Talk:Chorale cantata cycle

Really?

I disagree with the definition: "Johann Sebastian Bach's chorale cantata cycle is the year cycle of church cantatas he started composing in Leipzig from the first Sunday after Trinity in 1724." - I understand that his chorale cantata cycle is not any "year" ("year cycle"? new term for me), but the cycle of chorale cantatas he composed from 1707 to 1735 for the occasions of the liturgical year (though incomplete). Reword, or perhaps better, move to a name for which the description fits. - I believe that the occasions of the liturgical year need an introduction or at least a link, for readers who ask "what is a liturgy?" (happened in a recent GA review). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• "year cycle": see [1] – afaik there's nothing wrong with that expression for native English speakers, nor with the sentence quoted from the article. In 1707 Bach hadn't started composing a chorale cantata cycle (a single cantata doesn't make a "cycle" afaik, and the 1707 cantata was reworked before it ended up in the cycle). After his first annual cycle (annual cycle being a somewhat more posh synonym for year cycle or year's cycle) he did however start composing a year cycle of chorale cantatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Start yes, finish no. He didn't revise BWV 4 much as far as we know, but added it into the cycle. Thank you for the lessom, - I just never met "year cycle" in five years of looking at Bach. I am not going to use it myself. Dürr's translator uses "church-year cycle" [2]. This has "church year cycle". Much clearer for readers who think a year starts on 1 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Re. "finish no" – please stop the pretences of clairvoyance on which of Bach's cantatas went lost (probably enough cantatas to fill more than two cycles...). For all we know he may have finished the chorale cantata cycle project. All we know for sure is that he started a chorale cantata cycle after his first Leipzig cantata cycle, and obviously continued composing cantatas for that cycle long after his second year in Leipzig. The phrasing of the opening sentence doesn't suggest he finished the project, nor that it is excluded that he did so. What we know about the Easter to Trinity cantatas and other issues regarding the cycle is explained in detail in the article, but is way too complex to cram in the opening sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• (You write much faster than I can think and type ...) Re. year cycle: please use church-year cycle the first time, the short version thereafter, - I don't care much about the other point, only feel that "the year cycle" suggests (at least to me) that there is a full year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, and again, and again how many times does it have to be repeated: I don't WP:OWN this article, nor any other article in Wikipedia, nor do you. Suggesting what I have to use is just a sign of a WP:OWNerish mentality I detest. For comparison: Cantata Cycle 1716-1717 (Telemann) has "... new year-long cycles ..." in its opening paragraph. I dont particularily like that. I also considered linking to annual cycle, but that probably won't clarify much either. For me "year cycle" works fine as written. It is intuitively understandable for those who are less acquainted with liturgical year, church-year, annual cycles in Christianity or whatever, and isn't even misunderstood without those additional layers (which are explained further down in the article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding connotations when writing that Bach "started" or "began" something: compare "... Bach began, around 1739, a thorough revision of the (St John Passion) ..." – which doesn't imply he completed that revision (see next page in Google Books). So, apparently, your concerns are unjustified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not apparent which concern you mean, and what the three revisions of the Passion have to do with this article. But never mind, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, there are 4 versions of the St John Passion (1724, 1725, 1732, 1749 – see List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#BWV Chapter 4), the version he started to write in 1739 isn't among these (because he didn't complete it).

The concern I meant was "...only feel that "the year cycle" suggests (at least to me) that there is a full year": nah, apparently that's not how the English language works: when Bach "begins" or "starts" to write something there's no enclosed implication he completed it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

re. "He didn't revise BWV 4 much as far as we know": BDW 00005 says this about the early version (excuse my German): "Keine Originalquellen überliefert. Über Besetzung, Werkgestalt und Stimmtonhöhe kann nur gemutmaßt werden; möglicherweise wurde der erste Satz mit dem Text der letzten Strophe als Satz 7 wiederholt." – to me it seems like a logical fallacy to conclude from that that he probably didn't change much. Obviously there's also no material sign he reused anything of the 1707 score (there not even being a material sign of the 1707 score). What we know for sure is that in 1707 he hadn't started a cycle of chorale cantatas, and that BWV 4 was only added to the cycle, in a revised version (at least the trombones were a later addition), at Easter 1725, that is: after he had composed his last new chorale cantata for the second cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We agree. Repeat or a new chorale: that's not "much". He could have dropped the inner movements and written recitatives and arias, to go with the 1725 style, - but he didn't. We don't know for sure if the trombones were a later addition, as the article explains. Colla parte trombones were common in the older style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I emphasised Werkgestalt in the quote above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've never heard the phrase "year cycle". Normally, it would be a "yearly cycle". Perhaps if an adjective were added before "year", the phrase might make sense: "a liturgical year cycle", etc.  – Corinne (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As a lay reader, I agree with Gerda and Corinne that the word "year" needs a qualifier, e.g. "liturgical" or "church". And the WP:OWNership aspersion is uncalled-for. Writegeist (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This source was added to the chorale cantata (Bach) article by Gerda Arendt ([3]). It uses the expression "year cycle" on its first page without further explanation, except for using the German equivalent Jahrgang on its fourth page (both mentionings in connection with chorale cantatas). So Gerda's "I just never met "year cycle" in five years of looking at Bach" is either an omission, or a confession of not really looking at the sources added to articles. That (with other shenanigans I won't detail any further here) makes me consider this topic as pretty much closed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider it however you wish. Meanwhile, per Gerda’s second post to this thread, it’s obvious that, for accuracy, and to avoid misunderstanding for the general reader, the article should qualify “year” with such as “church”—or “liturgical”. Writegeist (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI (Personal attack removed) nothing of the kind is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Reasons have already been stated as to why it would improve the article. Is it your position that the clarification would harm the article? Writegeist (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As said, I'm not convinced it would improve the article, and I (Personal attack removed) disproved rationales given by others. So don't claim consensus where there is none. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again: Is it your position that the proposed clarification would harm the article? That is, do you take the view that the "year" in "year cycle" refers to a Gregorian calendar year (i.e. beginning Jan 1 and ending Dec 31), and that this is the correct meaning in this context? And Is it now also your position that I claimed consensus for something? Writegeist (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your "That is, ..." is an entirely different question. Makes it impossible to answer to your "question", which is an amalgam of different and not really related questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Back to the beginning: my simple dislike of "Johann Sebastian Bach's chorale cantata cycle is the year" is misleading language if ony for a moment: until readers continue, they see: "... cycle is the year", - can some English native speaker fix that? At least say "year-cycle"? or use quotation marks around "year cycle" to connect the words visibly? I have not been convinced that "year cycle" is easily recognized as a term. It seems rather uncommon in the sources for Bach's cantatas. - I still believe that the best solution would be to follow major sources and say is "a cycle of church cantatas ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a link, Francis, that is even better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This convo is way over my head, but I will say the body recycles cells on a seven-year cycle, a one-wheeled bicycle is called a uni-cycle, numerology is based on a nine-year cycle. Have no clue what a year cycle is without qualifiers. What is the issue with calling it a liturgical-year cycle? Year cycle as a standalone phrase is so naked. Nobody is suggesting liturgical year-cycle are they? Or, should it be liturgical year cycle? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chorale cantata cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304191941/https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/ to https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe some pictures

Can't you maybe put some pictures in? To make it look better? Theincredibleoctupus (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Theincredibleoctupus (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. I had the very same idea but was too busy and will be for a while. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)