Talk:Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf)

Separate article?

Not sure this works as a separate article. The references seem insufficient (primary sources, a self-published thesis written by "Anonymous", a listing which only mentions the hymn in passing, etc.) The thesis written by "Anonymous" even contends that one of its more exceptional characteristics (the 5/4 rhythm) does *not* really indicate something modern, and doesn't work anyway, while in practice it is sung in 6/4 3/2 (so, if the "Anonymous" source is kept, the content of the article is inadequate anyway while contending more or less the opposite). I don't think we need an article about every hymn that appeared in GL. Maybe merge with an existing article (e.g. that of the composer of the tune)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC) (updated14:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

Please give me a week, I just started, and my topic today should be St. Michael, Fürth. I don't know what practice you mean for 6/4, - we sang it today, 5/4, and that's what made me want to write about it, - unplanned. There will be more. To merge with the composer of the tune would be unfair to the writer, and several composers who set it (not yet mentioned), one of them writing his own melody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) In the "Anonymous" source (excuse my German, can be translated if necessary):

Das Neue Geistliche Lied lieferte eine Bereicherung, eine Horizonterweiterung, wie es das ja auch erklärtermassen angestrebt hatte, allerdings sind meiner Erfahrung nach gerade die plakativsten Neuerungen nicht das Originellste daran gewesen, weil mancherorts das Volk anders singt und anders atmet als vom Komponisten vorgedacht. Als Beispiel eines Komponisten hierzu mag Adolf Lohmann dienen, der 1952 „Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied“ (KG 533) vertont hat. Dieses Lied (KG 533) ist musiktheoretisch gesehen über alle Zweifel erhaben, hat aber seine Neuheit nicht so sehr dem explizit notierten 5/4 Takt zu verdanken, wie es auf den ersten Blick scheinen möchte, pflegt doch das Kirchenvolk dieses Lied oft durch Einfügung von Zäsuren (Atempausen) in einem 3/2-Takt zu singen, und zwar – bei gekonnter Begleitung an der Orgel – ohne merklichen Verlust an Gleichzeitigkeit und Einmütigkeit, selbst bei einst anderslautender Intention.

(emphasis added) Yeah, was 3/2, not 6/4, corrected above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where that writer listened to Kirchenvolk, - wherever I go - remember a festive affair at Limburg Cathedral - the 5/4 is enjoyed. I know that I'm not a reliable source. Will unwatch until tomorrow, or never get to the church which should be my primary topic today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Article name

This article was started as "Singt dem Hernn ein neues Lied", which was then a redirect to Psalm 149. When my initial writing was completed, the redirect had been changed to Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied. I decided for Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (1941) because (hymn) wouldn't work, as the other is also a hymn. It was moved to "Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf)", but that author has not even an article in German (yet). I still think the original was best. We should also have Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (disambiguation) (or the other spelling), to make it less confusing for readers. JHunterJ, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Kempf is a fine qualifier, even if the person doesn't have their own article. So the current arrangement works, and has the other hymn as the primary topic of both "Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied" and "Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied".

A disambiguation page isn't needed unless one of those titles shouldn't have a primary topic; then the disambiguation page would go at that name. If neither title should have a primary topic, the disambiguation could go at either and be pointed to by the other.

And if the Kempf hymn is the primary for the Singt title, it could be moved to its base name, and each hymn point to the other with a hatnote.

Each is a fine arrangement, and depends on the primary topic (or absence of one) for each title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no primary topic, afaik, both are fairly unimportant hymns, - a disambiguation would include several works by Bach, and the three psalms with first line translating to this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Then yes, the Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied article should be moved to Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Löwenstern) and a disambiguation page created at either base name and the other base name redirected to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: – not appreciating your canvassing of JHunterJ, who recently disestablished themselves as having any kind of authority on disambiguation and article titling matters. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt pinged me because I do understand disambiguation and article titling matters. Apparently you have projected your lack of understanding them onto me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, we have to disagree on that one. Whether we agree or not: Gerda's canvassing was inappropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on that one too. Pinging me was not inappropriate. Your ongoing assumptions of bad faith and general lack of collaborative editing is inappropriate though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)