Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 [1].

---

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Bach cantata, again, his very original approach to set the Magnificat by using the German, partly paraphrased version and quoting the Gregorian chant tune, - the only time he did such a thing: write a "chorale fantasia" not on a rhymed hymn but the chant. He did so at the beginning of his most ambitious project, the chorale cantata cycle, of which the work is the fifth cantata. I took the liberty to expand a bit on that beginning, as I compiled the chorale cantatas on Luther's hymns for the previous FAC, [[[Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125|Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). (Other "featured" Bach cantatas have included BWV 172 and BWV 165.) Expanding the article was another attempt to focus on 500 years Reformation in 2017. The article received a recent GA review by The Rambling Man. Much more could be said in an article, such as comparing it to Bach's Latin Magnificat, and about the movements, - the sources are there, but I feel it might be too much detail for general readers. I am open to discussion. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

• Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([2]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: repeating my suggestion to (formally) close concurrent discussions about the same topic elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  I am not in a position to close a discussion formally, also don't know what you refer to. I said "closed" for the discussion mentioned above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:

  Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, based on Luther's German Magnificat. Consequently, the cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He composed it for the Feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724, which was the fifth occasion for a cantata of his second year in Leipzig. Like most of the other cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle.

  Advantages of this approach:

  • Less cluttered lead sentence:
    • The translation of the text incipit is not copyrighted – it is a standard English translation of the opening sentence of the Magnificat (like the opening sentence of the cantata is a standard German translation of the same), e.g. Wikipedia uses it without reference or copyright notice in the lead sentence of the Magnificat article (hence I linked to that article from the English translation for those who are unaware of the cultural reference of this English sentence): that translation has been around way before Dellal put it on her website in 2012, so the first numbered footnote with the reference to that website can be omitted from the lead sentence (it can be put in the section that talks about the text of the cantata if it isn't already there).
    • Less boldface (less frequently used synonyms don't necessarily need boldface)
    • No explanatory footnote: such footnote can (and should per WP:ACRO) be replaced by a wikilink for the first occurrence of the BWV acronym
    • Luther (i.e. last name only) would be clear to most readers in the context, and if not the first name (Martin) would probably not help much for those readers who don't know who this person is (link would need to be clicked anyway).
  • Luther(an) context clear from first sentence (which over-all, apart from the music being composed by Bach, is probably the most significant general aspect of the context of this cantata)
  • Next I'd talk about the occasion (Visitation) and the chorale cantata format (will try something that is better organised and readable than the current lead paragraph if nobody else does so with a solution I can sympathise with) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:

  • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
  • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
  • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
  • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.

  Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Re. "...you will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.

  I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  New proposal (the three paragraphs proposed here would replace the first two paragraphs of the current lead section):

  Johann Sebastian Bach composed his church cantata Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10, in 1724 as part of his second cantata cycle. Its title translates as "My soul magnifies the Lord", and is taken from Martin Luther's German translation of the Magnificat canticle ("Meine Seele erhebt den Herren"). The cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He wrote it for the Feast of the Visitation (2 July). The composition is in Bach's chorale cantata format.

  The Feast of the Visitation commemorates Mary's visit to Elizabeth as narrated in the Gospel of Luke, 1st chapter, verses 39 to 56. In that narrative the words of the Magnificat, Luke 1:46–55, are spoken by Mary. Traditionally Luther's prose translation of that biblical text is sung to a German variant of the tonus peregrinus or ninth psalm tone. The sung version of the canticle concludes with a doxology, translated from the Gloria Patri, on the same tune. Bach based his BWV 10 cantata on Luther's German Magnificat and its traditional setting, working text and melody into the composition in a similar way as he did with Lutheran hymns in his other chorale cantatas.

  Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month into his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. BWV 10 is the fifth of 40 chorale cantatas with which he started his second year in Leipzig. The outer movements of the cantata are for mixed choir and orchestra, consisting of trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo. Luther's translation of Luke 1:46–48 is the text of the first movement. The canticle's doxology is the text of the last movement. The five middle movements are a succession of arias and recitatives, with, between the fourth and sixth movement, a duet for alto and tenor. Soprano and bass each have one aria, and the two recitatives are sung by the tenor. The text of the arias and recitatives is paraphrased and expanded from (Luther's German translation of) Luke 1:49–53 and 55. The text of the duet is Luther's translation of Luke 1:54. The melody associated with Luther's German Magnificat appears in movements 1, 5 and 7.

  The music of two of the cantata's movements was published in the 18th century: an organ transcription of the duet was published around 1748 as one of the Schübler Chorales, and the closing chorale was included in C. P. E. Bach's 1780s collection of his father's four-part chorales. The entire cantata was published in the first volume of the 19th-century first complete edition of Bach's works. In 20th- and 21st-century concert and recording practice the cantata was often combined with other German-language cantatas, but also several times with settings of the Latin Magnificat, by Bach and other composers.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (added draft of 4th paragraph, to make this proposal for the lead section complete 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC))

  • It is unusual to not begin with the title, but let's try. --GA
  • I want to see BWV 10 bold, as an important redirect, and the part of the article title which distinguishes it from Luther's. --GA

    Re. "I want ..." – see more elaborate comment about "what I would do / I don't use..." below; also your own comment about maintaining a position in a FAC above. Imho it is about time to lose the idiosyncrasy in this instance, have the lead sentence conform to applicable guidance, and make it as inviting as possible for the reader (which includes removing clutter like footnoted explanations and optional boldface wherever such removal is allowed by applicable guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it's not helpful to introduce a complex concept such as the chorale cantata cycle before even a translation is given. --GA

    ? The "chorale cantata cycle" concept is not introduced before the translation is given? What does the cycle concept have to do with translation? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Forgive my sloppyness, please, it's "his second cantata cycle", - but the same applies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    As does the same question: "What does the cycle concept have to do with translation?". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I believe that we have to say that Luther's translation is called the German Magnificat. --GA

    Taken, worked it in the proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't understand mentioning Bach's chorale cantata format between the term Visitation (which many readers will not know) and its explanation. Probably Visitation should come sooner than even Magnificat, because it explains why Bach set the Magnificat, at least when the prescribed reading for the feast day is mentioned. --GA

    First paragraph of the intro is "summary of summaries", short sentences about the cantata's essential characteristics; characteristics that set it apart from similar compositions receive a bit more attention. I see nothing wrong with that approach: it is not possible to have it all in one lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Luther details (year of translation etc) seem too much detail for the lead (summary) of this article, - it would be appropriate in the body, perhaps in the lead of his German Magnificat. --GA

    Taken, leaves to be seen how this is mentioned elsewhere (body of this article and/or German Magnificat article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month ...",- also too much detail. If he didn't compose the cantata in one day, he composed it in June, - why mention any month? Perhaps: "When Bach composed the cantata ..." --GA

