Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a/Archive 1

Archive 1

Interpretations

Disclaimer: just writing down what I remember having read, or heard on the radio, maybe 20 years ago, I'd be willing to see whether hard references are available for this, but for the moment, lacking more time, I just jot it down in order not to forget

• The very first version of 243a was presented by Bach just a few weeks after he got appointed in Leipzig - he had already presented a few cantatas in the city's churches, but Visitation was the first (somewhat major) feast, calling for festive music. Bach "showing off" on a somewhat more extended scale what he can do as a composer for the first time for his new audience, with a work the dimensions and complexity of which were unseen for the Thomaskirche.
• The attending parishioners were not impressed,...
  • The complexity went over their heads, was just experienced as overcharged (that the execution of the difficult piece rehearsed in a very short timespan was probably all but flawless probably didn't help either);
  • Bach was hired to teach choristers, not even music being the first thing he had to teach them — He shouldn't get too presumptuous as a composer;
  • He chose a Latin text for his showcase, experienced as un-Lutheran
  • Looked as if he was taking a hard turn on tradition.
• For these reasons, the second time he presented the piece, in the Christmas period, he made a deliberate attempt to pick up on tradition, inserting the canticles (partly in German) his predecessor Kuhnau had used in the very Christmas cantate his public was most used to, in a lean (not "overcharged") setting of these canticles.
• the composer vs. teacher tension soon left Bach desillusioned, withdrawing from his teacher job as much as possible (barely appointing assistants to get that job done), composing in his back-room more for himself than for his parish, ultimately the somehow "oecumenical" (and Latin) BWV 232.

(at least some of this in the Eidam biography of Bach, although I didn't think that a very scholarly work). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY concerns

For the description of the work a lot is referenced to the (Bärenreiter) score, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, except for possible interpretations explained in text by the (unnamed?) editor of that score. E.g. "special function" (etc) can not be sourced to the music score (notes on music paper) exclusively, while in that case an interpretation of a primary source. I think most of it is OK, but interpretations need to be sourced outside the primary source material, see WP:PRIMARY. That being said, the description of the movements is a fantastic job, like it a lot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying with an example: [1] - named author (editor of a score published by Bärenreiter), referenced to a page of the text introduction to the score, this is not a primary source interpretation by a Wikipedia editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We had articles like that before, such as Mass in B minor structure, - I don't think there is any "interpretation" (and if you find it remove it). Saying that voices enter in a succession is like saying the dress of a woman on a painting is red, - we don't need a secondary source to confirm that. The message that Bach was an unbelievable creator should come across, without being mentioned. - In a next step (getting ready for GA) I will look for more sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you name the editor (Alfred Dürr) as author, rather than Bach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Example:

• "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders" can be sourced to a score
• "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders which are assigned to a special function" (emphasis added) contains an interpretation which can not be sourced to a (primary source) score. Unless the editor of that score inserted a text note to that effect (or Bach wrote such note in his manuscript which I don't think is the case here). In that case the name of the editor needs to be given (the editor is the source, not the music Bach wrote down and which was transferred to a printed score), preferably also date of publication, etc.

I'd recommend to change all "score" references to a publicly available score (if possible). Then the interpretations that aren't directly clear from the music notes and accidentals on the page, get different references with named authors.

Anyhow, what is interpretation and what is non-interpretative deduction I can't check, while the references are made to a publication I currently have no access to.

More important is to understand what WP:PRIMARY is about, when writing an article. The answer above didn't put me at ease... so yes the dozens of references to the (Bärenreiter) "score" source need to be checked. I don't feel like putting the {{Original research}} template on top of the page while probably most of these are in order, but that's in fact what I should do until it is all checked. Now anyone can familiarize themselves with WP:PRIMARY and do the checking, but failing time and means and/or other candidates to do the checks, I'd have to put up {{Original research}} until it is done. (sorry I'm a bit uncompromising on this: DYK is mainpage exposure, WP:NOR is a fundamental policy and we can't have wide exposure to something blatantly going contrary to it.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the listing of general score and other sources e.g. Piano Sonata in C major, D 279 (Schubert)#Sources can be taken as an example, e.g. indicating Urtext editions, autographs, names of editors that wrote an introduction, what the official catalogue says on the subject, publication dates, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Related issues with the Bärenreiter score reference (used several times): it is the D-dur version (so not 243a) while the intro to the Movements section says "The instruments are those for BWV 243a, slightly different in the later work" you can't source that content to the score of the later work, which puts some doubts around "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders" sourced to the score of the later version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which open access score would you suggest to use for that? Probably not the digital manuscript? CPDL is easy to read, compared to IMSLP manuscript and IMSLP BA, but can't offer a prominent editor name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would happily use an E -flat score, but didn't find one, IMSPL offers only the added movements under that name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not possible to say "in what follows we discuss the orchestration of the Eb version", then "the orchestration from the Eb version differs from the D version" and than say something about the orchestration of the Eb version referenced to the D version. I have no solution (yet), but will keep looking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In this version, the D score is ref 13, used only after the table for details of the movements. The orchestration (above) is listed for E-flat. I tried to avoid keys and instrumentation in the movements, but mistakes may still be there. - I see two possibilities to proceed: merge the articles to Magnificat (Bach), or separate the movements to a third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another somewhat obvious solution would be: move all what is description of the D major version to the BWV 243 article; remove the "See BWV 243a Movements" there, and put a similar one up in the other direction (from 243a to 243); limit the description in the BWV 243a article to what we know about the differences (for example differences in orchestration can be found in some external sources I suppose; and the canticles description, only belonging in the 243a article, can be elaborated here too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

