Talk:Bach's church music in Latin

Content of article

The content of this article was Missa (Bach), specifically the four short masses. Then, to redirect the individual masses made sense. To redirect them to a general article Bach's church music in Latin makes no sense, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• BWV 1060R, not for keyboard, redirects to Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Concerto in C minor, BWV 1060
• Missa, BWV 232a redirects to Bach's church music in Latin#Missa in B minor, BWV 232a

No problem whatsoever. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "Every BWV number deserves its own article" ([1]) — I'd like to keep to Wikipedia's standard mode of operation: when an article section grows out of proportion to fit in an article of normal length, it can be split off in a sub-article. See Wikipedia:Summary style.

Also, for some BWV numbers I think it unlikely they would ever have a separate article, e.g. BWV 239. Similar for BWV 242, which probably should redirect to an article on BWW Anh. 26 (if and when such article is written). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not belong to this article, but you asked here. You are right, of course: when I said "every" I didn't mean for example chorale settings, which are better handled where they appear in the context, in Passions and cantatas. The larger works, however, have their individual scores, entries in data bases, history, recordings. I therefore liked the split of BWV 120 in three. Some articles are short, for example Blast Lärmen, ihr Feinde, BWV 205a, but where is the problem? - I consider all masses such larger works. - In the template, I see two problems in your "combination" of all Missae as "short masses", they are rather known as Missa than Short mass, and BWV 232a, written in the period of mourning, belongs before BWV 243 which ended that period, while the other four belong later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. nav template: and? Note that all the cantatas are a single entry in that template, and they encompass much more, as well in numbers as in time range of composition (and composition places).

"Short masses" for the five missae breves works fine as far as I can see: "Missae" would be confusing as BWV 232 is also a "Missa" of sorts, and I'd support to keep that one separate; all other names (missa brevis, Lutheran mass,...) have their issues too, none is perfect, so I'd choose the one in plain English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The cantatas have their own template. In Bach's, looking at the years gives readers a feeling for what he did when. Nothing in 1733, besides transposing Magnificat? Highly misleading. The mass for Dresden, five parts, expansive setting in many movements, several of them new, - highly unusual.

Francis. I find your edit summary on that recent to be misleading which is why I reverted you. I won't revert again and will leave this discussion to you both, but please consider my cmt. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

1. I'd like to respect Gerda's wish (on my talk page) to give some rest to this discussion for now (I'm happy to take this up again whenever Gerda feels like).
2. Just @Littleolive oil, could you clarify "your edit summary on that recent to be misleading" a bit, so that it's clear to me what exactly you're talking about? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that people are giving this issue a "rest," but as I am late to the party, I will just drop by to say that it seems that almost every BWV is generally notable enough in its own right for its own article. In all seriousness, I don't think this article can really do justice to hundreds of works, it is, inevitably, an overview article and appropriate spinoffs seems to be the best solution. There may be a few exceptions, but seems to me this article should be an annotated list with a good intro and background section, then the details in each spinoff article, save for a few pieces so minor that a simple annotated list does the trick. My two cents. And at any rate, merging the spinoffs wholesale seems inappropriate, surely some are already quite comprehensive and worth discussion on a case by case basis? Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Article structure: List article or WP:Summary style?

For now I'll only reply to the technicality of "hundreds of works" and "this article should be an annotated list" as proposed by Montanabw:

• the list you're speaking of is already at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Liturgical works in Latin (232–243a). Repeating that list (but with numbers instead of bullets):
  1. BWV 232 – Mass in B minor
  2. BWV 232a - Missa in B minor
  3. BWV 233 – Missa in F major
  4. BWV 233a – Kyrie in F major (alternative version of Kyrie from BWV 233)
  5. BWV 234 – Missa in A major
  6. BWV 235 – Missa in G minor
  7. BWV 236 – Missa in G major
  8. BWV 237 – Sanctus in C major
  9. BWV 238 – Sanctus in D major
  10. BWV 239 – Sanctus in D minor (doubtful)
  11. BWV 240 – Sanctus in G major
  12. BWV 241 – Sanctus in D major (arrangement of Sanctus from Johann Caspar Kerll's Missa superba)
  13. BWV 242 – Christe eleison in G minor (composed by Bach for a mass by Francesco Durante, BWW Anh. 26)
  14. BWV 243 – Magnificat in D major
  15. BWV 243a – Magnificat in E-flat major