    The sentence says nowhere "composed", so I don't understand the last part of your comment. Early July refers to 2 July as mentioned in the first paragraph (when the cantata was first presented), i.e., without using the exact same expression which may be experienced as too repetitive in prose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The details (SATB, translation of continuo) of scoring are way too much detail for the lead, also the follwing, which voice sings with what instrument when. --GA

    The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis, movement by movement, of the composition: a summary, in half a paragraph of the lead section, of some 50% of the prose of the article seems appropriate. Also, the current summary of the same, " Bach structured the cantata in seven movements, setting the outer movements for choir, based on the psalm tone of the German Magnificat. He set the other movements for soloists as recitatives, arias and a duet. Using a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo, the music expresses the different moods of the text, illustrating God's force and compassion. [...] the cantata's fifth movement, [...] a duet for alto and tenor on the biblical text with the cantus firmus played by trumpet and oboes [...]" has more problems (including not linking on first instance, using specialist jargon that can easily be avoided, interpretations without in-text mentioning of the author of such interpretations) and is not particularly shorter. Example: "cantus firmus", a quite specialist concept, can easily be avoided in the lead section as the draft shows. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Please look up what's appropriate, 50% seems way to high. I've seen a FAC review (of a short article like this one) where a limit of 2 paragraphs was requested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Re. "50%":

    • "Context" topics: 7 paragraphs in one section (with 2 subsections)
    • Description of the composition: 10 paragraphs in one section (with 9 subsections)
    • "Reception" topics: 5 paragraphs in 2 sections

    So, calculated by prose paragraphs (which of course don't have the same length) it is somewhat under 50% (10 out of 22 paragraphs); by separate section titles it is way over 50% (10 out of 15). Devoting around 25% of the lead section to that content doesn't seem exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Anyhow, shortened the third paragraph a bit in my proposal above, so, unless I'm missing something, this suggestion is taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Formal note: "sixth movement" not "6th movement". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  A proposal for a replacement of the last paragraph of the intro, regarding reception-related topics, is still in preliminary stages and worked on at the article talk page: it is too dependent on how article content on publication/recordings/reception will evolve (see undecided suggestions below) in order too be presented here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  Partially introduced into the article (with some additional rephrasing). This, however, far from concludes the work which imho is necessary to get this article up to FA grade (missing references, missing examples, various unresolved issues, etc.). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  Two reviewers who wrote FAs before (one of them more than 100) approved this version. I don't know if I should call them back and ask if they also approve the changes since. - Repeating: I have to prepare Pentecost, and there's no deadline. I have no time to follow all your changes, sorry, but can tell you that I believe (to give just one example) that the addition of BWV 147a and a link to Advent don't help to understand BWV 10, nor does BWV 4, as another example. It's difficult for me to find a ref in Bibliography, split in so many sections. Do you know any FA that has it like that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  Re. "... call them back and ask if they also approve the changes since" – see my reply to Yunshui below. I don't think we should notify previous contributors of this FAC at every turn: when content and sourcing have settled pinging them once, from this page, would suffice imho, to see whether they want to amend their initial report.

  Re. "... and there's no deadline" – completely agree.

  Re. "... a link to Advent ..." and "... nor does BWV 4 ..." – no clue what you're talking about: Advent isn't linked, BWV 4 isn't mentioned in the article.

  Re. "... Bibliography, split in so many sections ..." – yes, that was getting unwieldy, simplified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Other suggestions:
    1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1 – comment 1; change 2 – comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

       Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral, Choralbuch, Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

       Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

       Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "... the German word Choral ..." (above), "... CPE regarded it as a Choralgesang ..." ([3]), etc.: I don't think we need to be solving the intricacies of (18th-cenury) German language here, but create an English-language narrative that is clear for 21st-century readers (whether they are experienced in the subject matter or not – understanding German is not a prerequisite):

       • Luther's "Meine Seele erhebt den Herren" (German Magnificat) is, in English, "not a (Protestant) hymn"; in German: "... kein (evangelisches) Kirchenlied ..."
       • The cantata's last movement, "Lob und Preis sei Gott dem Vater" (doxology), first published as "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren", is, in English, a "chorale"; in German: "Choral" (e.g. [4]).

       Afaik, in the context of modern Bach studies, "(Protestant) hymn" and "chorale" are used interchangeably

       I expect to see two things in the article, i.e. (1) clear, non-confusing terminology used throughout; (2) an explanation *why* Luther's German Magnificat is not a hymn/Kirchenlied (in other words: what did Bach do to turn something that was not a hymn into something that is a hymn – compare Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt where a 16th-century transformation of another "melody from Latin religious chant" to a Lutheran chorale is explained). For the second maybe an additional search for appropriate sources is needed. For clarity, "... the "chorale" tune ..." (currently in the article) misses the clarity I expect per (1) above, and lacks the explanation I expect per (2). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

    3. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    4. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    5. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    6. "Selected recordings" section
       1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:

          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([5] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

             See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

             Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":

             • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
             • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
             • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
             • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([6]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

             Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. "...it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

       Proposal for the intro of the Recordings section (which I would rename to "Concert performances and recordings"):

       In 1963 Max Thurn recorded the cantata for the Norddeutscher Rundfunk. 1960s recordings by Paul Steinitz, Fritz Werner and Karl Münchinger were originally released on LP, and later reissued on CD. BWV 10 is included in Telefunken's, Hänssler's, Koopman's, Brilliant Classics' and Suzuki's complete Bach cantata recordings. Karl Richter and Hans-Joachim Rotzsch recorded the cantata in the 1970s. Live recordings of the cantata were realised at the 1991 Bodenseefestival, the 2002 Rheinisches Musikfest, the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival, and as part of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. A recording with the Regensburger Domspatzen was released in 2001. Sigiswald Kuijken included the cantata in his Cantatas for the Complete Liturgical Year series.

       Most recordings present BWV 10 along other German cantatas. In concert programs and recordings BWV 10 has also been combined with Latin Magnificat settings. Münchinger's 1968 recording and Rotzsch's 1978 recording combined BWV 10 with Bach's Latin Magnificat (BWV 243). Also Michael Gielen's concert at the 1991 Bodenseefestival combined Bach's German and Latin Magnificat. Performances by Roland Büchner in 2000 and by Ton Koopman in 2003 combined the cantata with the 1723 Christmas version of Bach's Magnificat (BWV 243a). Koopman additionally featured the Christmas version of Kuhnau's Magnificat in the same concert. According to Bach scholar Yo Tomita the program of that concert added another historical dimension, allowing to compare two works by Bach with a similar composition by his predecessor as Thomaskantor. A 2007 concert at the Indiana University combined Bach's German cantata with a 2005 Magnificat by Sven-David Sandström.