On personal grounds, I am not happy with that idea, because I would like to get this article to GA status, not the other which until recently described the work as a motet (blushing, thinking of that. I never looked it up until I wanted to compare Rutter's treatment of the text and found that there was nothing to compare to.) Less personal: it makes more sense to have the original covered in detail, not the derived work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, GA status is far away (DYK even debatable imho, as you know) and none of my concern. A good article is my concern, not GA status. If you can get it to GA status with a bunch of minor inacurracies I'm not going to stop you, I just say I'm not interested in the operation (and obviously would oppose it when chancing upon a GA request page when according to my insights it isn't good, leave alone Good). Anyway, a content fork was not the ideal solution to solve the problems of the other article. It still has (for example) "...twelve movements which can be grouped into three sections, each beginning with an aria" (well, obviously, the first section doesn't start with an aria) and other such inacurracies. A content fork doesn't make these problems "go away".

BWV 243 is the better known of the two, with near to a 100% of the perfomances, so it's logical that version gets the full description, not a "see (whatever)" link. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

With some apologies too you know, I know I'm too harsh on the formidable job you did on the 243a article. In comparison the problems are minor, I want to help solve them, that's all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And sorry I got irritated over the let's compromise a little bit on quality so that it is easier to get it labeled as Good reasoning. The reasoning is lost on me, but I shouldn't have got irritated over it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a (November 2014)

See Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a (November 2014), where I propose to group the discussion (as currently it is part of the merge discussion). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As the merge discussion is pending I refrained intentionally from changes, but as new requests are coming up, and there is so far no support for a merge, I start to improve this article. I will need time, for clarifying and correcting, going over previous changes (such as the trumpets, gone but reinstalled later), formatting of references, then adding sources, and adding information with new sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I invite again to operate such improvements on a single page instead of doing the same work twice, most obviously for the improvements pertaining to both the E♭ and the D version of the Magnificat. For similar reasons as the one given by Gerda I have refrained from editing both Magnificat (Bach) and Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, and am currently working on a draft I mentioned some days ago, which is in no way "owned" by me or anyone else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't be similar reasons, as your comments are my reason No. 1 for action, mentioning "problems". Other than your draft, this is a live article that many people read. I try to fix problems for them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Re. "similar": the discussion regarding a possible merge from Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 → Magnificat (Bach) is pending. Which as a reason is similar to a pending merge discussion regarding Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a → Magnificat (Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is this all about? No merge, this is a silly conversation to even be having. 'Oppose merge and also oppose the forum-shopping of "do it where I say and not where anyone else wants it!" Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The merge is similar. The live article situation and you piling up shortcomings of it is different and reached the level today that made me act to fix what I can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Movement 10, Suscepit Israel

The violins/viola unisono part is seen as a continuo line for 243a. As I can't remember which of the many secondary sources I read on the subject has that information, I placed a tag for appropriate sourcing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In movement 10, Suscepit Israel[2], the unison violins play a line that is not basso continuo, even if some sources call it so. Perhaps comparable: Aus Liebe will mein Heiland sterben, from St Matthew Passion. In German it's called Bassettchen, I am lacking an English term. Compare [3], it's different. - Many (older and even newer) secondary sources have the date of the first performance wrong, for example. We have to look at them critically. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, when some sources call it a continuo I suppose it should be mentioned too, per WP:NPOV (basicly: its not up to Wikipedians to judge whether they do so by a wrong translation of a German word I haven't seen used before in the context of the Magnificat). I'll see whether I can find a second source besides Rizutti, which I think however for the "Suscepit Israel" a completely reliable source (he's the one with the most extensive tonus peregrinus study afaik), certainly not less reliable than the websites you provided in this context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That could be mentioned, of course, that one source calls it continuo, but thousand other things could also be mentioned. Due weight is a concern. Simple other reason: I have no time right now. Today is just a beginning, but I need now to turn to the things I had planned to do today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I read Rizzuti now, who wrote "original continuo". I think we have a simple language difference. He might use "original" the same way Germans would say "originell", meaning "unusual" or "one of a kind", in other words: It's not the normal continuo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Unusual continuo, yes (because of using only high-pitched string instruments). Nonetheless continuo.

