thingsthat could be said ;) - I would not like to end on "17th century", - I like a final statement. ---GA

• For a 20k article, it is a bit longer than the recommended length. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• some fine writing. - whose opinion? Not ours, I hope.

another question for Thoughtfortheday ---GA

I take your point. I could rewrite to refer to Wolff as regards quality (as well as the speculation on missing cantatas). -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• That would work, yes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• There is documentary evidence of a performance in 1707. - A performance of what? Christ lag in Todes Banden? Say so. Or nix the sentence, as you've got "It is known that Bach performed a cantata of his own composition at Easter in 1707 as a part of his application for the post of organist of Divi Blasii church in Mühlhausen, and this may have been Christ lag in Todes Banden."

nixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• If he composed any other cantata for Easter Sunday, it did not survive. - I'd expect the plural to be used in this sentence (i.e. any other cantatas). Compare "Did you buy any other paintings while you were gone?"

Probably my lack of English, - I would find it strange to use a plural when most likely it wasn't even one. ---GA

• Luther wrote - you haven't introduced him in-text yet (only in a table). As such, I'd use his full name on first mention, and link him. The same for his hymn.

good thought, tried ---GA

• between Life and Death. - The capitalization suggests that life and death are personified, or otherwise more than simple life and death. Not sure that's what you are going for.

This came up in the GA review. Please compare the translation in the Dürr-Jones Source, Life and Death almost allegorical figures. ---GA

That's it for now. Be back later or tomorrow with more. Overall, though, I'd suggest looking at a way to avoid having single-paragraph sections. THere are quite a few in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, will look, but please be patient, real death hit twice in a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• My condolences. Take all the time you need. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I answered some now, -thank you for helpful comments. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Back

• CN tag added

I removed (commented out) the sentence about trombones doubling the voices in Mozart's Requiem. It's often done, but is - as so much in the score - not written down by Mozart himself, and a discussion of all this would belong in the Requiem article, - then there could be a link. --GA

• Shouldn't Easter be linked on first mention, rather than halfway down the article?

Yes, done. It's often not linked at all, and so was here. The link "further down" points specifically to Easter Sunday, with different liturgy than Easter Monday and Easter Tuesday. Bach wrote new cantatas for Monday and Tuesday, but not - that we know - for Sunday. --GA

• Although Boulanger decided to concentrate on teaching, she had a notable career as a performer of early music, and in 1937 she made pioneering recordings of Monteverdi madrigals with a group of singers that included the tenor Hugues Cuénod, who was featured in her second recording of the cantata. - not sure how pertinent this is to the cantata — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A question for Thoughtfortheday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It could go. My reason for going into this level of detail was to suggest that the Boulanger recordings of the cantata are an important landmark. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support looks to be good now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Oppose at this time, per 1(c) and 2(c) of the FAC criteria. I would like to think that these can be fixed during this nomination, and if so, I would be happy to switch to support. My reasons being that there is a distinct lack of closing citations. Cassianto^Talk 12:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the "Performances" section, there are a few paragraphs that end with no citation.

Only one left, about the style and Pachelbel, hope for my partner ---GA

• "Although the cantata is remarkably accomplished" -- POV?
• The Martin Luther images finishes with no full stop.

does now --GA

• The paragraph starting "The exact scoring of the first version is unknown..." is lacking a citation.

a few added ---GA

• ...as is the next paragraph.