       This proposal would also cover what was suggested in 7.2 below; however, referencing in the above proposal may need further attention, see related discussions elsewhere in this section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

    7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
       1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:

          {|
|-
...[table explanation goes here]...
|}

       2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival Ton Koopman presented three Magnificats (BWV 10, BWV 243a and a Magnificat by Bach's predecessor Kuhnau) in a concert. A video recording of that concert was released in 2004. Both the 2003 concert (e.g. Yo Tomita) and the recording (e.g. Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

       What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

    9. [7] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

       I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    10. (moved to talk page per coordinator suggestion)
    11. Re. "... the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [8]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it." ([9]) – I too think that Mr. Oron's website is a great resource. However, in Wikipedia surroundings, it is not the most unquestionable of reliable sources:
        • The website hosts a lot of copyvio material. When using the website it is often a thin line not to cross the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy (e.g. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...")
        • As the website contains material copied from Wikipedia there's a danger of WP:CIRCULAR references to it (at least in one instance I had to remove material from Wikipedia while it was referenced exclusively to Mr. Oron's site, where it was referenced exclusively to Wikipedia...)
        • Mr. Oron's website isn't always clear about its sources (e.g. "2^nd performance: 1740-1747 - Leipzig", see suggestion No. 5 above). Some of its content is referenced to discussion pages (see next point)
        • The website's discussion pages are somewhere in between of "peer review" (which would indicate reliability) and "user-generated content" (generally insufficient to be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia) – it is not always clear which one of these applies foremost.
        • Its original content is generally "self-published" (Mr. Oron being as well author, editor and publisher of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page) – WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy governing the use of self-published sources, indicating that original content of the Website can not be used in Wikipedia (unless in some cases where Mr. Oron writes about himself)
        • The website occasionally contains inaccuracies (if not errors), which I found out by consulting reliable sources and comparing these to the website's content.
        • PS: the reason I don't usually "write to Mr. Oron" is that I'm foremost a Wikipedia editor, not wanting to create more WP:CIRCULAR content on the other website. Each their own responsibility: the more Mr. Oron's website becomes reliable without our help, the more we can use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Short answer: I don't speak about the website as a whole, but selectively the recordings. I know no other sources going after such details about instrumentalists, places of recording, liner notes etc. For biographies, I only reference the site (usually as a second ref, not a single) because it's English, which is more accessable to readers of the English Wikipedia than the German Großes Sängerlexikon, for example. Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata? I will only reply to questions about the cantata article from now on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata?" – Yes, please. My suggestion above was so elaborate because you kept bringing up "In previous FAs on the topic, ..." or similar procedures not relating to this cantata (the last time in connection with M. Oron's website: [10]). I don't care how many GAs or FAs passed with references to other pages of Mr. Oron's website: these other GA/FA procedures are not a justification of whatever. That being said: whether or not, and if so under which circumstances, http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm can be used as a reference for Wikipedia's BWV 10 article is entirely within the confines of this FAC deliberation. E.g., linking to that webpage is linking to a website (and page!) that contains copyvio material – no amount of "previous FAs" will make that risk of infringing on Wikipedia's copyrights policy via the BWV 10 page go away. Now is the time to assess that risk. Similar for the other points above: only the second bullet doesn't seem directly applicable to the BWV10.htm page at Mr. Oron's website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          In the last FAC, I was asked to mention similar articles as a help for new reviewers ("Well, that's what I was looking for - if there are other FA Bach cantata pages"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Fair enough. At least partially explains why some of the more unfortunate idiosyncracies have become so difficult to root out in this collection of FA articles. Can we return now to the assessment of the use of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page in the BWV 10 article? My reply to your latest suggestion regarding the discography section depends on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. ... In the last FAC ... (please click the link, it is not the same "In the last FAC" as above) – Allow me to compare to another FA: Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4#Bach's early cantatas is a much more elaborate context section than what I'm preparing now. Even after the content of that section was spun out to another article, it appeared impossible to condense that Bach cantata article section WP:Summary style-wise. In sum:

          • I'm still all but impressed by "former GA/FA" type of evidence: it can go in completely opposite directions; "Fair enough" in my comment above refers to not holding the nom accountable for these rampant comparisons, not to me having changed in any way as to how little impression these comparisons make on me. My assessment in this FAC is based on my own insights regarding what would be best for this article, insights which all things compared seem much closer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than assessments merging an amalgam of fortunate and less fortunate "habits" from one FA to the next.
          • If and when this article would be FA approved its content on how it relates to nearby Magnificats and Visitation cantatas should have about the same depth whether or not a separate article on that topic exists: once it would have FA status I suppose it would be nearly impossible to fundamentally change the breadth of the coverage of these relations to other compositions. I'm working on a treatment in around three paragraphs, which would absorb some content now elsewhere in the article (the net expansion of the article maybe not more than one paragraph). My objective is that once inserted into the article such paragraphs wouldn't need fundamental change, like neither Bach's church music in Latin#Magnificat settings nor Magnificat (Bach)#Other Magnificats by Bach? nor Church cantata (Bach)#Visitation would need to be fundamentally rewritten, in the eventuality of a separate article exclusively devoted to these relations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

          Re. "...liner notes..." – two (potential) problems:

          • The BWV 10 article currently links directly to several PDFs of such liner notes hosted at the BC-website. Might be a copyright problem. I expect this to be cleared by those more experienced in guarding over whether or not Wikipedia crosses a line here that should better not be crossed copyright-wise, before we continue to provide these links.
          • In articles on Bach-compositions liner notes might not pass WP:RS (I had some nasty experiences at WP:RSN in that respect), even when written by established Bach-scholars. I understand the advantage of them being generally in English, and not in German, like much of the high-end scholarship on Bach. Nonetheless, content of the article should imho preferably be referenced to writings with a solid scholarly publication process ("peer review" is generally missing for liner notes, and more than often when a German scholar writes liner notes the English translation of these notes can be quite mangled, they may be unclear as to where the material derives from—as I already mentioned in suggestion 5.2 above—, etc), whatever the language of the more solid source. Liner notes can be mentioned (even linked if copyright-cleared per the previous point) in addition to the sources with a more solid publication process. The easiness of linking to liner notes sometimes prevents looking up in more solid sources (I did a few suggestions above but see no reaction to these suggestions yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

            The liner notes by John Eliot Gardiner and Klaus Hofmann have been regarded as reliable in the past. Compare this GA review by Drmies who recommended to follow Hofmann. - I could avoid the link, but think it's a disservice to the reader to not supply what the author wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

            Was that before or after liner notes were rejected for use in articles on compositions by J. S. Bach at WP:RSN? Also, GA is not FA: I expect that by the time an article goes from GA to FA that its complete content can be verified to high-end scholarly sources (whatever the language they are written in). I'd keep the more accessible/popular sources too (contrary to what was suggested at the "nasty" RSN on this topic), but that doesn't diminish the need to have the complete article covered by more solid sourcing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