FWIW: there are primary source clues too: only continuo is under the singing voices in the autograph: for all other movements featuring violins and/or viola these instrumental voices are written above the singing voices, only in Suscepit, where they play continuo the single melodic line (as usual for non-identical instruments playing continuo) is written under the singing voices.

Note that in the D major version the same melody line of the unisono high strings in the Suscepit is given to the continuo, there with the specification: continuo and celli, without violono and bassoon (so still the idea of a continuo without its usual lowest register).

Adding something like this (after the sentence "The basso continuo ... playing almost throughout but not in the first Christmas chorale and the Suscepit Israel.^[10][11]"):

However, the violins and viola playing the unisono accompaniment in "Suscepit Israel" have been described as an unusual continuo.

or "original" instead of unusual, with a ref to Rizutti (other qualifiers used by Rizutti for the same: "unique assortment" and "extra-light" p 4 - if we take these two together with "original", I think this can be summarized in "unusual" as I wrote in my proposed text above), should be uncontroversial I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Y Article has now both "bassett" (Jones) and "original continuo" (Rizzuti). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Formally a cantata

"Formally, the Magnificat is a cantata"; "Formally Bach's Magnificat is a cantata" and similar assertions are found both in this article and in Magnificat (Bach). I've put an {{OR}} after that assertion in the lede of that article, as it seems dubious at least: lack of recitatives, lack of da capo arias, not being ranged among cantatas in the thematic catalogue,... At least a source should be given per WP:REDFLAG. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove from lead, but tell me what makes a cantata a cantata? Da capo arias? No. Recitatives? No. - This is not the typical Bach cantata, but what is it if not a cantata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As a cantata seems not to have a specific "form", the expression "formally a cantata" can only be used when reliable sources do so with regard to the Magnificat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not used any more. What wording do you suggest? The line entered the article as a protest to the claim that it is a motet, held for years until quite recently, together with the disputed date of the first performance. Even if sources may say so (haven't seen one though), "motet" was nonsense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

1. See "...(Magnificat) setting (...) in the Neapolitan style...", proposed here, introduced in the article here, then removed here. Agreed, it is a descriptive qualification not a "Bach's Magnificat = (noun)" kind of definition;
2. A "Bach's Magnificat = (noun)" kind of definition is unneeded for the article; there is a considerable amount of text in RSs about this composition, all these authors seem to feel no need to qualify the Magnificat in this fashion (and if we would find one or more that do, it would be WP:BALASPS matter whether we should even mention it).
3. In the BWV catalog it is grouped with the Latin liturgical compositions, so "The Magnificat BWV 243a is a Liturgical composition by Johann Sebastian Bach on a text mainly in Latin" should do the trick I suppose.

In sum, interesting question, but of little relevance for the collaborative effort that is Wikipedia (i.e. realizing a tertiary source) imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, here are mine. For someone who never heard of the work before and is at the beginning of the article, I still believe that "cantata" would be more helpful than your "Neapolitan style" = very special knowledge, good for later, nothing for people who wouldn't know that Neapolitan has anything to do with Naples, or what Naples with Bach, - and more helpful than your "Liturgical composition by Johann Sebastian Bach on a text mainly in Latin" = long, nothing for readers who would have to look up "liturgical" and "Latin", not supplying any idea about several movements and orchestra which cantata does in word with one link. Your sources don't have to supply the simple fact because they assume readers who knows these things. It's not OR, imho, to bridge from no knowledge to basic knowledge by introducing a term that may help understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

→ "one of Bach's church compositions on a Latin text" – I suppose "Latin" and "church" both more recognizable than "cantata". Whatever the terminology used, that's wiki for you: providing a link if the concept is unclear - providing the cantata link is less helpful than the Bach's church music in Latin link I suppose, the article where the first links to doesn't give much insight in this composition, the second gives some contextual information and has "...sacred music in German, writing hundreds of liturgical compositions in that language..." in the second sentence of the lede.

Re. Neapolitan style: indeed a bit of a stretch, nonetheless, this is not "Simple English Wikipedia", and as said above: this is wiki, a link is provided for more info if unclear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bach's church compositions on a Latin text doesn't provide the slightest hint that it is a complex structure with orchestra, - a four-part a cappella setting would fit the same heading, - lacking precision. Naples is too much of a stretch for my taste, therefore I removed it. You didn't answer about supplying one word as a help for the less educated which source writers my take for granted . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a simple qualifier for "complex structure with orchestra", Bach cantatas are fairly simple structures (see Bach cantata#Structure of a Bach cantata, as opposed to: "Without exception these works lie outside the normal routine of Bach's sacred vocal works" which applies to the Magnificat, twice as many movements in a complex structure uncomparable to that of an average cantata). As I said above, only a descriptive qualifier is possible, especially if we want to keep it accessible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree on the following:

1. The word cantata is not mentioned in the article as a term for the Magnificat any more (as said above).
2. If is was used, it would not describe a Bach cantata, but a cantata in general.
3. If it was used it would not at all compare to other cantatas, not by Bach nor anybody else, - just say what it is. (IF we wanted to compare: Bach wrote two cantatas of 14 movements each, actually about the same time.)
4. It is fine as you compare in your proposal, however I think we don't have to compare.
5. If a musical work which contains several movements of vocal music with independent (not colla parte) instruments is called a cantata, that is no "research", but using a simple correct term for such a thing.
6. The Magnificat is not a motet, by no definition I know of motet. To have called it that seems OR, misinforming our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

#5 is WP:OR (unless there is a source with an acceptable level of reliability that can confirm it). Re. #4: I think the comparison useful, especially as there seems to go so much energy in applying a qualification that doesn't apply. Re #6 you're correct of course. Re. #2 & #3: what is there to confirm: intentions of the one who insterted it, removed it, re-inserted it etc.? I talk about edits, not intentions. Re. #1: yes, clear (also for Magnificat (Bach) now).

This somehow reminds me of someone who wanted to insert "is not a symphony" information for many entries in List of symphonies with names many years ago (based on formal characteristics, while however symphonies, like cantatas, are not a single format). The discussion is dull and unwikipedian: if it is called a symphony, it can be listed as a symphony... if it is not called a symphony in reliable sources, then, well, it can't be called a symphony in Wikipedia. Same for cantatas. And for Missas/Masses for that matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion could have been over and hatted when "cantata" for the Magnificat left the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• confirm, as I already said & implied: "interesting question, but of little relevance for (...) Wikipedia" --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Here is how I propose to handle this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Y Magnificat not described as a cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutti movements (and broader point)

Some time ago I attracted attention to the fact that No. 4 is not a tutti movement: [4]

I see that after initial correction (into a convoluted sentence), the article now says "...most of the orchestra players (tutti)...": tutti does not equal "most" of the orchestral players, it implies "all" orchestral players, i.e. all instrumental players apart from the recorders in 243a (not listed as part of the orchestra by Bach). Further, now No. 11 has been added to the "tutti" movements, which is incorrect, it has only Bc accompaniment. Without trumpets and timpani there is no tutti. And then this incorrectness has been copied to the lede, where in addition No. 12 has been left out of the list of tutti movements. I don't think this mess is salveagable, and propose merging this article into Magnificat (Bach) to get these and similar problems sorted. The longer we postpone this decision, the more problematic this seems to get. I say this primarily to spare the principal editor of this article disappointment in the long run: the viability of this article separately from the Magnificat (Bach) article has not been demonstrated imho, no amount of last minute repairs remedies that situation, so sooner or later, quite predictably, the two will be merged, independent of current local consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of the orchestration, fixed I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Y Tutti sorted. Also the differences in the strings pointed out by Jenkins. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No. 8 not yet correct in table; C movement also incorrect in table (per Jenkins). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out so helpfully that my attempt of a correction went to the wrong line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hogwood

I object to

Hogwood desribes it as "the most elaborate and flamboyant sound that Bach could accommodate in his church".

References

which is currently in Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#1

Hogwood is clearly describing the D major version (if he would be describing the E-flat major version: Bach "accomodated" a "more elaborate ... sound" "in his church" ten years later).

Without reserve against Hogwood as a musical performer: I like his work very much, but as often with conductors when they talk history things can get a bit simplified slightly under Wikipedia's standards.

As an opinion I see not enough weight to include this in this article. There are still twenty-one other references to Hogwood's descriptions and opinions without historical fallacy (or that at least could apply to both versions of the Magnificat) in the article, so it is not as if we don't give enough attention to his ideas on the subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Taken, but I still have no time, and you know why I am behind. I will add more sources, but took to Hogwood first, in memory and because of his spirit, matching the spirit of the music which is the same any key. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

this is of course pushing it over the top. There are still twenty-one attributions to Hogwood in the article. Hogwood is in no way particularily relevant for the 243a version of the Magnificat (as a historian he confuses the versions; as a musician he didn't record it afaik), instead of sorting out the content referenced to Hogwood when you would find time (as noted above), you found time to push it further. Note that at Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a the most recent criticism of the article included "no copyvio, although liberal use of quotes" (bolding added), many of these quotes are Hogwood quotes...

As far as opinions go, the most important opinion expressed by Hogwood in his 2011 lecture is that the form of Bach's Magnificat is relatively short (as in the title of that lecture: "Keep It Short"). In the article this is now immersed in multiple mentionings of other opinions by Hogwood, multiple mentionings of "extended" referenced to various sources, too little attention going to the relative compactness of the composition.