With a little bit of stretch to these might be added :

1. BWV 191 (a cantata using Latin text)
2. The 1724 Sanctus that was later incorporated into the Mass in B minor. This sanctus has no separate BWV number (its BWV number being 232 like for the Mass in B minor) but the 1724 version (for what we know about it from the incomplete autograph that remains from it) is slightly different from the version incorporated in the BWV 232 Mass, quarter of a century later.

References

So, even when counting all different versions of the same works separately, and including the doubtful ones, the maximum number of compositions for this article is 17. Not hundreds. There are six or seven not really eligible for a separate article imho (BWV 233a; BWV 237; BWV 238; BWV 239; BWV 240; BWV 241; the 1724 version of the BWV 232 Sanctus).

So, annotated list: no, already exists at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Liturgical works in Latin (232–243a), and if needed can be a little bit expanded there. There's not "hundreds of articles" like the cantatas.

A model that comes closer than the annotated list model is that of Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach: 16 works (not counting the variants like the "R" and the "a" versions). This is the Wikipedia:Summary style article structure, allowing spin-offs when the treatment of some of the works starts taking too much place (like BWV 1050 in that example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I like the approach of Classical music to Mozart's masses: have a list, but an individual article on every single one" (statement by Gerda, see #BWV 232a):

• There already is a list for these compositions by Bach, see List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Liturgical works in Latin (232–243a), as discussed above in this talk page section. For Mozart there wasn't, following the different structure of the Köchel and the BWV catalogue. I object to making a content fork of the existing list of Bach's liturgical compositions in Latin.
• Mozart's list, List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, has 35 entries (25 NMA attributed to Mozart + 10 spurious/doubtful), and still hasn't all compositions that could be listed there according to NMA (about half of Vol. 1/6 still missing). Bach has 17. Maximum, taking account of everything that could be split out or treated separately. That is still less than Bach's keyboard concertos (when taking account of the splits and separations that could be made there), included in that Summary style article.
• For Bach there's a group of four (BWV 233-236) closely linked together: similar composition history, composition technique (re-using cantata music), time of composition, history of recordings, so that split articles would repeat more than half of what is in all the others too. That's not comparable to any situation of the Mozart masses. Compare e.g. also Schubert's last sonatas, an article exceeding Bach's church music in Latin in length, but not split because of the similarities between the three sonatas (and: not unimportant, only became elevated to "Good Article" after the three sonatas were merged into one article!). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with the terms in the heading, thanks for teaching me. I would probably arrange the works covered here in a sortable list, sortable by at least title, BWV number and time of composition/performance (whatever is known), and take it from there. - I understand that groups of similar works in one article, cello suits, violin partitas, Brandenburg concertos etc, and that is what this article used to be. It is no more, and to split off the four short masses as one extra article would be an option I see, stress on option. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem to make the list at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Liturgical works in Latin (232–243a) sortable along the lines you describe. Making only this Bach's church music in Latin article so, would still be an unnecessary content fork. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that I know what you mean, but nothing urgent anyway, just an idea that crossed my mind. I like sortable when there are different criteria people might look for a work, and I don't expect every reader of this article to come from the list of compositions, - I rather see them coming from Missa, BWV 233, arriving in the middle of a article and needing orientation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you mean that that is not something one would solve with a sortable list, then I agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare also Sonata in A major D. 959 (Schubert), Sonata in B-flat major D. 960 (Schubert) and Sonata in C minor D. 958 (Schubert) - I have no problem with where those links lead to. Nor with BWV 1050. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You have no problem because you know already what to expect. Take the first link: where you arrive you don't get to know that it is a piano sonata, next the terms "theme", "exposition" and "dominant" are thrown at you. - I suggest to either make the link go to the top, for the context, with clear links to the works, or link sonata to piano sonata etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