            I don't talk about liner notes in general, but these specific ones, by a conductor who performed all cantatas, and one of the authorities on Bach [11]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

            Yes I know. Maybe the best way forward is to take this source, with all the content referenced to it in the BWV 10 article, to WP:RSN? Then there will be no discussion afterwards, when an incompatible idiosyncratic approach would board the article later (there are two opposing idiosyncratic approaches: one that references large portions of Bach composition articles to liner notes, and an opposing one that doesn't accept a single one of such references: I'm in the middle, i.e., apply WP:V as elsewhere, and if you're not sure whether a source is used correctly, then take it to WP:RSN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

            Source reviews have been performed in recent years:

            • BWV 172 by Nikkimaria, who saw Bach Cantatas Website as a convenience, to be better replaced by the original, which in BWV 10 I did for Gardiner.
            • BWV 22 (2015) by Prhartcom.
            • BWV 165 (2015) by Nikkimaria.
            • BWV 4 (2016) by Brianboulton.
            • BWV 161 (2015) by Wehwalt.

            A source review is likely to be requested for this nomination as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

            @Gerda Arendt: please discontinue selectively pinging editors who supported your earlier FAC nominations. If you'd have listed the earlier FAC archives without pinging these editors I could have continued to just be unimpressed for the reasons I explained above: the added pings leave me negatively impressed. I'd advise against any partisan notifications regarding this FAC assessment. It is not because my earlier mentioning of this same point regarding this same FAC was worded too strong that its message would have been invalid. All of this only brings us further away from the issues in cue to be addressed in this FAC, instead of bringing us nearer to their solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

            When I talk about users I also ping them, not talking behind their back. Most of them watch this page anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

            Then don't talk about users (why would one need to talk about users other than the one one is talking with?) – it seems to only stall addressing the issues raised in the current FAC. I seemed to be perfectly capable of explaining such issues without talking about anyone beyond their back. Same goes, I'm sure, for addressing these issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

    12. Wikipedia:In-text attribution (please take a look at that guidance, I use its concepts in what I write below)

        • In-text attributions to Hofmann:
          1. "This gospel reading is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes, a biblical episode that is often represented in art, and in music where it has become a traditional part of Vesper services"

             ✗ – somewhat misleading in the sense of the third example of the guidance: all parts of this sentence are fairly common knowledge, not as if Hofmann makes a contention that sets him apart from other scholars in the field. Looks a bit like name-dropping. Verb ("... notes ...") fails WP:SAID.

          2. "Hofmann notes that it is the first soprano aria in the chorale cantata cycle"

             ✗ – same three issues as previous: fact not depending on the interpretation of the author

          3. "Hofmann interprets the bass line of "emphatic downward semitone intervals" as "sighs of divine mercy""

             ✓ – per first example of guidance

          4. "Hofmann describes the string music as "lively, shimmering chords""

             ✗ – not so bad as the first two above, but I would think this is a fairly standard description of the string music of this section: doesn't seem contentious to describe it as "lively" nor as "chords" – maybe the "shimmering" is a somewhat more exceptional qualifier, but not enough to require in-text attribution imho

        • In-text attributions to Gardiner:
          1. "John Eliot Gardiner, who conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, notes about these first cantatas of the chorale cantata cycle: "Together they make a fascinating and contrasted portfolio of choral fantasia openings.""

             ✗ – OK for the in-text attribution guidance, but not, as far as I'm concerned, for the name-dropping (Bach Cantata Pilgrimage) and the verb failing WP:SAID

        • In-text attributions to Dürr:
          1. "The following table is based on the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr who notes: "At the beginning of the cycle of chorale cantatas we find–uniquely within Bach's output–the rudiments of cyclical composition"."

             ✗ – WP:SAID issue, and topic of the first half of the sentence too disconnected from that of the second half (not exactly the second example of the in-text guidance but somewhat similar:

             • either the data in the table can be confirmed by multiple sources (then no in-text attribution but only a reference to Dürr is sufficient) or Dürr contends something that can not be corroborated elsewhere (then this sort of formulation would indicate a kind of list copyright infringement)
             • second half of the sentence is not about factual data, but an interpretation of the author: this doesn't align too well with the first half of the sentence (but in-line attribution for this half of the sentence would be correct).

          2. "The keys and time signatures are taken from the book by Bach scholar Alfred Dürr, using the symbol for common time (4/4)"

             ✗ – Dürr was already introduced as "Bach Scholar", doing that twice seems exaggerated, and confirms the impression that this is again a name-dropping issue, especially as no in-line attribution to Dürr seems necessary here for the same reasons as the first half-sentence of the previous example

        • In-text attributions to Wolff:
          1. "... a project that the Bach scholar Christoph Wolff calls "fascinating" and "unprecedented""

             ✓ – although maybe a bit disconnected from the topic of the first half of the sentence

          2. "Wolff sees a systematic approach, especially in the four cantatas beginning the cycle, to be followed by Meine Seel erhebt den Herren as the fifth"

             ✗ – if Wolff only groups the first four, then the second half of the sentence is too disconnected (gives the impression that Wolff saw this as the fifth of the same set which either is true, and then the sentence should be worded differently, or not, then it is somewhat the problem as illustrated by the 2nd example of the in-line attribution guidance – although, again, not exactly as in that example)

        • In-text attributions to Spitta: I introduced one for this author (description of 3rd movment), so I won't comment on that one here, but please check whether it conforms to the guidance.
        • In-text attributions to Tomita: I introduced one for this author (2nd paragraph of Concerts&Recordings section), so I won't comment on that one here, but please check whether it conforms to the guidance.
        • Sentences that seem to be lacking in-line attribution (not all editors would interpret in the same way, for instance that a specific musical figure is necessarily to be seen as the expression of a specific emotion or religious concept,):
          1. "... expressing praise for God's works in the first section, while the more reticent middle section covers thankfulness for his help in times of distress"

             ✗ – such direct linking of musical texture and which religious or emotional content it expresses needs to be either firmly rooted in the words of the libretto (then: explain) or needs an in-line attribution to the author who interpreted it thus.

          2. "The thought that God "also uses force with His arm" is expressed with emphasis..."

             ✗ – similar to previous: notwithstanding that here the libretto is quoted the reader is left unaware *how* the emphasis is expressed: triple fortissimo? trepidus? emphatic repeats? ... either explain or use an in-line attribution of the author who interpreted it thus (compare description of fourth movement: there the musical figures and their relation to the libretto text is clearly explaiined, so for the description of that movement I'd say: ✓)

          3. "... in both cases expressing mildness and compassion"

             ✗ – the connection between lyrics and musical techniques is again missing in the explanation: so either explain, or give an in-line attribution to the author who interpreted it thus.

