Talk:Mass in B minor

Possible problems with some of this article.

There seem to be several problems with this article, but I wanted to open up this article for discussion before altering it.

1. The first performance seems to have been after the great one Bach's death, when his son Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach performed the Gloria section (but not the entire Mass) in Berlin.

Not sure why 'the great one' appears in this sentence, it makes the sentence read very strangely and is a personal opinion.

2. Second, the aging Bach, having spent his life seeking musical excellence, may have begun to think that the German cantatas he had spent so much of his professional life writing were something of a fad in music, restricted to the German Lutheran churches and, as he correctly predicted, the 18th century, whereas the Latin Mass was almost universal as a form of church music. Thus, the Mass in B Minor represents Bach's effort to place his music in this more timeless context.

This is complete speculation, there is NO evidence for this, and I suspect it as highly inaccurate - this kind of historicism and a composer's concern for his/her legacy did not emerge until much later - when composers such as Beethoven began to make concerted efforts to arrange for collected editions of their works to be published.

Christoph Wolff in his biography of Bach conjectures something like this, and believes the presence of "archival copies" of some of his greatest works show that Bach expected at least his own progeny to perform his music (as he performed the music of his ancestors such as Johann Christoph Bach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.44.242 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3. are written in a wobbly, uneven hand, indicating that Bach wrote these passages while he was sick and surely contemplating his own death.

Again, this is speculation which does not really add anything to the article.

Once again, this is well documented in reliable sources (other than the "surely contemplating his own death" part, but sourcing would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.44.242 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Many older cantatas by Bach himself are incorporated into the Mass in B Minor, which not only adds to accuracy of the work as a picture of Bach's creative genius but also preserves some of these older works, as the original scores of some of them have been lost. This is a common technique in Bach's composition and is usually described as "parody". Other works where parody exists in Bach include the Christmas Oratorio, BWV 248. Even when models survive, it is still unclear whether they themselves are descended from earlier models. The only positive evidence of Bach freshly composing in this work, is the Confiteor section of the Credo. Details of the parodied movements and their sources are listed in the movement listing.

It is true that Bach used parody in this mass, in fact it is present in many works. I object to the phrase 'which not only adds to accuracy of the work as a picture of Bach's creative genius' - as meaningless other than to inform us of the author's opinion of Bach. The technique is not 'usually' described as parody, it is ALWAYS referred to as parody. It is insufficient to write about the issue of parody in a couple of inaccurate lines, a separate article is needed, and a useful starting point would be Das Bach Jahrbuch, I think 1927 and 1965, but this is from memory, if anyone fancies doing this.

Let me know what you think before I edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.3.90 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Made extensive additions and changes, and will do more. Removing from head, "and the work largely disappeared in the 18th century. Several performances in the early 19th century, however, sparked a revival both of the piece and the larger rediscovery of Bach's music." - not true. The work was written about in three sources from 1755-88 (will add that to article at some point), and the Credo was performed in 1786 (now in performance history).Brozhnik (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to address the questions below, but I'm noticing significant issues with the article as whole - repetition (about chronology, e.g.), some internal contradictions, and some unsupported assertions. I'll try to work on this over the coming weeks. As a start, I'm going to remove the sentences, " At what point Bach decided to expand the 1733 Missa into a complete setting of the Catholic Mass is not known. Some researchers believe that parts of the Symbolum Nicenum (or the Credo) were composed between 1742 and 1745." - no reference is given (which researchers believe this?), and as far as I can tell (after reading lots of Christoph Wolff, lots of Joshua Rifkin, lots of John Butt, Peter Williams' bio, and George Stauffer's book on the B Minor Mass), no active Bach scholar believes this --all of them point to evidence that seems to nail down 1748-50. Besides, the chronology section goes into chronology in detail. Removing this passage reduces the repetition AND the unsupported assertions.)Brozhnik (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Woops, I mean 1748-49. There is definite evidence that it was finished by August 25, 1749: as Butt points out, that's the date of a Magnificat by CPE Bach that quotes the Gratias and the Ex expecto - so it had to be done by then. Think I'll add this to the text...Brozhnik (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The conversation above is not easy to follow as neither protagonist signed their contributions. Please do not forget to sign. (And again: what happened to SineBot?) Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 02:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added unsigned notices and reordered this message chronologically, so the above-mentioned "questions below" are now the "questions above". When the first message in this conversation was written, the first auto-signing bot, HagermanBot, wasn't even around; it would've probably gotten very much confused about the later interleaved comments. Graham87 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Major edits on Chronology