In short: NPOV problem: undue weight going to Hogwood in this article, and not for the content he highlights himself (the shortness). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Relative is relative. While each movement is relatively short (arias no da capo etc.), the whole piece is extended compared to a simple four-part setting which renders each verse of the canticle only once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The presence of Hogwood's image adds undue weight to what he has to say about the 243a version of the Magnificat. The image should go, I don't think there's an alternative. Apart from that, the amount of space given to his opinions should be reduced further. His opinion about the Magnificat being "short", the main topic of his 2011 lecture, should however be kept to balance all the "extended" qualifiers, that are not so prominent in the sources as the article currently gives way to believe. This is all about WP:NPOV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I said so above. Do it yourself or wait, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting a mixed signal here. I put up a POV template linking to this section to get more eyes to this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The signal should be clear: I have to time right now, may be later today. There will be a section about Luther's Magnificat and its influence on this piece, one on the performances at the beginning of Bach's career including the (relative) brevity of the arias of that period, and more on the relationship between text and music, - just not right now. If you want to help, write about the tonus peregrinus mentioned in (estimated) 9 of 10 sources as quoted in Suscepit Israel, while Rizzuti has a good point differentiating the chant of the German Magnificat (in said movement) and the tonus peregrinus.

Back to Hogwood: he has a great gift of saying things simple which I think is a good first approach for a Wikipedia article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Re. "write about the tonus peregrinus", I have done so: [5] – this is however not the topic of this talk page section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, will include. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking again: What do you think of moving that paragraph to either Magnificat or Bach's Latin church music? It's of general interest, would be a useful link from BWV 10, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What was unclear about "this is however not the topic of this talk page section"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Re. "...Hogwood: he has a great gift of saying things simple...", reiterating my stance:

• For factual descriptions: no problem to base these on Hogwood, as good as any other source (and I agree that accessible descriptions are preferable), except where he gets confusing over the E♭/D versions;
• For opinions (usually in the form of quotes): the amount of Hogwood quotes/opinions needs to be reduced, retaining only the one about the shortness (which balances the many mentionings of it being an extended work), for NPOV;
• No Hogwood picture, having "a great gift of saying things simple" has no special relationship to this composition, and should not give undue weight to his opinions, also NPOV issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes reduced, and quotes by others added. The image will stay, as the one of Gardiner in all my cantata GA and FA (which has been discussed). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree on the image staying: remains an undue weight thing. I don't accept WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a valid reasoning on that one. If you want to keep the Hogwood image here, develop a convincing reasoning for the Hogwood image (not the Gardiner image) in the Magnificat article (not in another series of articles).
• Re. "quotes by others added", too much direct quotes ("liberal use of quotes" in the DYK review) used to be a minor remark, this way it is developing into an issue (more quotes were added than removed). Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, so making summaries instead of copy-pasting is part and parcel of a good Wikipedia article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes: as a non-native speaker, I hesitate to reword things which have been said well by expert. They may loose precision (and also authenticity) in rewording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree. Please remind me why you want to do this alone, instead of using the standard Wikipedia process of collaborative editing? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to do this alone.

For the image, please see "greatest inspiration", also "I like the link to present time." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating: "If you want to keep the Hogwood image here, develop a convincing reasoning for the Hogwood image (not the Gardiner image) in the Magnificat article (not in another series of articles)" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Other WP:BALASPS issues

In Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#1:

Michael Steinberg assumes in his Choral Masterworks: A Listener's Guide that it is of symbolic meaning that the sopranos enter alone.

Steinberg has little to say on the subject, in fact three words: "...is surely symbolic" without explaining what he assumes this symbolism to be. I think this sentence should be removed: it gives undue weight to something that is somewhat void of actual content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Will drop, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In the same section describing the first movement: note that Spitta argues against the instrumental sections being called ritornello in this case, for balance this should at least be mentioned, instead of just assuming it "is" a ritornello. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Will drop, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe replace the last sentence of that section by "After 45 measures of choral singing follow fifteen measures of instrumental postlude based on material from the opening tutti.", also there avoiding "ritornello" (BTW misspelled as "ritorello" there) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

POV tag

I can see no evidence here justifying a POV tag. If facts are disputed there is a tag for that, and must be used with evidence. I have removed the tag at the BWV 243 page, where my explanation for doing so is set out at greater length. Tim riley talk 18:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

undue

I think Rutter's work gets undue weight at the end of the section on Bach's composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

→ Compare – putting it a bit more in perspective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I said yesterday that I am busy celebrating Christmas , and said "don't expect too much", I said in a comment that I will add, explaining the relevance. "... and on earth peace" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. As I had some time this morning I found a ref for the "Magnificat included in Evensong", which you were looking for yesterday. This ref is included here --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I was not looking for a ref. I knew it had to be in the linked article and only asked how much was needed to be take over. Evensong has less to do with Bach's work than Rutter who said he had Bach in mind as a model. (I heard him say that in a workshop, in 1998 but remembered.) I will establish a link to the general section, but will need a bit more time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

On his website there's a spoken introduction where he implies he wanted to avoid taking Bach as a model – but Bach is a point of reference for his composition, no doubt.