Only the last sentence is "unreferenced", which is a description of the following table (saying what is not shown). ---GA

• First paragraph in "Tune" section closes without a citation.

two sections rephrased ---GA

• Last para of the "Verses 1" section has a wrongly ordered citation series.

fixed --GA

• As does "Verses 7".

fixed --GA

• "An outstanding work among Bach's cantata..." -- POV in "Transcriptions" section

See above. The lead summarizes, that this is outstanding in more than one respect, - it's only repeated for those who read only this section. --GA

The issue is that it omits to say who considers it to be "remarkably accomplished" and "outstanding". Currently, this looks like your opinion and your Point Of Veiw is neither here nor there, unfortunately. Cassianto^Talk 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The first chorale cantata, the only extant cantata for Easter Sunday (which is the highest feast): everybody agrees it's outstanding. To repeat a few voices who say that in the recordings section would be undue weight, - I'd rather drop the half-sentence which is only repeated from the lead, as said before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Then simply saying "critics" or similar would cure this and keep everyone happy, I think. Cassianto^Talk 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Critics? Of Bach? I don't know any ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Then refer to my "or similar". Was there anyone who would've given this opinion? You don't have to name them, just say what there role was; ie, critic, scholar, etc... . What ever happens though, this still comes across as being your POV, and as lovely as that is Gerda, we can't be having it in FA's. Cassianto^Talk 07:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I just removed it. It was not introduced by me, but I try to keep the good work of former editors if I can. Giving up in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why you think somebody's unfounded personal opinion can be considered as "good work", but here is not the place to question such things as the sentence has now been made more neutral. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Transcriptions" finishes without a cite.
• As does the third para of the "Recordings" section.

Thank you for diligent reading. You possibly didn't read what Tim mentioned above, so we have some duplication. Please bear in mind that it's a joint effort, and the first FAC for Thoughtfortheday. I will go over more ref details later today. A problem - said before - is that this is a very old article with some unreferenced facts which we don't want to throw out without at least trying to find refs in retrospect. Facts that we can't source will be eliminated, but that's the last step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I appreciate that Gerda and like I say, I will happily switch to support as and when these major problems are fixed. I hadn't noticed Tim's comments but with two of us now picking up on this, maybe this brings a sense of urgency to the table. Welcome to FAC, Thoughtfortheday, please don't be put off by my oppose; we are all here to help, should you need us. Gerda, did you consider a peer review first? Cassianto^Talk 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed some. I didn't consider a peer review for two reasons: lack of time because Easter is early this year, and similarity with other FA articles. I notice by now that there are also differences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome , Cassantio. I have been a bit busy this week. Otherwise I would have done more editing on this article. I look forward to doing more work in due course. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- It's great to see that the prose has improved, but I'm still seeing some missing citations at the end of paragraphs. I'm close to supporting if you can bottom this out. I'm counting three at the moment. Cassianto^Talk 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope I found them. I didn't put anything behind that the continuo is not shown in the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil

• In the lead, the English title "Christ lay in death's bonds" should probably be in bold text. Reading through, delighted to see a nom from Thoughtfortheday, having seen their good work over the years. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be bold if a redirect, for example from an English title or a frequent translation. But this is only one of several possibilities, nothing to bold, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

ok Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Rather than "1707 ?", is c 1707 more appropriate. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's most likely, just not 100%. "c 1707" might also be 1706, which is impossible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Compare this, we could do the same: no question mark but explain in the text, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The link would seem to indicate at least before 1707, which is a very different thing to "?". Is 1705 or earlier also "impossible"? Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

How? It says 24 April 1707, and then "wahrscheinlich" (probably). No indication of a "before". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Early performances": 24 April 1707. Presumably it was written before performed. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean;) - No, he was fast. Usually he wrote a cantata and rehearsed it it within a week. He did that for three years, from 1723, one a week + extra holidays, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok Gerarda, but things that are obvious to you, who is so steeped and knowledgeable with Bach (a large value to wiki) might have to be spelled out for others. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

They are available in Bach's biography and Bach cantata, the first link. We can't spell them out in individual articles, would be close to 200. - I changed "composed" (where we really know nothing) to "performed". We could add the two notable performances in Leipzig. - Please note that will be on vacation, with no to limited internet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Support although in places the writing seems laboured and stiff, I accept Gerda's stated need to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise the article meets the criteria, and I applaud the work put in here; her and Thoughtfortheday make a great team. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Tony1

I took a look at the lead.