Much of this article is un-sourced and, having found my copy of Mellers I see that the chronology differs from his. I have revised the chronology following his (published) statements, but there may well be items from the old text which are true, verifiable and useful, so I preserve it here: "Bach composed what would become the Sanctus of the B minor Mass for Christmas Day, 1724. In 1731 he composed a Kyrie and Gloria so that he could present an abbreviated Mass (Kyrie plus Gloria, BWV 232a) to the Saxon Elector and Polish King Augustus III of Poland as part of a request to add the title, "Electoral Saxon Court Composer", to his name, a political move he hoped would bolster his standing in Leipzig, where he was having minor political skirmishes with the town council. The score sat on Bach's, and the Elector's, shelves, unperformed, until 1737, when Bach revisited it. He began making small revisions to the Kyrie and Gloria, and added the Credo and Sanctus over the next two years. In the 1730s, when he may have been toying with the idea of expanding the initial Kyrie-Gloria Mass, Bach studied and performed Palestrina's Missa sine nomine, which he then copied with revisions, and Antonio Lotti's Misse sapientiae. Other works with direct bearing on the Mass in B minor include an unnamed Mass in F major by Giovanni Battista Bassani, to which Bach added a setting of Credo in unum Deum (BWV 1081) and Antonio Caldara's Magnificat, the "Suscepit Israel" portion of which forms the basis for Bach's contrapuntal study BWV 1082. Notably, Bach's only other five-part choral work is his D major setting of the Magnificat." NBeale 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "Mellers" - there was no bibliographic reference given, just "Mellers," but it probably refers to the (1981) book, 'Bach and the Dance of God," a book whose merits do not include being up-to-date on scholarship since 1981. Yet quite a bit of major scholarship on the Mass has been published since then which has really changed the story of the chronology of the Mass (Kobayashi's 1988 paper being a big one - see the text). I've tried to bring the section up-to-date, and will continue to work on this as time allows.Brozhnik (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! Please insert to Mass in B minor structure also, if needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed sentences saying that the CPE Bach's 1749 Magnificat could not have been influenced by JS Bach's Credo because CPE was in Berlin - in fact, it is well-documented and universally accepted that CPE came to Leipzig in 1749 and performed this Magnificat there - John Butt's theory has no problem at all on this score. I've added a reference to the original document in which CPE Bach reports having performed the Magnificat in Leipzig in 1749. Hope this clears it up.Brozhnik (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Recordings List

Someone for some reason removed the list detailing recordings of this work, which I personally found very useful. Any reason for that? John Holly 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Status as a mass

I especially valued the observation "It must be remembered that the Lutheran Churches of his day frequently retained Latin masses." Most commentators on the B Minor Mass insist that Lutheran churches only used the Kyrie and Gloria (and Bach did use just those parts in his short masses), and they make something of Bach's decision to use a so-called "Catholic" mass for his B-Minor. For what it's worth, in the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) we've used all parts in our worship service, from "Lord, Have Mercy" through "Grant us peace," for as long as I remember, which is why Bach's full text always seemed normal liturgy to me. (Of course, the length of this magnificent work is unsuitable for either Lutheran or Catholic worship services, but I doubt that Bach cared any longer about that limitation to his work at this point in his life.) SteveRoper (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tempo markings

The tempo markings given are not in my score. If Bach didn't mark himself, it should be stated who did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're totally right. It's now fixed so that only Bach's autograph markings are given.Brozhnik (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Title

As is evident from the first few words of the article, the words "minor" or "major" in a key are not capitalised, but the letter is. This article has existed under a number of different titles, now all redirects except for the current title, viz,

• Mass (bach)
• Mass in b
• Mass in b minor
• Mass in B minor (*)
• Mass in B minor (Bach) (*)
• Mass in B Minor (current title)
• Mass in B Minor (Bach)
• Mass In B Minor (Bach)
• B Minor Mass
• B Minor Mass (Bach)

There's never been any discussion of this topic, and it's time there was.

My very strong preference is for either of the versions marked (*). Mass in B minor is my first pick, but I'd settle for Mass in B minor (Bach). Comments? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "minor" should indeed not be capitalised when it denotes a key (see MOS:MUSIC#Major and minor), but maybe the use of title case (WP:CAPS and MOS:CAPS#Composition titles) applies here. For the article text, WP:ITALICS may also apply.

