Talk:St Mark Passion (attributed to Keiser)

Requested move 29 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that the long German form is not appropriate, and no other clear alternative suggested. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

---

St Mark Passion pastiche → Jesus Christus ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet – I doubt the general recognizability of a word like "pastiche", and it really doesn't disambiguate all that much (e.g. Wer ist der, so von Edom kömmt is another pastiche Passion in which Bach was involved); for the correctness of the name: see 01534, 01535 and 01680, that are the three versions of this Passion discussed in this article. — Francis Schonken (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose this move per the discussion below. I would be open to other names suggested there, but oppose the long German incipit as an article name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I updated the article, grouping the available material on the original composition (before it was a pasticcio of any kind). As it happens (see http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Other/Brauns-Markus-Passion.htm ) this version is recorded more often than all pasticcios (Bach and non-Bach) taken together. As this is an article about the original composition too (something not mentioned in the BWV, and only mentioned in passing at Bach Digital), to which some other reasons given below can be added, imho all discussion about keeping the word "pasticcio" or "pastiche" in the article title is moot. As composer names are thoroughly problematic for disambiguation in this case (see evidence in the discussion below), I am totally unconvinced by any other solution than the one I proposed initially for this WP:RM. I like short article titles too, per WP:CONCISE, only in this case there is no satisfactory alternative with a shorter title. And this is no exception e.g. we have Lobet Gott in seinen Reichen, BWV 11 and not Ascension Oratorio (which redirects to the BWV 11 article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per WP:ENGLISH, we also use a principle of least surprise. I believe that this article's title is clear enough; the lead, however, is not and needs a rewrite. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sure, blame it on the intro. BTW, pasticcio is meant, which is not the same as pastiche (although "pastiche" is an English word with which the pasticcio concept can be indicated). From your comment it is clear that the current title leads to a wrong expectation as to the contents of the article, so imho, it is the article title that should change, not the content. Or did you have any concrete proposition as to the change of the article lead? Or was this just opposition for opposition's sake? Unless you can indicate what is wrong with the current intro, I suppose the latter. Anyway, your comment is a perfect illustration of what I meant with "I doubt the general recognizability of a word like 'pastiche'" – apparently you recognized the word as meaning something different than the meaning in which it is used here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I doubt that Jesus Christus ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet is recognizable at all by the average reader, who might know "St Mark" and "Passion". "pastiche" is not part of the title, and according to our article is reserved for visual arts. How about St Mark Passion (pasticcio)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Liebe ist für alle da is as unrecognizable for non-German speakers, so no we don't "disambiguate" when nothing needs to be disambiguated. This goes for "pastiche" without parentheses, as well as for "(pasticcio)" in parentheses. Give the work's title, no fuss. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't do that for St Matthew Passion, - why should we here? I can't believe that Jesus Christus ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet is in any way a common name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Now don't be silly, I gave the three references to the three Bach Digital pages for the three versions that all three use Jesus Christus ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet in the WP:RM proposal, so per WP:AT (for clarity: the policy on article titling in Wikipedia) that defines it pretty much as the common name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. The line is first of all a biblical quotation from Isaiah, and if you don't add anything (as your three references do!) it is no unique recognizable title, - same problem as Jauchzet dem Herrn alle Welt which is first of all a line from psalm 100. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So is "O vos omnes", yet no disambiguator (and not about the bible quote in general, but about a particular use of it in Christian liturgy, involving several composers). Again, we don't disambiguate when no disambiguation is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cut the snark, Francis; you know it's unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, FYI, this is English Wikipedia: when we want to write an article about a Bible section in general the usual article title format is English (e.g. The righteous perishes), maybe in some cases Latin (Magnificat), but I can't imagine the title of a general article about a Bible section being in German. On the other hand we have several articles with an article title in German, without disambiguator, about particular music-related topics (when there is nothing to disambiguate from, nor falling under WP:MUSICSERIES, as is the case here). I already quoted a few, but hope reason can prevail without me giving a whole list of such examples. Anyway, here are a few more: Die Frau ohne Schatten, Ein Heldenleben, "Ruhe, meine Seele!", Die schöne Müllerin, "Rastlose Liebe", Harmonischer Gottes-Dienst, Admiralitätsmusik, Der Tag des Gerichts. That last one being a biblical concept (Day of Judgment), that concept is, as I explained, treated on a separate page under an English article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