1. "One of his earliest church cantatas, and his earliest surviving chorale cantata, it was probably intended for performance in 1707, an early work in the genre to which he later contributed complete cantata cycles for occasion of the liturgical year."—Possibly remove first comma. This sentence is rather long and cumbersome; I don't understand "for occasion of".

   Please look above, the sentence was just changed in a copy-edit, a factual error introduced which I fixed, admitting (see above) that it will need more work. I tried to split it now. --GA

2. "Christ lag in Todes Banden is a chorale cantata"—just been told that. Instead: "A chorale canata is a style in which ...".

   solved by the split --GA

3. "The work was composed in seven stanzas and based on text and tunes adhering to Medieval models."—Maybe "and was based on". Maybe "... tunes after Medieval models". "Adhering" is pretty clunky.

   tried, and think that's a version we had before --GA

4. I don't see a good reason to cap Life and Death.

   The source does. Most frequently asked question ;) --GA

   But it's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. I see no reason to cap. Tony (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

   It's like this in the translation to English of the cantata text by Jones, the best translation I know, interpreting with this little device that Luther and Bach seem to look at Life and Death as almost allegorical figures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

5. I don't go with the imputed logic: "Although all movements are in the same key of E minor, Bach employs a variety of musical forms and techniques to intensify the meaning of the text." You'd have to build in, briefly, the notion that unchanging key is not good at intensifying the textual meanings. And do you later explain the mechanics of those intensifications?

   I do the latter, but isn't obvious even to a lay reader that "same key" implies little variation. I think it would be too long for the lead (which has already been described as too long above) to explain that Bach later went for change of expression by key also.--GA

   The logic doesn't hold up. Tony (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry, I don't get it. Should we make it two unrelated sentences? My logic is that he keeps the key - almost boringly - the same but still achieves a great variety of expression. Any better wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

   Would "Although all movements are in the same key of E minor, Bach employs a variety of other musical forms and techniques to intensify the meaning of the text." get the meaning across in the lead? The further exposition takes place in the Movements section. --RexxS (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

   The present wording is "Although all movements are in the same key of E minor, Bach achieves variety by many musical forms and techniques which intensify the meaning of the text." - How is that? We could also say: "achieves still variety". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

   It would have to be "still achieves variety" ('still' normally precedes the word it modifies in English), Gerda, but that's not the nuance. The point is that he uses forms & techniques, other than key changes. --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

   Key change is not a musical form,and I doubt that you could call it a musical technique, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

6. "Christ lag in Todes Banden is Bach's first cantata for Easter, also his only extant original composition for the first day of the feast." Comma splice.

   will look later what that means, on vacation --GA

   I looked and understand that a comma is unwanted between two independent sentences, but here the two share the verb. ---GA

   I removed the word "also"   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

   It's not a comma splice. There is one subject ("Christ lag in Todes Banden"), one verb ("is"), a predicate ("...cantata...") and a noun phrase ("...composition...") in non-restrictive apposition to the predicate. Comma is correct. --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

   You're right, not a comma splice. But it's awful. Replace "also" with "and". Tony (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

   Lingzhi did that, did you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

7. "He later repeatedly performed it as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, beginning in 1724 when he first celebrated Easter there." Specific claim but no ref. I've been away from FAC for so long I'm unsure of the party line on reffing in leads.

   You don't have to source summaries in the lead (this is a summary of two dates sourced later), only quotations. --GA

8. "Only the performance material from Leipzig is extant." Perhaps "... survives". Whereabouts is it? Maybe that's not important, though.

   I added that, and a later score. All these source are in Bach-Digital, for those interested in details. ---GA

   English is not my fist language, thanks for those little differences. In German,"survives" sounds strange for something that never lived. --GA

9. Slight grammar shift: "and a choir of cornetto and trombones doubling the voices at times" -> "and a choir of cornetto and trombones that double the voices at times". I'd numerate them (one ... and ?three), to avoid the jolt from singular to plural.