I think there is no need to rename the article, and the work should be written in italics. My second preference is Mass in B minor (there is no need for the dismbiguator "(Bach)". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: As far as I can see, the only other previous name of this article was Mass in B Minor (Bach) until 29 October 2006. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I support Michael's view! The work has no original name, so this common one can as well be kept. Whoever doesn't like it can use pipe links, now rather easy to establish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy to do, but doesn't that rather avoid the issue? How about consistency with titles like Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, or Prelude in C sharp minor (Rachmaninoff)? The title-case rule doesn't seem to apply there, and having "minor" as "Minor" in those titles would look just as out of place as it does in this article's title. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just easy: this work is singular, and an unusual title may show that. Even my parents printed dictionary of decades ago has an entry: "Messe in h-moll", nothing else needed. There is only one, credo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I've abandoned the unnecessary disambiguator (Bach). I'm now focussed solely on the unnecessarily capitalised word "Minor". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I have no objection to "B minor". I think such a page move will require administrative assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. See below. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That really seems a minor problem to me, Minor or minor, - funny enough: the Germans went the opposite way, from h-moll to h-Moll. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Even minor problems deserve to be resolved. But I don't even agree it's minor. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I was clear enough, trying to play with words. Let's resolve it, I'm ready to go along with both Minor or minor, prefering minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address the history of the title (with the best scholarly info I can find) in the current revision.00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Brozhnik (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned contribution? What happened to SineBot? (Anyway: please don't forget to sign your contributions in Talk pages!) Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 02:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. — This, that, and the other (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

{{movereq}}

Mass in B Minor → Mass in B minor — See above.--Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support See above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support See above. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support See above. Justin Tokke (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Division of sections in the piece

From the article: in the score four parts of the Latin Mass are each given their own title page—"Kyrie", "Gloria", "Symbolum Nicaenum" (the profession of faith or Credo), and "Sanctus, Hosanna, Benedictus, Agnus Dei"

Both the Bärenreiter and the Breitkopf editions have "Missa", "Symbolum Nicenum", "Sanctus", and "Ossana, Benedictus, Agnus Dei et Dona nobis pacem" as the four sections of the work, with those spellings. The Bärenreiter even discusses why it was divided this way (because "Missa", containing the Kyrie and Gloria, was the only part of the Mass that was used in Lutheran ceremonies, thus from Bach's perspective as a Lutheran, that was the mass).

Unless someone has a counter argument, I think the article should be changed to reflect this. Bigpeteb (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Length

I removed the claim that the work was not performed because of it's length -- putting aside the fact that we have no proof as to why the work was not performed, Bach's own St. Matthew Passion is a lot longer than the B Minor Mass, and the theory mentioned on the page already is that it might have been intended for a special dedicatory Mass, which would have been larger scale than a normal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.81.71 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Structure

A recent change installs the numbering in Bach's manuscript. It's not part numbering, but book numbering. More attention to the structure of this work is needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Who called it "Mass in B minor?"

If you know the answer to this question please add it to the article:

Who is it who first gave this work the title of "Mass in B minor"?

I can't see any "h-Moll" in the title page of the autograph (http://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00002721).

Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 21:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Carl Friedrich Zelter was the first to call it h-moll-Messe when he started undigging it with the Berliner Singakademie. Bach named only few works. What you call title page is only the title page of one of four books that together form the mass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't that information (to wit that Zelter is the one who gave the work the name by which it is known), shouldn't that information go into the article Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 07:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Once a source is found, why not? - I thought I read it in the preface of the vocal score, but no. Perhaps I read it in the de article that was recently expanded, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone does find a reference. Once one does, the information should I think go into the "Title" subsection. In the same vein it would be interesting to know (if there is any data of course, if for example he justified that choice) why the inventor of the title picked B minor as the title key. That B minor is not, on the surface, the predominant key of the work (D major is) is already in the article, so this Mass is not "in B minor" in the same way that say Mozart's Requiem can be said to be "in D minor". Also in the article is John Butt's observation (without reference but I suppose that statement comes from Butt's book on the B minor Mass), that the tonics B ("Kyrie" in B minor), D ("Christe" in D major) and F sharp ("Kyrie" in F sharp minor) form a B minor chord, but that's only for the Kyrie. What would be interesting would be the opinion of the inventor of the title himself as to why he picked B minor as the title key for the whole Mass, in case he justified that choice anywhere or to anyone. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 12:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Typically the key of the first movement is taken, no original idea. See Mozart's great mass, starting in C minor but touching many keys, - as just one example. For Bach, it's a splendid choice, because - again to my knowledge - it's unique, even without a composer, no other mass in B minor. Needless to say, it's unique anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