? I don't see the problem? I mean, someone typing "Sonata in A major D 9..." is not the same a someone typing "Schubert's l..." in the search engine. I mean, the first one has some idea of what he's looking for, in the context, the second could be random or whatever, and might need more of an introduction. Same goes for BWV 1050, BWV 233, Missa, BWV 233 or Composition exercises on "Te solo adoro". And even when the person getting on a page via an anchor link doesn't understand, scrolling would be an automatic reaction, no? Really, can't see the problem there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

BWV 232a

(copied from User talk:Francis Schonken#New morning on request:) Francis, you know much about Bach's and his music, you know that when he the wrote the Missa which came to be called 1733 and catalogued BWV 232a, it was the greatest piece he had composed so far, in length, complexity, scoring, depth of symmetry and symbolism, intended for his ruler. The work deserves its own article. Please restore the version before the redirect and add your improvements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

there's nothing to restore currently, my last edit to the BWV 232a article has been undone [2]

I never said BWV 232a would not be eligible for a spin-off article, only currently it doesn't comply to Wikipedia's standards:

1. (preliminary remark: when I say "spin-off" I don't imply that the "spin-off" article developed from the Wikipedia:Summary style article: I'm pretty sure that's not what happened with BWV 1050, that is nonetheless a spin-off from Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach, but probably developed independently, and probably even earlier than the Summary style article about the keyboard concertos.)
2. The current BWV 232a article contains less information about that work than the Bach's church music in Latin article, which is a contra-indication to have that separate article. (I don't say that can't be remedied, I only start from the current content of the article)
3. On the time when BWV 191 was composed, the BWV 232a article contains only one scholar's opinion (1745, following Steinitz), while the Summary style article contains, in addition to Steinitz' opinion, also that of another scholar (for a Christmas service, between 1743 and 1746, according to Williams). That defines BWV 232a as a POV fork, an absolute no-no in Wikipedia context. Again, I don't say that can't be remedied, I only start from the current content of the article.
4. In Bach's church music in Latin#Missa in B minor, BWV 232a I marked some assertions as unsufficiently sourced. These assertions are not marked thus in the current BWV 232a article. This highlights the difficulty of having a spin-off at a moment when the Summary style article on the same is not sufficiently developed yet. Again, I don't say that can't be remedied, I only start from the current content of the BWV 232a article.
5. Bach's church music in Latin#Missa in B minor, BWV 232a is not extraordinary long for a section in a summary style article. I don't say more info on BWV 232a would not be valuable for Wikipedia, I only see it is not present in the current BWV 232a article. Again, I don't say that can't be remedied, I only start from the current content of both articles.
6. Inevitably a separate article on BWV 232a would repeat a lot from the Bach's church music in Latin article, I mean also a lot that is not in the BWV 232a section of that article would need to be repeated in the separate article (e.g. that Missa Brevis has a different meaning for Bach than for the composers of the Wiener Klassik, etc.) I don't see any benefit in the repeating for the sake of repeating, which is more difficult to manage, and may lead to difficult to trace content forking (like the example I gave in #3 above).
7. Taken all this together my approach would be standard Wikipedia mode of operation: let the Bach's church music in Latin#Missa in B minor, BWV 232a section develop naturally, sort out its problems in one place (i.e. in that section of this article), and once it shows that there's enough material to reduce that section to a summary, and an excessive doubling of content can be avoided I have no problem with a separate BWV 232a (spin-off) article.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts (and the explanation that "spin-off" doesn't mean spin-off). The separate article is a work in progress, and I invited just above to apply your improvements to it. I would do it myself but don't want to insert as if it was my work. I like the approach of Classical music to Mozart's masses: have a list, but an individual article on every single one. My approach would be to have this article concentrate on Bach's compositions and their relations to each other, in chronologic order rather than by BWV number (which makes the Mass in B minor appear before the Missa from which it is derived), but have specific sources, recordings, etc in individual articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