   A choir is singular, no? And doubles the four voices, so has to be 1 + 3 without mentioning, no? --GA

   Yes, choir is singular. You need "of one cornetto and three ..."/ Tony (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

   Why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

10. Interesting, but I hope it's explained or reffed in the main text: "The scoring of the first performances was possibly similar, in the style of a "Choralkonzert" (chorale concerto) from the 17th century."
11. drama" and. -> drama", and

    I think it is, please look --GA

Tony (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for very helpful comments, partly done, partly for later, hopefully today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Back from vacation, but a lot of other work waiting, - please excuse that work will trickle, not flow.

Now with the Women in Red/Music being over, and no new cantatas until Palm Sunday, I have more time for this. I used Wolff a lot, thinking of you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Return comments: I've gone through it to edit. It's mostly well-written, but check subtle word-order and comma improvements (at least I hope they're improvements). I support promotion to FA status once these issues are dealt with (and provided no outstanding issues remain from other reviewers). It shows a great deal of careful, skilled work. Nice.

• Check my "structural", please.

I am not happy with "structural variety", because it seems to limit too much. I see much more variety of expression, and variety of following the meaning of the text in detail. - I like all your other changes, and thank you for taking the time to copy-edit. --GA

• What do you mean by "the performance material"? The parts only, not the full score?

Why would you think not the score? - If it was only the parts, I would have written the parts. --GA

So what does it mean? Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it should specify: "the score and parts"? (but what else?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ambiguous: "with a choir of one cornetto and three trombones doubling the voices at times" – do you mean those brass instruments play a lot of the time but only at times double the voices; or that they play at times, when they double the voices?

Please word it better: the brass goes only with the voices, but not all the time (as the table shows: only in Versus 1, 2 and 7). --GA

Ah, and I read it as on and off during a single movement. I'll look at it. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've never heard the term "organ prospect". I presume it's a technical term (I did my performance degree on organ).

Orgelprospekt, see wictionary: facade of an organ, - I don't know if there's a better term, - never heard facade so far, but learning ;) --GA

"front of the organ"? "display front of the organ"? or "facade" would do. Not "prospect".

Using "front of the organ" (even if it sounds a bit childish to me). The equivalent for the German Prospekt leads to "Case" here, but that's a different thing (would be Gehäuse), all around and holding, while Prospekt is the often showy side that you see. Really no English term? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• "where Bach was the organist" – unclear whether you mean he was organist at both or just the New Church (I thought it was just the latter; if so, relocate the comma).

Comma moved, thank you --GA

• "Commentators find parallels in the music of composers such as Henry Purcell." – really??? Gardiner has given us a lot of pleasure in his recordings, but sometimes his musings go a bit far. Is there evidence in the music for this assertion? And then "some of these parallels", a back-ref, seems to mix up Purcell with Pachelbel: I don't get it (and "the music in question" is a certain piece by Purcell, or Purcell's style in general—I'd drop this bit).

History: first came the mentioning of Purcell (by those who wrote the article before I even joined Wikipedia), then Gardiner. Dropped. --GA

• "Wolff points out the relation to works by Dieterich Buxtehude" (see the comma I inserted?). The meaning is unclear: the relation of what? BWV 4, or BWV 150?

general, now there --GA

• "Features characteristic of his later cantatas, such as recitatives and arias on contemporary poetry, were not yet present, although Bach experienced them in oratorios by Buxtehude" – how do we know he did? Consider: "although Bach may have heard them in oratorios by Buxtehude"? I wouldn't mind briefly knowing what characteristics (this would be important info, in my view, and worth mentioning elsewhere too in your Bach-cantata articles—I hope Dürr didn't let us down on this matter). Also, to be fussy, the logic is faulty: we've been told this is an early work, so it's slightly redudant to tell us that those features are yet present (I can live with it, I guess).

Wording changed. - To say again "no recitatives and arias" is not for you and me, but for a reader less familiar with the topic but perhaps a vague idea that Bach's oratorios, Passions and cantatas are dominated by these operatic features. They are, but not the early ones. Better wording always welcome. --GA

• "Instead, these works" – which works?