          4. "... the added strings emphasize the importance of the promise kept"

             ✗ – the kind of interpretation that would need an in-line attribution to the author who said it thus. Many composers "add strings" at a certain point, in thousands of compositions: I don't think that every time that happens it signifies that these composers then "emphasize the importance of the promise kept" --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

             • Addressed the "Hofmann" and "Gardiner" issues mentioned above, and added {{non sequitur}} tags for the four last-mentioned passages that seem to be lacking a clearer explanation and/or an in-line attribution ([12]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

    13. Peters seems to attribute the text of "Meine Seele erhebt den Herren" to Joseph Klug, not Luther like Wikipedia does (see OCLC 978146515). Do we have the background on that? Maybe more something for the Meine Seele erhebt den Herren article, but I don't think the BWV 10 article should mention several times it's "Luther's" (without further explanation) when part of the literature would describe it as "Klug's". --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

---

References

Bibliography

• ...
• Oron, Aryeh (2014). "Cantata BWV 10: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren". Bach Cantatas Website. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
• ...

---

Montanabw

Comments unrelated to review

Comment: I will do a FAC review on this article when the above issue settles down, but I find the above discussion a bit of a red herring, as the "oppose" !voter made a set of substantial changes in the article and then !voted after he was reverted. Thus a clean hands problem exists. It is inappropriate for an "oppose" !vote to be made by someone who has made a substantial contribution, particularly a large set of edits right before his !vote, particularly where the same editor had only made three edits to the article prior to it going up for FAC. Here any claim of "edit warring" fails spectacularly because the party responsible for creating this problem is also trying to poison the well with his !vote --particularly in light of also removing admonishments about NPA from his talkpage. Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC) ? – none of my "substantial" changes were reverted (only one of the "minor" ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Poor grammar. Three minor changes way back appear to have been kept, but when your group of massive changes were reverted, then you !voted. Can't have it both ways, cannot both make a bunch of contributions and vote -- you're involved. Montanabw(talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC) @Montanabw: please recuse yourself from performing a FAC review on this article: You continue to contend that my "group of massive changes were [sic] reverted" (FYI: poor grammar, "group" is singular), which is not what happened – your judgement seems clouded I've shown my willingness to improve the article, and I've, for instance, received multiple "thanks", not only for the improvements I operated on the article in mainspace, but also for my suggestions for further improvements. Your indication that such improvements are not appreciated pollutes the air and stifles further work, which remains necessary to get this article to FA grade Until the current issues are sufficiently addressed I think I'm perfectly entitled to oppose promotion to FA, and I'll continue to collaborate positively in whatever way I can to make that promotion possible. Also, please note Gerda's invitation above: "Can we try to stick to content?", so I suggest to discontinue this discussion of whodunits, which, as you may notice, has been continued by you only in these last few days. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Francis Schonken Your suggestion that I recuse is ridiculous; I have never edited this article, and all I pointed out is that first you made a bunch of edits to an article you had barely touched before, then when you were reverted, you !voted "oppose." That was rather WP:POINTy of you. One can edit the article, or one can review, one cannot do both. You have no neutrality in this matter, and if anyone should recuse, it is you. So, you want to close this matter, you are welcome to recuse yourself. Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Magnif.jpg: what is this being transcribed from? A previous notated version? A recording? Memory?

The text is applied to the given psalm tone, - always the same melody, just a different distribution of the syllables. It's a 2010 image I took from Tonus peregrinus, which quotes the German Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that the image is there, but how was the image produced, specifically? From what source was the specific distribution of syllables used here derived? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We discussed the content of that image some time ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example. That discussion contains two external links afaics, maybe one of these (or both) could be used to demonstrate that the content of the image is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In that discussion, the source was given as "Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch, Nr. 529. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530". Could someone who knows how add that to the commons? (I corrected Evangelisches to Evangelische.) I looked in the current EG but can't find it, only in a regional edition of Thuringia. The Catholics have a different German version, and a similar tune, but simplified (beginning with F G instead of A C, and the second line right on G without the preceding A C, - so much less joyful, and not what Bach used), GL 631/4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I just changed the "source" parameter at commons:File:Magnif.jpg from "Olorulus' personal library" to "Olorulus' personal library, from 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelische[s] Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530 (see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example)" – @Nikkimaria: does this cover all of your concerns regarding the use of this image in the FA candidate article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg was improved by Rabanus Flavus, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: for clarity File:Magnif.jpg has now been replaced by File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg by Rabanus Flavus ([13]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to find a freely licensed performance that could be sampled? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Where would I look? - I guess everybody interested would be able to find YouTube versions, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas:

1. I performed a check of Commons as thorough as I could, not finding any audio file that would be remotely eligible for use in the article on the cantata :(
2. scores:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)#Synthesized/MIDI has a synthesised (trumpet/organ) version of movement 5. It is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (is that compatible with the Commons licensing policies if one would want to upload the file there?) – whether or not it could be legally uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia I'm personally no fan of such synthesised audio for vocal/orchestral music. The IMSLP page where that audio file is available is linked from the article's External links section, so not sure whether we should do anything if we want to have at least one audio file on or linked from the Wikipedia article.
3. Similarly, CPDL has a midi file of the closing chorale at choralwiki:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Johann Sebastian Bach) – copyright: "Personal"; here also the CPDL page is linked from the external links section
4. http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/detail.php?ID=BWV0648 is a page on James Kibbie's Bach Organ Works website with audio files of an organ performance of the Schübler Chorale based on the cantata's fifth movement. Maybe this page could be linked from Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#5, to give at least an aural impression (non-synthesised) of the cantata's music (otherwise at least a link from the external links section might be possible?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   It is possible but belongs in the (linked) article on the chorales. I am sure that people who want to know how the cantata sounds will find a way outside Wikipedia. I hesitate to place external links, because it would be my biased choice. - MIDI is no alternative, awful, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• I added a link to downloadable audio of the entire cantata, to the "External links" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Can we have a few score extracts (examples from the cantata)? I'd suggest, for instance:
  • Movement 1:
    • Start of the cantus firmus in the soprano part (situated in the orchestral/vocal matrix)
    • first measures of where the alto takes over the cantus firmus
  • Movement 5: some measures of the interplay of the singing voices with the cantus firmus melody
  • Movement 7: four-part chorale setting of the non-hymn tune --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Yunshui

Just a quick review of the text: see talkpage for issues raised and resolved diff

Anyhow, now that the above fixes have all been made, I'm happy to Support on text. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yunshui:

• thanks for your recommendations here – can work with that.
• Re. "... at this point ...": you're of course free to comment whenever you like, just wanted to say that by the time I'm satisfied with content and sourcing of the article I planned to ping those who previously contributed to this FAC page with their analyses to see whether their initial assessment would need updating. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, and a re-review would seem sensible given the number of changes that have been made since my above comments. I'd prefer to give Gerda the chance to deal with just one set of issues at a time, especially if there are more changes that are likely to be made, so will wait until you guys have talked out the discussions above before adding further feedback here. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

RSN for Hofmann source initiated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

About half done, no real issues. Some quibbles so far:

• " Composed for the Marian feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724," there seem to be words missing after "Visitation". Some grammatical connection would seem called for.

