This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Klaus Hofmann, Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn BWV 157. Überlegungen zu Entstehung, Bestimmung und originaler Werkgestalt, in: Bach-Jahrbuch 1982, p. 51-80 - a very valuable article about the potential origin and version history of this cantata. Unfortunately in German. --INM (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I don't agree. In the typical infobox for a Bach cantata, we see at a glance the occasion, important performances, and the scoring for voices and instruments. In this particular case, it's especially important because there were two occasions, the funeral and Purification. I agree with Nikkimaria, a former key editor, that the infobox should be kept concise, but believe that the first performance should show to give an idea of the time in history, and the intimate initial scoring (vs. trumpets and timpani in other cantatas), even if it was slightly changed later. As it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did but was reverted so let's discuss. For biographies, I would want date and place of birth. For a composition, the equivalent would be time and place of premiere if known, and here it's known. Nikkimaria, would you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
[1] does not need to be in the lead when the title is already sourced in the body
fine, I just thought it takes too long into the article until the translation comes again --GA
"in a memorial service" → "during a memorial service"
fine --GA
The word Feast should begin with capitalization and why is Purification piped to a different page from the body here?
not sure, - I think we'd say Marian feast, not Marian Feast, a description, not a name. For people who have no idea what Purification is (which I assume are many), the first link/explanation is needed, but once informed, the second is more meaningful for everybody, with the prescribed readings and other works for the occasion --GA
I made the pipe now (but not the original link because I have no idea how knowing about the history of the Saxons would help understanding, when all supposed to be said is that he worked for the government of Saxony.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
"on his death," → "when he died," because "on his death" does not sound correct without a date, which would be too excessive
I removed the whole phrase as redundant --GA
Remove comma after home village
I would if the 20km thingy wasn't there --GA
Nowhere is "quite well documented" actually sourced so remove this per WP:SYNTH, though you can keep the fact the printed commemoration exists
to avoid too much blue, projects Classical music and Opera say Verdi's Aida, a link to the precise work, and whoever really doesn't know the author can be sure to find him in the work's article. Why for rappers that would be different I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Remove "and from" before the Gospel of Luke, as comma is correct separation and you have used the term from previously
taken - we should properly say "the epistle from ..., and the gospel from the Gospel ..." but then we'd have gospel twice, - let's assume people know that much about Lutheran liturgy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Merge the first para with the second one per it being overly short
If you compare other cantatas (BWV 1, BWV 248 III ...), you'll have a summary, and then a subsection for each movement. Nikkimaria doesn't like them for the short movements, so I comply and don't use them for a all, for consistency. But combining summary and first movement wouldn't work for me. - Only after I wrote that did I notice that Nikkimaria changed it already, - please check again. --GA
"ends, and bisects the movement; it features" → "ends and bisects it; the ritornello features"
Merge the tenor recitative para with the above one per short size
no, per first item: each movements its own, with an anchor from the table --GA
"aria, recitative, and" → "aria, recitative and" but arioso does not appear to be sourced anywhere
removed for now, but I heard it, and the recitatives are on the arioso side, - I'll ping you in case find a ref for that. --GA
Use the full names of Handel and Telemann
I wanted to say no because these are about the most familiar Baroque composers, - we could honour them as we would Beethoven and Verdi, but now my helper already changed it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; bet you knew I'd come through with this one! --K. Peake 09:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