My point being, why only mention Rutter's Magnificat? For instance, for Penderecki's there is a secondary source (a scholarly paper as it happens) analysing how it relates to Bach's; other 20th century Magnificats, like Vaughan Williams' and Pärt's, equally show how Bach's is incontournable (excuse my French): singling out only one 20th century composition, only based on primary sources, should be avoided per WP:BALASPS/WP:UNDUE.

Note also for CPE's Magnificat: I think that in an article on his father's Magnificat it is more important to mention that he had his father's Magnificat performed in the second half of 18th century (which can also be sourced to secondary sources), than to mention he composed one himself (only based on primary sources for how it is relevant to his father's). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Rutter removed for now, the other could be added, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit: "removed for now" means (for me at least) "can be added sourced and when due weight is right later". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Copying the hidden content here:

In the 20th century, John Rutter set the canticle in seven movements for a soloist, choir and orchestra.{{sfn|Score}} will expand and explain why I think it's relevant that the work is still a model, but not now.

Note that the Rutter Magnificat is mentioned in the Reception section at BWV 243 along other 20th century Magnificats. So afaics the discussion is moot, and if not moot, this talk page is a better place for it than hidden comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Good article review

• The article should be merged with BWV 243 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#RfC on Bach's Magnificat)
• The article content is vastly inferior to the article content currently in BWV 243 on the topic of BWV 243a
• I'd move the discography to a Bach's Magnificat (discography) page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You cite an RfC with exactly two users. There were other discussions which I don't want to cite here. Bach's works typically have separate articles for different versions, compare {{Bach cantatas}}. Most were originally handled together but split for good reason, for example BWV 120a from BWV 120. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfC decided, it was up for a month, on a highly visible page for editors concerned with classical music. If you want to contest the RfC per WP:CCC, start a new one.

Re. "Bach's works typically have separate articles for different versions", this argument has been repeated so many times and reproved as many times. There are no separate pages for BWV 232 II, BWV 232 III, BWV 244b, BWV 245a-c (mentioned in St John Passion#Versions but no separate article), BWV 1046a, BWV 1050a, BWV 1060R, etc., etc. And even if that weren't the case, that only resumes to a "otherstuffexists" argument, the specific reasons for this merger are explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#RfC on Bach's Magnificat, and met with 100% approval in an archived RfC, so that is editor consensus unless any future WP:CCC can be proven on a similar level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice the RfC, sorry. I should not have said "versions" but BWV number. We have Missa, BWV 232 I and Mass in B minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, there's no difference whether you formulate it with BWV numbers or "versions": we haven't got separate articles on these BWV numbers: BWV 232 II, BWV 232 III, BWV 244b, BWV 245a-c (mentioned in St John Passion#Versions but no separate article), BWV 1046a, BWV 1050a, BWV 1060R, etc., etc.

And, again, quite irrelevant whether we have them or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Teach me language: RfC translates to Request for Comment, you received limited comment, it was archived, but not closed as something to act on. Interesting but irrelevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It expresses the current consensus. RfC's run for a month, are widely advertized so anyone can have their say. Further, it was on the page where you first posted the issue [6] On "language": "Request" doesn't mean anyone is required to answer. I hope I cleared that misunderstanding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: No current consensus exists beyond the status quo, as you can see. Your RfC attracted one other editor's comment and established nothing beside your current position, which is already well known. There is sufficient difference between the two principal versions of BMV243, both in time of composition and subsequent performance, to warrant separate articles. The sources available are more than sufficient to sustain both articles and there has been no good argument made for why they should be merged. If you want to see this article deleted or merged, then AfD is thataway. You can be certain I'll be opposing any such attempt on the strength of existing sources. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I took a look, and the "other editor" is one with a reputation for tendentious editing, who was blocked for personal attacks and hounding of other users, and a penchant to derail FACs while promoting her own and not accepting feedback from others. This was total nonsense. Francis, there is no "consensus" other than from a group of RfC-haunting drama queens. They are not "widely advertised" other than to those who opt into the notification system - aka no, many interested parties are not in fact notified. So quit gaming the system, the article stands on its own merits. Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is plainly of GA quality. I have some preliminary suggestions. I disapprove of GA reviewers who insist on minor stylistic changes even though the prose meets the GA criteria 1a and 1b. Most of the comments below are merely suggestions: promotion to GA is not conditional on their being acted upon, with one exception, identified at the end of these remarks.