That was changed (perhaps compare how the lead looked when I nominated), - I tried to fix the changed version now. --GA

• "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Book of Isaiah the prophecy of the Messiah " I would say that there should be a comma in there after Isaiah.

yes --GA

• "The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the doxology." Two things, I would change the first "translation" to "rendering" or similar to avoid the repetition, and I think you need a "on" after "and" to avoid ambiguity and possible confusion.

I opened the piped link (to avoid the same word twice), and added "on". --GA

• "He used the original verses 46–48 for the first movement, verse 54 for the fifth movement, and the doxology for the seventh movement. He paraphrased verse 49 for the second movement, verses 50–51 for the third, verses 52–53 for the fourth and verse 55 for the sixth movement, the latter expanded by a reference to the birth of Jesus." Your use of the serial comma seems inconsistent.

Commas are different in German and English, and sometimes I miss one, as here, thanks for pointing it out. --GA

• There is an uncited sentence at the end of "Readings"

ref doubled --GA

• "adding "Luther" for the movements kept in his translation, and "anon." if the unknown librettist elaborated on his translation. " I would avoid the repetition, possibly by changing "elaborated on his translation" to "added his own elaborations" or some such--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Help welcome. "Elaborated" was introduced by Francis, in the table, where I found it too long when repeated for four movements. I'd usually say "paraphrased". Feel free to apply your wording skill, please. "added his own elaborations" would suggest - to me - that Luther also added "elaborations", but he only translated, in his free style of translation, of course.

Maybe "added elaboration"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "..."Elaborated" was introduced by Francis..." – no, it wasn't. I wrote "elaboration of ..." which (at least according to my dictionary) does not mean the same as "elaborated on ...". I don't agree with what is currently in the article, nor with the "added elaboration" suggestion: the librettist partly paraphrased and partly expanded the original text. That is an elaboration of the original. "added elaboration" only captures the "expansion" part ("expanded" is a less cumbersome way to say the same), not the part where the text is paraphrased. "Paraphrased" is correct, but doesn't really capture the expansion part. So I'd go back to "elaboration of", or, alternatively, go to "paraphrased and expanded". --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, "paraphrased and expanded" taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for careful reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• "but with the cantus firmus in the alto, because the text "Denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen" speaks of the "lowly handmaid"." The logic here is obscure. Are altos more likely to be handmaids? Or lowly?

It's the lower voice, - do you think that should be added? It seems a bit like saying a child is younger than its parent. --GA

(don't know whether this catches what Wehwalt indicates above:) The sentence containing "... cantus firmus in the alto, because the text ..." (emphasis added) seems WP:OR: the sentence is referenced to a translation that nowhere claims a causal relation: "cantus firmus" isn't mentioned in the reference, which voice sings the phrase isn't mentioned, leave alone that that reference somewhere would have intimated a causal relation between one and the other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the "because" by "when", and would be willing to repeat the translation of the whole incipit if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Still leaves the first half of the sentence unreferenced: only the translation, and nothing about "cantus firmus" or "alto", can be referenced to the source that is currently used for the entire sentence. Maybe split in two sentences, with an appropriate source for the cantus firmus related content?

"... second verse ...." (in the same sentence, before the part of the sentence that was quoted above by Wehwalt) is confusing. In Luther's translation (as in the original) it would be the third verse of the biblical text. I suppose somewhere between when Luther published his translation in 1722 and when the text became associated with the tonus peregrinus melody Luther's German translation of Lk 1:46 and 47 became merged into one "verse" of the sung version, but that is nowhere explained afaics: until such explanation is provided "second verse" is confusing terminology: it may apply as well to Lk 1:47 as to Lk 1:48.

Dellal's translation doesn't seem too faithful to the German original in this instance. The original Greek word ταπείνωσις means abasement, the Latin (Vulgate) translation, humilitas, could be rendered in English as "humility". In the libretto of the cantata the same word is translated as "elend" (miserable, wretched). Most English versions of the Magnificat use "lowliness" for this part of the text, and more modern German versions "Niedrigkeit". In this instance (she translates Elend as wretched elsewhere) Dellal seems to fall back on a standard English translation of the Magnificat rather than on the specificity of the German libretto of the cantata. "... the text ... speaks of the 'lowly..." seems a bit flawed... it doesn't really: it speaks of "elend" which is more appropriately translated as miserable or wretched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just one remark: the word "elend" changed meaning in German more than once, compare Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist, and to look at translations seems more appropriate in the article on the German Magnificat. What would you call a faithful translation: of the meaning at Bach's time, or ours? Can we agree that translation often has more than one "faithful" option, and sometimes not even one? - Back to what brought us here: having the cantus firmus split this way happens only in this one chorale cantata, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, [Dellal] translates Elend as wretched elsewhere: BWV 75 is Bach's cantata for 30 May 1723. I don't think the meaning of the word elend/Elend would have changed in the 13 months between BWV 75 and BWV 10. For BWV 75 Dellal translates Elend as wretched ([14]), which I think a more faithful translation: it is certainly "the meaning at Bach's time". As said, I understand her choice for "lowly", but that seems rather inspired by KJV-like standard translations of the Magnificat, than by the intricacies of the actual German libretto of the cantata at Bach's time. KJV is old, and not a translation of Luther's German, so I'd rather avoid it in the context of this cantata (see also below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Remark 2: the thorough analysis of the Oregon Bach Festival (external link) has this: "At the third entrance of the chorus, however, Bach gives the Gregorian chant to the altos. This change of voicing is related to the text denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen [He hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden]. A low voice now takes over the cantus firmus." I use now the more idiomatic KJV instead of Dellal, and count the verses to three. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My point was that it may not be obvious that the handmaiden would be given to the alto voice, if you are not knowledgeable about music. But I gather there is a musical convention about such things, and that's acceptable given this is not a basic-level music article. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well in this case there is no such musical convention, and the former content of the article was wrong to suggest it. The Oregon Bach Festival interpretation seems exceptional and should not be rendered in the article without in-text attribution of the author (which is a bit difficult as it is apparently an anonymous text). There's a lot that speaks against this interpretation. The verse goes from "low" to "high" in feeling (The second half of the verse speaks about being blessed for ever). Affektenlehre thus would suggest to go from "low" notes to "high" notes: if that is performed by the same (group of) singer(s) there is no voice type that is particularly indicated. In his Latin Magnificat Bach composes this verse for the highest of two sopranos (with the chorus joining in on the last two words). Explanations by established scholars about voice type used for the cantus firmus in the first movements of cantatas 1 to 5 of the chorale cantata cycle (this one is the fifth) speak about the succession being built on soprano→alto→tenor→bass, leading to soprano→alto in the 5th cantata (nothing to do with text). Also the "elend" word of the libretto carrying less of a connotation of being "low-placed" than the conventional Latin "humilitas" and other variants (see discussion above) seems to confirm that the Oregon's explanation is rather to be regarded as an over-interpretation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. KJV – I'd prefer a 21st-century translation. Also, a translation that is not tied to a denomination. Let's not link to or quote from "doth" and "hath" type of translations, which sound particularly stolid in 21st-century ears: such older translations can be found in the Magnificat article, linked from the lead paragraph, for those who savour them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• "the duet Et misericordia (And your compassion), in both cases expressing mildness and compassion." Even though it is a translation, can the repetition be avoided by a synonym? Possibly mercy?