"early cantatas" now repeated --GA

• "Bach uses the limited instruments at his disposal for unusual combinations" – they were limited in tuning, range, volume? I think you mean "limited number and types of instruments", perhaps?

"types" taken, number doesn't matter (violin sound is violin sound, whether one person plays or 3 or 5) --GA

• "The hymn stresses the struggle between Life and Death." – we've heard that above, but there it refers only to the fourth stanza; now it's the whole hymn? Perhaps it's "struggle" vs "battle". Really?

The hymn mentions Death in the first line, that's the topic, no? - I don't mind struggle or battle. --GA

• "in addition" – I hope Wolff has decent evidence for this timing and implied motivation. Is the point made because Bach took the score to Mühlhausen with him?

Wolff said possibly. Nobody knows. I understand that any of the early cantatas (already composed) would have made a good entry for the audition, but that Bach possibly composed this cantata for the Easter occasion of the audition once he knew that was the date. Seems clear to me as a hypothesis, and we will never know for sure. --GA

Then I think the current workding is too certain. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you suggest to say instead of "possibly"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• "but its style is different from the others" – ok, not a trivial claim for Dürr to make, so does he provide any specific points about this? I'm unsure of the provenance of his claims unless he backs them up with evidence verifiable in the actual scores, or documentation.

At this point we would have to repeat again, that the later chorale cantatas, especially those of the second cantata cycle, included recitatives and arias on paraphrased text, which is handled in Chorale cantata (Bach) which was linked before. Do we really have to say that again? The stress should be on that he seemed not to mind that his style had changed, still found the early work in good company, and never bothered to compose anything to replace it, as far as we know. Can you word that? --GA

• "The brass parts, a choir of cornetto and three trombones reinforcing the voices" – repetition. You might consider dropping it from the opening, or at least not wording it in the same kind of detail. The issue I asked about above could be clarified here, and the doubling of voices dropped where it appears earlier.

Are you sure all readers will know that "brass" summarizes cornetto and trombones? --GA

No, they may not. But that's not my point. The info is largely repeated. Can it be in one place (preferably further down) with the higher level of detail, not twice, once without detail and a little misleading? Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of "a choir of trombones" in the summary. Insiders will know that cornetto was the typical soprano instrument for that. Just "brass" would probably mislead unfamiliar readers to the trumpet direction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the repeat linking.

Thank you! --GA

• "with all other parts entering later" – I haven't heard it for a while and haven't time to consult the score; do you mean after the sop. chorale statement is over? What does "later" mean? Perhaps "enterning soon after"?

says now: "after the soprano began". In later works - thinking of "O Mensch, bewein dein Sünde groß" (first St John Passion, then St Matthew Passion) - often the lower voices begin with imitatory entries, and only then the cantus firmus comes in. --GA

Right, so you're talking on a localised level—some readers might not get that. I'll look at it. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I get what you mean by "localised level". The soprano begins a cantus firmus line, the others come in (a bit) later in counterpoint. Next line: same. While in the movement mentioned above, the lower voices begin in counterpoint, the cantus firmus comes in later (and finishes aline sooner). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• "In the final Halleluja in all four voices" – what does that mean?

Supposed to mean that the alto has no cantus firmus function, as it had so far in the movement, - how would you say that? --GA

• "They were copied from the lost autograph score by six scribes, four of them known by name, including the composer." – bit confusing.

