Talk:Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 01:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Will be done in a the next couple of hours. — Yash ^talk stalk 01:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• Maybe include Whit Tuesday in the second sentence?

I included it in brackets, feeling that I can't write "he wrote it for Whit Tuesday" when he didn't even know what that is ;) --GA

• It says "now lost" (implying that it's lost entirely) in the lead, while it says "mostly lost" in the prose. Tweak the lead a bit.

OK, done by adding "mostly", but it is really so lost that we don't even know the title - which is rare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

History and text

• "both were adapted from secular models, both written for Pentecost in Bach's first year in Leipzig, and both revived in 1731" - repetition of "both" can be avoided.

Yes, but it is rather intentional to stress how similar. --GA

As far as I see, the expression of meaning remains the same, with better flow if a couple of "boths" are dropped but it's fine either way — not a major point. — Yash ^talk stalk 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just wondering - if the work was "mostly lost" how do we know that it was a "duet cantata with several dance movements"? As in, did any musicologist conclude​ that or was it found from some literature? (I was not able to access the source) If either is the case, it would benefit from it's inclusion. Or if it's something else with a possible explanation, it'll be worth mentioning. Forgive me if I am missing something obvious.

Sorry to see that the source was "reorganized". Will have to think. - The dance thing can be said because the music barely changed, musicologists can also tell more from the existing score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Music

• "here the next to last" - add "as the fifth movement" or something similar in brackets.

tried differently --GA

• accompagnato -> an accompagnato?

well, it's an adjective to recitative (recitativo accompnato) --GA

• "called a passepied by the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann." fits oddly in the sentence. Can be merged with the following sentence as well.

sentence split, no merge, - sadly that's to the same source --GA

• Describe why it is "unusually" a "four-part setting of a chorale stanza". Perhaps it would be better to remove the description from "Scoring and structure" and only mention it here.

Unusual is the position (not the setting), because normally it's at the end. What do you suggest how to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It'd be clearer amd easy to read if that explanation can be found in "5". Moving "A chorale movement, which ends most of his cantatas originally conceived for church use, is here penultimate movement, followed by the only chorus" from "Scoring and structure" to "5" keeps everything in one place and that should do it. Just saw that it was dealt with by Nikkimaria. — Yash ^talk stalk 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

• Links in #6 and #12 don't have the pdf files anymore.

That should do it. Cheers, — Yash ^talk stalk 04:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I replaced one pdf (Gardiner), but don't have access to the other. I contacted the site about the problem which is new overnight. We can consider to live without Hofmann, but only reluctantly. I hope it's only temporary in the process of reorginasation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's understandable. It won't keep this article from passing. Cheers, — Yash ^talk stalk 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I will just go ahead and pass this one. The only point left to my concern is about moving that one sentence which I trust you'll get around soon. I found very little to complain about here. Great work! — Yash ^talk stalk 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)