... and of course Lobgesang ... which has no "(symphony-cantata)" disambiguator ... --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the difference between Lobgesang, a (short, and published) title, and Jesus Christus ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet, only an incipit because a title is lacking, similar to Bach's cantatas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course I see the difference, but the difference is immaterial as far as Wikipedia's article titling policies and guidelines are concerned. Thanks for the compliment, but again I have to conclude you're not very versed in English Wikipedia's article titling issues, so maybe leave it to the ones that are either native English speakers (which I'm not), or somewhat more acquainted with these policies and guidelines? Would appreciate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Mild support German if nothing better this is very specialist stuff and actually the German is more recognizable than the current title which could confuse with St Mark Passion (Bach) maybe St Mark Passion (Bruhns-Keiser-Bach) would be better. St Mark Passion (pasticcio) is also okay but so many of these works are pastiches that pasticcio alone really isn't that helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI, Bruhns was probably not involved (despite our article saying so), see BDW 01534, 01535 and 01680; as for Keiser, I'd use the spelling as associated with the work (Kaiser), see same references; on the other hand Handel was definitely involved in the third version, so St Mark Passion (Kaiser-Bach-Handel) would probably be more correct, but overall for such works disambiguation by composer is a bit tricky, so I'd avoid it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

St Mark Passion (Kaiser-Bach-Handel) would be okay. I've just been Google-booking, there are less Mark-pasticcios than I thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

With that disambiguator recognizability is very much a problem, e.g. the same work is *exclusively* attributed to Brauns (yes, a different spelling on top of the other composer-related ambiguities) at Bach Cantatas Website --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why a St Mark Passion disambiguated by "pastiche" or "pasticcio" doesn't cut it:
  • Reconstructions of St Mark Passion, BWV 247 can most often be characterised as pasticcio's (see e.g. [1] pp. v–vi)
  • There is a St Mark Passion by Marco Giuseppe Peranda that has been performed as a pasticcio (30/3/2014)
  • The St Mark Passion associated with Schütz is likely spurious, and presented as a pasticcio ([2])

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2015

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.

No consensus to move, after extended discussion. bd2412 T 15:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

St Mark Passion pastiche → Jesus Christus ist um unsrer Missetat willen verwundet – the article content is on the Passion setting, original version, which is the best known one, and five modified versions by Bach and others: giving the name as it is in the reliable sources seems most appropriate per WP:CRITERIA. The Wikipedia context is that we need to disambiguate from several St Mark Passions, not only BWV 247 (which BTW is also reconstructed as a pastiche), many of the other non-Bach-related ones also being pastiches; and that composer name disambiguation is hampered by not having a clear (original) composer and on the other hand a plethora of named and unnamed composers involved in the five modified versions of the Passion described in the article. (note: the article has been extensively updated since the previous WP:RM: diff) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, see discussion above. The present name is not good, but the suggested one is worse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment. I'm out of my domain here, but it seems that there's a switch of article focus being proposed here? The old article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Mark_Passion_pastiche&oldid=671357268 ) seems to have more of a focus on Bach's work, and the predecessor work by Bruhns/Keiser is only relevant in so far as it applies to Bach's version. The recent edits seem to make it more about the Passion itself. I'd argue that if the "original" non-pastiche versions are in fact notable, it might be reasonable to change the title? But if the originals are only relevant for people interested in Bach's version, then it'd be better to keep the title as is.

Additionally, I don't see composer name as necessarily a problem disambiguator here. St Mark Passion pastiche (Bach) is certainly accurate in that Bach composed the pastiche version it seems. The source material doesn't particularly matter, any more than there's confusion over many other instances of arranged versions being more notable than an original piece, which might just be a historical curiosity. SnowFire (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The three Bach versions seem to have no more than a single recording each; the original version has been recorded at least eight times. The original version is important in its own right, and not only for what Bach did with it. That it attracted some attention from Bach scholars is because it was one of the possible "fifth passion" candidates (according to his obituary Bach would have composed five passions of which only four are identified with certainty). But the original version did not need the better known master's enhancements to become a repertoire piece in its own right. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2015 (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.

Moved

To discuss things, twice, and then move anyway after the second request was closed as no consensus, seems such a waste of other editors' time. Merry Christmas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this version at least still includes "St Mark Passion" when most of the references seem to refer to this as "Markus-Passion" and the like. Better than the extremely long first line in German. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the name, but the needless process, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Would that be "needless process" or "needless comments"? Let's say I found a more appropriate name through a useful process, which entailed a few needless comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like needless expression of POV to me. I wish you had arrived at the better name a bit sooner, by listening to the useful objections to the first proposal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Re. "wish you had arrived at the better name a bit sooner" – me too! Only, the useless comments weren't helping. I didn't say they were all useless, nor was I implying that I didn't read them carefully, useless or not. So maybe a bit less of the useless innuendo next time? I'd be grateful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of the downside of sticking to Marcus/St Mark for the name of this passion: Wieder zusammengeflickt: Bachs verschollene Markus-Passion – this aricle published by SRF is about BWV 247, but shows an image of D-B Mus. ms. 11471/1 without explaining it is unrelated to the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what innuendo means, what will stop watching, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe get a grasp of the innuendo concept, and stop doing it in Wikipedia context: it is generally unuseful in editor dialogue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)