I thought it would be a bit too much to list the four names which include JS Bach, no? But found worth mentioning that even as Thomaskantor, he still did the copy-job. --GA

So it's Bach and three others—that would be clearer. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we say "the composer himself and three others"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We've emailed before, but I can't find your address. If you send it to me I'll attach back some photos I took of the Bach Church in Arnstadt in 2013, one of which will surprise you (for which I have no permission to upload to Commons). Tony (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have email enabled. Looking forward! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

But one can't attach to WP emails. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Got it now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Tony (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Wonderful job on the article! Truly, great job! I'd recommend adding the music itself. And in the infobox, just put the key, the year it was composed, and the Period (Which is Baroque). Those are things I like to see in a music infobox.
If you'd like inspiration, my favorite music infobox is from Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E minor, because it specifies everything you need to know about the composition in the infobox, and it's so simple that someone who doesn't know what it is can understand it quickly. It is a good example of a very well constructed infobox.

Cheers,
The f18hornet (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You can do that;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hornet, you mean an audio file? I hope it's good, and preferably period instruments. Commons has a lot of poor performances. Tony (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note -- looks to me like we're almost there but has someone carried out a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No but the formatting is as for the three Bach cantatas that are FA already (172 - 22 - 165), and I hope the reliability as well, - several reviewers checked carefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources review

Citations

• Ref 25 needs pp not p

thank you, fixed --GA

• Likewise ref 28

fixed --GA

Bibliography

• The IMSLP scores are not a cited source, and should be listed with external links.

done --GA

• Some of the online entries lack publisher details: Bischof 2015, Bischof 2016, Hewett

done --GA

• Why is "Emmanual Music" a reliable source?

Emmanuel Music is used for one purpose: they have the best translation available online, which I can tell you as a native German speaker. - Alternatively I could translate myself, but I think this is better. If you look at the Bach-Cantatas site: there are nine translations to English available, feel free to compare. The translations by Pamela Dellal have been used and cited in the other three FA Bach cantatas. --GA

The issue is not the quality of Ms Dellal's translations, but whether Emmanuel Music is a reliable source per the FA criteria. Emmanuel Music describes itself as the Ensemble-in-Residence at Emmanuel Church, Boston; I'm not sure that qualifies it as reliable, but beyond a very slightly raised eyebrow I'm not intending to press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• There are two identically-described "John Eliot Gardner 2007" sources, which should be distinguished in some way.

title and publisher distinguished --GA

• The publisher of the Grob source is given as ".s-line.de". This is a website name – who is the publisher? (As far as I can see it is Lexikon Geschichte Baden+Württemberg, some kind of dictionary?

I am not sure. I think Mr. Grob publishes his details like Mincham, see below. Comparable to Emmanuel: it's only used to cite the title, which could also be cited to a facsimile, but less conveniently so. --GA

No, Mincham self-publishes, while Grob uses the Lexikon Geschichte website which, I think, should be listed as the publisher rather than the web name.

taken ---GA

• While I don't doubt Julian Mincham's Bach expertise, I am doubtful whether his self-published essays qualify as a reliable source for WP:FAC purposes. He does not seem to have published other than at this site, so there are issues of editorial supervision etc. (As a matter of personal interest, I knew Julian in the early 1980s, when he and I both taught at what was then Middlesex Polytechnic, later Middlesewx University. Very dynamic, very committed.)

The views on Mincham differ. There were long discussions on Classical music in 2010 when his site was new. Some articles on Wikipedia, written by Nikkimaria in 2013, rely in the Music-section almost entirely on his prose (for example Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122). I like his site for good musical examples, and try to refer only to facts such as keys and meters, not to his personal interpretation. Here, it's just one to-the-point summary I used: "The musicologist Julian Mincham remarks: "The variety of ideas and range of inventiveness is incredible but never disguises the presence of the chorale."" - If that seems too much, the article could live without it, and Mincham be an external link. --GA

Nikki's article that you link to is not a FA and has not been subject to FAC review in which harsher standards of RS are applied. Regretfully, I think Julian has to go as a source; by all means add him to Ext links. Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

done ---GA

Subject to these issues, sources look of appropriate quality, and formats are consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a diligent look and good remarks, - please look again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

more action --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Co-ordinators: Sources all OK now – no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Seems as if it has already had a good grilling and has been improved. Can see nothing wrong with it, it certainly looks to meet the FA criteria, excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.