Good point, but I don't know a synonym for compassion, with passion in it. I'd rather change the translation, literally misery [felt by the] heart, but its clumsy. Any synonym for that? --GA

No idea. I had thought of misericordia as meaning "mercy" but Latin is not my language. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• "All wind instruments and violin I support the soprano." I imagine "violin I" to be a technical term.

So far, in the whole article, it is "two violins". If an instrumental group is divided, yes, you say technically numbers from I (one), like Part I. Do you think we should say "the first violins"? --GA

• "It has been held from 1948" I would say "since", not "from"--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Meets the criteria. I'll leave the technical discussions on German language to those who will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw

OK, it looks like others have reviewed and notwithstanding the discussion above, here is my review, based upon the article as of this revision. Most of what I have to offer at this point is wikignoming to help the non-expert understand the article a bit better.

• Lead:
  • I'd put the English title (My soul magnifies the Lord) in quotes: ("My soul magnifies the Lord"). Italics are fine too, but either way, not plain text.

    • It's not a title, just a translation. Few cantatas have an English title, such as Actus tragicus, - well, that's Latin ;) --GA

      • I see it is consistent style throughout and seen in other articles. I still think it needs to be in quotes. But also not a deal-breaker. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • put "also known as his German Magnificat" before Johann Sebastian Bach. The paragraph is a wee bit choppy

    • perhaps review an earlier version, which didn't know any "German Magnificat". I am tempted to ask "known by whom" and think it's no lead material, but it's debated. Whatever the outcome of that debate: Bach should come rather sooner than later. --GA

      • The problem is putting like concepts together... put the names (all of them) before composer. One way or the other. No position on inclusion of "German Magnificat", only a comment on paragraph structure... if it's in, put it before composer, up with other boldface titles. If it's tossed, no worries, I don't care. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

        If it is kept in the lead, it should be mentioned much later, and with an explanation, not before Luther's German Magnificat was mentioned. - The concept of "all names first" is fine, but in case of so much foreign language, we should get to the composer soon. ---GA

        • My suggestion is either, "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a], also known as his German Magnificat, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. It was composed in 1724..." (which I'd prefer) or, at least "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a] is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. Also known as his German Magnificat, It was composed in 1724..."
          • I will go over the lead, probably later today, see Ceoil below. ----GA
            • • I'll close this bit then, and let that discussion sort out remaining issues. I think Ceoil is seeing similar problems but has a different approach.
  • A few more modifiers in "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented in his second year in Leipzig." same reason -- just smooth it out a bit, perhaps something like "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented during his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig."

    • split in two sentences --GA

      • OK.
  • the Magnificat -- should also be italicized and linked to Magnificat in the lede, not just lower in the body text

    • Magnificat became a word of English and should not be italicized. It is linked in the lede. --GA

      • Not according to the title of the Magnificat article, which is italicized. OK on link Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • That article is wrong, but going to fix it seems like a battle I would not want to enter. Compare Requiem. ---GA
          • • OK, not our circus. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
              • FWIW, the way I understand it:
                1. Luther's German Magnificat (not Italicised, like: Luther's German Nunc dimittis – see lead sentence of "Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin")
                2. Bach's German Magnificat (Italicised, like: Bach's Italian Concerto – see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title, last bullet of "Other additions" topic)

              --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

              I disagree. It's not a title of a piece by Bach (as Italian Concerto), just as some call it. German is generic, Magnificat is generic, - why italic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

              From MOS:ITALICTITLE:

              • Symphony No. 2 by Gustav Mahler, known as the Resurrection Symphony ...

              Thus I would write:

              • Cantata No. 10 by Johann Sebastian Bach, also known as German Magnificat ...

              Examples at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title:

              • Hungarian Rhapsody (not italicised)
              • Italian Concerto (italicised)

              The variant name of Bach's cantata is closer to Italian Concerto than to Hungarian Rhapsody in my appreciation. These are only a non-native speaker's observations, of course. Seems like this issue is undecided at this point in time. Maybe an RfC could settle the matter? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

              Included as fifth issue in an RfC I initiated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#RfC: some italicisation questions regarding catalogues, sets, collections and types of creative works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • wikilink continuo to Basso continuo and clarify, somewhat obscure phrasing for people outside the classical music field (the other instruments are commonly known) people may not know the word.

    • There's a link to Baroque instruments, - otherwise we'd have to link trumpet and get a sea of blue. - Compare other FAs such as Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 --GA

      • Hmmm, I see no reason not to link the specific instrument somewhere... where no sea of blue... everyone knows what a trumpet is, though if I am wrong, a small sea of blue is not harmful.  ;-)
        • They are all linked (even violin) in the Structure and scoring section. In the infobox and lead, it would be two seas of blue. (I should make some "frequently answered Q&A.) ---GA
          • OK, I can live with that. Consider saying "basso continuo" in lede, to match link lower down, but not a big dea. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Background:
  • May want to put in the actual date he took office, non-Churched individuals may be unfamiliar with the Liturgical year, even though it's linked in the lede.

    • Well, we say already 1724, and second year, no? --GA

      • I'd encourage adding month also -- a supplement to "liturgical year". Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The month of performance comes later in the same sentence, and the month of composition we don't know. ---GA
          • • No, I meant to note when Bach took the position: "In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. " Because non-Christians have no clue what that means, I suggest stating something like, "Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on 30 May 1723, the first Sunday after Trinity."
              • Sorry for misunderstanding. I reworded, - please check. ----GA
  • I'd be OK if you linked "Latin Magnificat" together to the name of the actual work, that or say "Magnificat in Latin" to avoid the "Sea of Blue" problem

    done, good idea --GA

  • In the chart, Overview of the first cantatas in Bach's chorale cantata cycle, I'd wikilink the items under "Form" that have not been previously linked -- not everyone knows what a motet is.