re. "I would do it myself but don't want to insert as if it was my work" - please quit the ownership logic. I placed "citation needed" templates in Bach's church music in Latin meaning I don't have the sources for it. Also meaning: it's all nice and fine to invite me to do the cleanup after someone else: you got the insufficiently sourced sentences from somewhere, so if you're refusing to do the cleanup that's clear, then the sentences should for the time being just be removed from the spin-out article.

I don't see any serious objection against having the workshop here, until all that is sorted. I mean: no serious objections yet from anyone, and no serious objections in what you write in particular.

Whether ultimately this becomes a list, or a Summary style article (as I propose) is also quite irrelevant to the place of the workshop where things are straightened out. And the wrong section to discuss that, see #Article structure: List article or WP:Summary style?, please make your suggestions on that topic there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the workshop for the Missa in B minor to be Missa, BWV 232a, the workshop for the smaller works this article, strange as it is to have Kyrie compositions listed under "in Latin" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I suggest the workshop for the Missa in B minor to be Missa, BWV 232a", well, convince me why this would be a better idea. I already explained why I think that would be the less favourable option for Wikipedia's quality (content forking, references to reliable sources that don't get sorted out in one of both articles, etc.. etc...). So unless there are really good reasons for the approach you suggest, what you suggest is only a "personal choice", and what I suggest a "personal choice" + "backed by experience from the Summary style approach tested for many, many years now" + "demostrable advantages like avoiding all sorts of problems regarding referencing, content forking, unnecessary repeats, etc...". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Shall we ask who would like a separate article on the Missa, and less about it here, comparable to the Magnificat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Other views welcome! That's why I wanted to have this discussion on this talk page in the first place. Currently however nothing has been repaired/amended yet at Missa, BWV 232a. I'll straighten out the situation for the BWV 233 to 236 topics first now, then the 232a situation. Whenever someone feels they can repair/amend the problems I pointed out above for the separate Missa, BWV 232a article, they can do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Imported from Talk:Missa, BWV 232a which I'm redirecting to this talk page:

---

History

The article contains text from Sophienkirche.

Blanking

Whoever blanked and redirected this article did so inappropriately and without discussion or consensus. This should not have happened and I have restored the work. Montanabw^(talk) 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is now at Talk:Bach's church music in Latin#‎Content of article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

BWV 232a again

For those who didn't follow, a short summary

• 12 February 2013 Created, a stub article on the Missa in B minor, Bach's greatest work at the time of composition
• 26 October 2014 made a redirect, reverted by me and two others, discussion on this talk, see #BWV 232a
• 28 October 2014 made a redirect again

I believe that the Missa deserves a separate article, which should certainly be improved. Who shares this view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issues that need straightening out for a separate article on this topic are mentioned above in #BWV 232a --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I linked to that discussion. Is it you alone to decide when the improvements you require will be carried out and by whom, and set conditions? The reverts don't look like consensus for your redirect concept to me. This article has a history of 1 1/2 years and I simply asked who would like to have it kept and expanded on its own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to Missa, BWV 232a being a separate article, as I said multiple times. The last pre-redirect version of it had multiple issues (as outlined above). We're rather looking for contributors that want to solve/amend these issues (which can be anyone, including Gerda Arendt). Which is about looking it up in sources, reviewing article content and references (and can be prepared in draft on whatever suitable talk/sandbox/draft... page), etc. Everyone, including me, would, I suppose, be glad to see the issues resolved and have a separate, non-problematic version, of an article on Missa, BWV 232a. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Missa, BWV 232a moved to Draft:Missa, BWV 232a & content restored