• Bach's beginning in Leipzig
  • "He had worked before…" – this is a question of nuance of idiom, but I'd suggest either "He had worked previously…" or "Before that, he had worked…"
    • --GA
  • "was a few weeks later" – I don't think we need be told that 2 July is a few weeks later than 30 May.
    • We don't have to, but as until quite recently people thought it was months between beginning as Thomaskantor and performamce, it doesn't hurt to stress "weeks". --GA
• Magnificat
  • "Magnificat" – the generic term, rather than Bach's settings: I see you neither italicise the word nor put it in quotation marks. I'm sure this has been carefully considered, but I notice that Grove italicises the term, as does our own Wikipedia article.
    • There was a discussion regarding these Latin well-known terms (Requiem, Te Deum etc), forgot when and where exactly. --GA
  • Trinity Sunday and vespers are WP:OVERLINKs, having already been linked.
    • When Trinity Sunday comes the second time, it's in a list of many feasts - with all others linked. I am not sure if people remember the previous link ;) --GA
• Composition
  • "Bach likely first performed" – a bit slangy, perhaps. I suggest "Bach probably first performed".
    • taken --GA
  • "Bach wrote Magnificat" – "Bach wrote the Magnificat"?
    • taken --GA
  • Duplicate links: Meine Seele erhebt den Herren and Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV10.
    • good catch! --GA
• Scoring and structure
  • "Jesu Juva" – "Jesus help" with no punctuation marks doesn't mean anything. I see that the customary English translation is "Jesus, help!", indicating the vocative and imperative, which I recommend.
    • good, also linked now --GA
  • "No. 9 Esurientes" – again, I am surprised at the punctuation" – or rather the lack of it. Doubtless there has been much learned discussion of the point on some other WP page, but as I see it, the MoS (MOS:QUOTETITLE) bids us put the constituent numbers of the Magnificat in double quotes.
    • I am not sure I understand what you mean here, --GA
  • Table" – as you use the Alla breve and common time symbols, you might like to consider using the time-signature templates for the others: giving, e.g. ³
    ₄, ³
    ₈ or ¹²
    ₈.
    • I considered but thought they would not really add to the meaning and look needlessly bold, --GA
• The twelve movements of the Magnificat canticle
  • "The MoS warns us off definite articles in headers, but at GA I'm not taking issue with it; if you go on to FAC you may want to review it.
    • In this case it sets the twelve apart from the four for Christmas, - how would you recommend to solve that? --GA
  • 1.
    • "they sing the first word Magnificat anima mea" – that's three words. Just pruning the "anima mea" will make the phrase make sense. And I really do think you need quotes round "Magnificat" here, as you are quoting it; likewise later in the paragraph" – and why is Dominum in italics? My comments on putting the individual sections and, a fortiori, individual words in quotes applies to the rest of your text.
      • Sorry I forgot to delete anima mea" when copying. Quotation marks taken, --GA
  • 2.
    • "Savior" – as you have used English spelling so far, better to make this "Saviour".
      • Well, I copied from the American source which I quote, - unsure if I can change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
        • If it were in quotes as what the grammarians call oratio directa you would be right to leave it in the original spelling, but when you are recycling someone else's prose – perfectly legitimately as here – the MoS bids you bring it into line with the prevailing usage of the rest of the article.
          • learning more, changed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "A note in the autograph requests to insert the first Christmas interpolation" – another suggested tweak to be idiomatic here: " A note in the autograph requests the insertion of the first Christmas interpolation"
      • yes, better --GA
  • 3.
    • "Hogwood notes:" – better to make this "Hogwood writes" or something similar. "Notes" implies that the statement is an accepted fact rather than an opinion.
      • learning --GA
    • "and comments that the limited resources of one wind instrument and the voice have "a subservient feel to it." – plural nouns and verbs with singular pronoun. You could most easily remedy this by writing "and comments that the use of limited resources of one wind instrument and the voice has "a subservient feel to it."
      • helpful --GA
    • "Steinberg notes" – more noting where commenting would be preferable.
    • "in "an internalised dialogue", describes Hogwood" – not idiomatic. Perhaps "in what Hogward describes as "an internalised dialogue"?
      • copied, but leaves the following "expecting" - still Hogwood - a bit in the air --GA
  • 5.
    • "For the Mighty One has done great things for me" – I can't say I like this translation much. The traditional English version, "For he that is mighty hath magnified me" is closer to the Latin of the Vulgate, though you could argue that "done great things for me" is better for modern readers than "magnified".
      • It's the translation which I otherwise follow consistently. We could offer the alternative also, with a ref please. KJV? --GA
    • requests to insert" – as above, suggest "requests the insertion of"
      • yes --GA
  • 6.
    • "Jones points out" – remarks, observes or similar would be better, for the same reason as "notes" is better avoided for individual opinions.
      • taken --GA
    • "shows "full of pathos" – "shows" should be "is".
      • taken --GA
  • 7.
    • "ad dotte" – looks Italian, but is, I imagine, a typo for "and dotted"
      • ;) --GA
    • "and repeated 16th" – is there a word such as "notes" missing after 16th? (Excuse my ignorance: I was brought up on semiquavers)
      • I was brought up on "Sechzehntel" without "-noten" ;) - taken. --GA
    • "('dispersit' in favour of a highly…" – there's a closing bracket missing somewhere here.
      • yes, fixed --GA
    • "requests to insert" – as above, suggest "requests the insertion of"
      • yes --GA
  • 8.
    • There are more italics here for individual words in contrast with other paras where similar individual words are not italicised. I really think you need to make your practice consistent throughout.
      • now decided for quotation marks, - please let me know where missing --GA
    • We have "motiv" in this section and again in the next; elsewhere it is "motif". Consistency, please.
      • good catch --GA
    • "unison" is a duplicate link.
      • unison is linked more than once but what about readers who don't read continuously? --GA
    • "requests to insert" – as above. (Sorry to bang on about this, but in idiomatic English "request to [verb]" can only be used transitively and needs an object. You can request me/her/them to insert, but you can't request to insert.)
  • 9.
    • Duplicate link of "cantata".
      • no more --GA
  • 10.
    • Duplicate links of "unison" (again) and "cantus firmus". (We might bend the rules and allow the duplicate link for the latter, perhaps, as its first mention was many paragraphs earlier.)
      • see above --GA
  • 11.
    • Duplicate link of "fugue".
      • no more --GA
  • 12.
    • "Glory to the father" – as you follow the convention of capitalising "He" and other mentions of God, I'd be inclined to capitalise "Father" here. It is certainly capitalised in the Book of Common Prayer, even though "He" is not.
      • same question if I should change the source --GA
    • "was used by Monteverdi already" – better as "had already been used by Monteverdi".
    • "Jones remarks that Bach" – I got lost here and had to re-read from the start of the sentence. Could you make the structure of the sentence clearer by replacing the commas with parenthetic dashes between "pattern" and "a bipartite" and "triple time" and "again"?
      • tried to split sentence --GA
• The four Christmas interpolations
  • Duplicate links to "Martin Luther", "Annunciation to the shepherds" and "motifs".
    • one changed, 2 dropped --GA
• Reception history
  • There's no obligation at GAN level to be comprehensive, but for FAC you'll need a few sentences of summary of the linked article. For present purposes, however, the bare link will suffice.
• Recording table
  • "Weihcnachtsvesper" – I assume this should be Weihnachtsvesper, but I didn't want to risk changing it.
    • fixed ;) --GA
• Sources
  • These could do with a bit of tidying up:
    • No ISBNs for Rutter's Magnificat or Glöckner's book
    • Retrieval date for Wolff's book (unnecessarily, as we know the publication date).
      • dropped
    • Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach: Magnificat" – not linked.
      • will look --GA
    • Several redundant retrieval dates for sources that have details of their publication date. (There's no harm in having both, but you should be consistent – all or none.)
      • I add accessdates for web sources. because they might get lost, and add a year for them for harv. How to solve that? --GA