B-Minor Mass

The term B-Minor Mass is mentioned without introduction (so far had been "Mass in B minor"), and without italics. - In the lines "It soon fell from common usage, but the prepositional phrase "in B Minor" survives, even though it is in some ways misleading: only five of the work's 27 movements are in B minor, while twelve, including the final one, are in D major.", I question "prepositional", and wouldn't say "B minor" is misleading, if it simply follows standard practice to name a mass after the first movement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't know who used misleading (http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php). It might be a quote which then ought to be quoted and referenced. Otherwise how about something like: "...the phrase "in B minor" is consistent with the usual practice of naming large scale works after the key of their first movement (even though that key may not be the predominant key of the work as a whole)". This observation would be valuable to WP users (such as myself) who did or do not know that. (Of course in some cases the two may coincide such as in the case of Mozart's Requiem already mentioned).Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 12:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As to "prepositional phrase" whoever contributed it was simply referring to the fact that the phrase "in B minor" starts with the preposition "in" and is thus technicallys a "prepositional phrase". Whether one likes it or not is a matter of taste. It may be that "prepositional phrase" sounds a bit pedantic to some, in which case "phrase" could do just as well. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As a point of German grammar: why h-Moll-Messe (uppercase M) but Messe in h-moll (lowercase m)? (Sorry for correcting your German; I soon realized that was too audacious of me:-) Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

When it was published it was h-moll, as part of a historic title it should stay that way. An orthography reform (1996) requests h-Moll, so in German text we have to use that, - sigh, I can't stand it ;) (It used to be H-Dur for "B major" and still is, the lower case for both key and mode referred to "minor".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass in B minor. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/forum/programmhefte/details/heft/bachs-h-moll-messe/Bachs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200131/http://www.aam.co.uk/features/9709.htm to http://www.aam.co.uk/features/9709.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mass in B minor. 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/20120423133403/http://www.stlsymphony.org/calendar/view.aspx?id=3023 to http://www.stlsymphony.org/calendar/view.aspx?id=3023
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908042043/http://www.coasttocoasttickets.com/concerts/massinbminor_tickets.shtml to http://www.coasttocoasttickets.com/concerts/massinbminor_tickets.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

EX expecto?

I have corrected this spelling error twice. I corrected it to the correct "ET exspecto" (the S in there is not an error, but actually the more common spelling - "expecto" without the S is an alternate form) Please stop reverting it back to the erroneous "ex expecto". Tsuka (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The correction of Ex to Et is correct, and has been reverted only because you talked about the other, and I didn't notice that you changed both in one edit. A specific piece by Messiaen is Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum, but Credo#Credo as section of the Mass ordinary has "expecto". Deviations would need a reliable independent source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(Future) BWV numbers for distinct versions

Seems like BWV³ (afaik still programmed for publication this year) is going to use these BWV numbers for the three early versions, and the fourth, i.e. final, version of the Mass in B minor:

• BWV 232.1: Sanctus in D major, first performed 25 December 1724 (see e.g. comment at "Work 163". Bach Digital. Leipzig: Bach Archive; et al., where this BWV number is used)
• BWV 232.2: Bach's Missa of 1733 (see e.g. comment at "Work 232". Bach Digital. Leipzig: Bach Archive; et al., where this BWV number is used)
• BWV 232.3: Early version, in G major, of the opening of the Credo, currently known as "BWV 232/II, 1 (Frühfassung in G)" ("Source 3007". Bach Digital. Leipzig: Bach Archive; et al. 2020-01-13.), or "Credo in unum Deum, BWV 232 II, Frühfassung in G" ("Content" at Bärenreiter website)
• BWV 232.4: Final, late 1740s, fully integrated Mass in B minor (see e.g. descriptions at "Work 14". Bach Digital. Leipzig: Bach Archive; et al., and at "Work 37". Bach Digital. Leipzig: Bach Archive; et al., where this BWV number is used)

Note that the respective Bach Digital pages of the 1st (i.e. 11391), 2nd (i.e. 00290), and 4th (i.e., 00289) items in the list above (the 3rd does, afaik, not have a separate Bach Digital page yet) do *not* use these new BWV numbers yet. The website has been updating to the BWV³ numbers slowly since 2018, and the job is still far from completed. Thus, before the new edition of the BWV is actually published, or the individual pages at Bach Digital start to use the new numbers, I'd not use them in Wikipedia's mainspace yet (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL comes to mind, editors of the new BWV might still change their minds): this is merely a heads-up on what is to be expected, so that we can already start thinking how it will affect mainspace once new numbers are published in reliable sources, which will likely not be too far off in the future. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)