So that everyone who choses can freely update the separate article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

When editors deem it OK for re-introduction in main namespace: see Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft. The talk page of the draft redirects to this talk page. Please keep your fellow-editors informed about questions, required input, progress, etc. regarding the draft, on this talk page. Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin here. I have undone the move and restored the article to main space after receiving assurances that the issues you have identified will be promptly fixed. There is no requirement for a rewrite to happen in draft space or on a talk page, and it's more transparent as well as procedurally easier to do it in main space, particularly since no one disputes the work merits its own article. If the rewrite does not happen promptly, consider pinging me or leaving a note on that article's talk page; it's possible that it will involve a lot of previewing to get it right. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

BWV 233-236

The same issues as sketched above for #BWV 232a also more or less apply to the four BWV 233 to 236 separate articles, with different examples:

• Both BWV 233 and BWV 234 listed/list all of their movements deriving from prior cantatas. Unsubstantiated for both, a content fork and "missing source" issue for both;
• Doubling of content more acute, e.g. the discography section at Bach's church music in Latin#Discography currently lists only recordings that simultaneously have all four Missa's BWV 233-236. The "linkback" solution for the discography sections in the separate articles is far from ideal.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we postpone the topic of expanding these masses until next year. Kindly attribute your "re-integration" on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Proceeded with split and merge-back info from BWV 233 [3]

Don't see much new content to Bach's church music in Latin that wasn't already there before the split, or before the net import from the spin-out articles, so if you attach much importance to this nonetheless, I'd suggest you proceed with the others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems there is no rush in either direction. This particular article should just be a list and used as a launch area to the specific articles on the various works. So I'd suggest not undoing a bunch of things that will just have to be redone later. Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is no rush, please refrain from your somewhat disturbing reverts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was speaking to you and your "rather disturbing" blanking and redirecting of articles all back to this page. Smacks of OWNership, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion on the content of the matter perhaps? I'm not the one asking to postpone that discussion. Above I explicited my reasons for keeping this together. And my proposal on how to proceed from there. I'm open to reasonable argumentation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I oppose to any article creation, when the initator thinks they can override the WP:OWN policy for whatever reasons (even if that reason in an ill-fated interpretation of an arbcom case). Surely someone else can create the article when there is a consensus to do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Discography

Can we perhaps centralize the thoughts regarding history of recording, as now in Discography of Bach's Magnificat, in a general article or a template? All (hundreds of) articles with a recording section would profit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please proceed with whatever is most suitable. It is, however, not useful to say recordings can have different characteristics, and not being able to indicate such characteristics in the discography table, hence my proposal to add another optional column to the table at Template talk:Cantata discography row#Other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a side-thought: note that historically informed performances for Bach are usually more vivid and quicker in pace than older performances, but that's not true in general, e.g. for Berlioz' Requiem the historically informed performance would be the (much) slower one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A request for an extra column would be best on the template talk, {{cantata discography row}} is a work in progress. It's mostly for Bach, for the moment and testing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Kyrie–Gloria masses, BWV 233–236: proposed split

@Gerda Arendt: I saw your split proposal here ("I support the split of the first, but would see how it goes before dealing with the others. I have similar ideas for Bach's Lutheran Mass in G minor. When there is enough substance about a single piece, let that piece have an article" – emphasis added). Two suggestions:

• Article title: how about Kyrie–Gloria Mass in G minor, BWV 235? There is still the old title Missa in G minor, BWV 235, currently redirect: it might be useful to keep the page history of that one together with what you propose now: if you don't object, I'd move that redirect to the proposed article title for the separate mass.
• Another possibility (one I'd prefer actually) is to start Kyrie–Gloria masses, BWV 233–236, keeping them together for the time being, and making possible to slim down the sections on these masses in the current article.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I like the second possibility, as these masses are often mentioned and recorded together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)