That looks like a formidable list, but in fact there's only one point that worries me much, and that's the inconsistent way individual words and phrases are punctuated/italicised. The plain spiritus meus, salutari, ecce enim ex hoc beatam etc should be in quotation marks, and dispersit, mente cordis etc should have the italics removed and quotation marks inserted. I think consistency on this point is a sticking point so far as promotion to GA is concerned, and I should need convincing that standardising on any other form than unitalicised text in quotation marks is compliant with the MoS. – Tim riley talk 10:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent observations. The Latin started out italic but was converted, please check for consistency. Need a break, RL. The few missing items later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not knowing where to place comments, I placed one here: User talk:Tim riley#Italics & quotes, I suppose these issues are treated more consistently in the article than the reviewer assumes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! The use of bold and italics is now consistent and clear. This was the only point that stood in the way of promotion. I don't know if you plan to take the article on to FAC, but if so I'd recommend seeking a peer review en route. Happy to join in, in that event. Tim riley talk 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you, made my day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

GA tag

Having passed the article for GA, I find I can't add that fact to the German project template at the top of this talk page, which I can't see how to edit! Can some kind soul rescue me, please? Tim riley talk 10:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, my pleasure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

One soprano soloist

Some recordings use only one soprano soloist. This is a summary of the cited recordings, it's actually the majority of them. How does it work for the Suscepit Israel? (This was a question in an edit summary.) The choir sings it, - lucky choir. (Sometimes perhaps, without specific mentioning, one choir member may sing with the two named soloists.) The sentence is only intended to explain the listing and doesn't need a citation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Then say "soloist" not "singer". Whether they "use" only one soloist (which needs a reference), or only "credit" one soloist on the sleeve of a recording (which is a different matter, and for which indeed the listed recordings can serve as a reference) needs to be put clearer too. Studio recordings may "use" only one soprano soloist, doubling with recording techniques in movement 10. The second soprano soloist (e.g. from the choir) may be credited in the booklet and not on the sleeve, etc. No WP:OR please, that results from a "nearly correct is good enough" attitude. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My "attitude" was trying to avoid repetition of the word soloist in two consecutive sentences. But if it helps clarity: changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. 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/20141015224439/https://www.baerenreiter.com/fileadmin/Domain/User/Download_Allgemein/Werbemittel/deutsch/SPA481_Chor_2014_15_oPr_web.pdf to https://www.baerenreiter.com/fileadmin/Domain/User/Download_Allgemein/Werbemittel/deutsch/SPA481_Chor_2014_15_oPr_web.pdf

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) 06:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)