    • It's linked just above. --GA

      • OK. I personally like redundant links in charts and infoboxes, but that's just my quirk, not FAC or MOS.
  • Is the final entry for "Form" in the chart intended to be blank?

    • yes, just a "normal" chorale fantasia --GA

      • Hmmm... maybe link that? Not sure, just would balance chart visually. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • But all five are chorale fantasias, - I'm afraid it would be confusing. ---GA
          • In the chart, the others have different labels... I am rather confused now... ? ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
            • I thought chorale fantasia in the style of a motet was clear enough, but now inserted the passage about the chorale cantatas in general from the last FA. Is that helpful? ----GA
  • I am unclear about "unknown librettist retained some parts of Luther's wording, while he paraphrased other passages" -- do we know when or why? It's kind of a random fact sitting out there. Was the librettist's wording used in the original performance or added later?

    • The libretto (booklet) is written before the music. It was the format/program/idea/concept of the chorale cantatas: rewording part of the hymn in (then) modern words. --GA

      • Maybe a modern clarification? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The concept is explained in chorale cantata. "Clarification" seems strange, because for our taste, the Baroque language is rather less clear than the straightforward gospel or chorale ;) ---GA
          • • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe explain (perhaps in an endnote) what a " traditional 9th psalm tone" is

    • The 9th psalm tone is pictured ;) - "Ninth" repeated now in the caption. - I don't think we should explain the concept of reciting tone and its variants in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

      • Perhaps add a helpful wikilink to the concept for those who can't read music??? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Link in caption repeated, and now ninth not 9th, to make the connection. ---GA
          • • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Music:
  • "based on the chant melody." --which? Clarify

    • The Ninth psalm tone, said before, - I tried to not be too repetitive. --GA

      • Maybe a minor rephrase? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • How? ---GA
          • • Maybe a wikilink would work, possibly "The first and last are set for choir, and are based on the chant melody." ? Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
              • That link seems like an Easter egg, I'd rather link to Gregorian chant again, but very reluctantly. ----GA
  • Wikilink recitatives and arias on first use, for the non-classical music expert.

    That is done, but happens in Readings, text and tune. --GA

    • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Manuscript and publications:
  • Clarify what an "autograph score" is -- signed by Bach?

    "written by Bach", as the link says. I'd hesitate to explain what a book is ;) - Should we link score? --GA

    • Yes, that might work. Autograph link goes to "autograph" main article, perhaps link to subsection? Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Main article has nothing about music, - the lead is all that is useful for those who don't know the term. ---GA
        • Meh, someone, somewhere should do a small def of why an autographed score is better than... whatever else ... but I guess also not our circus. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have an article on Johann Andreas Kuhnau? Christian Gottlob Meißner? Should we explain who they are?

    Not even the German Wikipedia has articles on them. They helped Bach producing performance material from the score, - only few of his works were printed during his lifetime. They are nothing special for this cantata, - should their work be mentioned in Bach cantata? --GA

    • Perhaps. All is well. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikilink Library of Congress

    done --GA

    • OK
• Recordings:
  • "seems to have been recorded first in 1963." -- awkward. Suggest rephrase to "seems to have first been recorded in 1963." or "seems to have been recorded for the first time in 1963." -- or something similar to smooth the phrasing

    second one taken, thank you --GA

    • OK
  • Might want to link "Chamber" and "Period" in the chart on first appearance.

    • I dropped "chamber", but period instruments would have to go to Baroque instruments, linked before. --GA

      • Again, I favor repeating links in charts, but that's just me. Your call there. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't want to link period several times, nor recitative twice in the table above ;) ---GA
          • • OK. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Sourcing, formatting, images look OK to me, and others appear to be going over them in detail. Overall, I am ready to support once we make the prose flow a bit smoother and clarify the technical language with more wikilinking and the occasional explanation for the benefit of the non-aficionado. Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking from a different perspective! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Most improvements OK, a few with additional comments, none of earth-shattering significance, just think over. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Thank you! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    Fixed some more, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support; the issues I have raised have been addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

I cant parse and on the melody to which that German version of the - can you restructure please. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the question. - All other chorale cantatas are based on a strophic hymn, but this one is based on German bible text in prose, (traditionally) sung in Gregorian chant (or reciting tone), specifically the ninth psalm tone or tonus peregrinus). Can you word it better? - In German, both these things are called Choral, in English, however, chorale seems to mean only the strophic hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I understand the terminology around chorals. But its not explained properly as of yet in the lead; the phrase I highlighted above needs to be clearer. Impressed so far, bty. Ceoil (talk)

I will go over it, there are also (outdented) good suggestions by Francis above, - look at the rest first, please, the lead will follow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

I recall reviewing a Bach cantata for FAC last year, but to my dismay I seem to have managed to forget just about everything, so by no means is this a review of an expert. Some comments:

• in lead: German translation of the Magnificat canticle -> Ignorant as I am, I have no idea what canticle means. Would a link or little explanation be wrong?

the word canticle is there to explain Magnificat, and some think it's a sea of blue to link two terms in a row, - you could hope to find what canticle is if clicking on Magnificat, - but I'll just link ;) --GA

• in lead: The cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. -> should it not be in bold then, perhaps?

I don't know. I didn't add that, and I don't know who knows it by that name which appears in some writing but nothing I used. Not every redirect needs to be bolded. --GA

• Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month into his second year -> by going for super-accuracy it doesn’t flow well for me. Perhaps try losing the “somewhat”

Looks gone. --GA

• expanded from (Luther's German translation of) Luke 1:49–53 and 55 -> Just Luther’s would suffice, I think, so we can get rid of the clunky ()

My last version was this (funny: German Magnificat was bolded back then), - ask Francis. --GA

• Poor  C. P. E. Bach: everybody gets full names but he just his initials

His name is just too long, - and look at the infobox: J. S. Bach ;) --GA

• In 20th- and 21st-century concert and recording practice the cantata was -> I think is would be better.

For my last of version of the recordings look above, - I believe all comments beyond the factual listing should go to a discography page. --GA

• in art, and in music -> Music is art, so maybe, if true, especially in music?

agree, changed --GA

• New testament -> Capitals? Definitely a link

fixed (not my writing) --GA

• for five part chorus -> I’m never sure about hyphens, but for sure Inconsistent with four-part you have elsewhere

fixed (not my writing) --GA

• , the exaltation of the humble -> comma after humble?

yes --GA

• LP -> link would be good I think

done, and CD also for consistency (not my writing) --GA

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for diligent reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator suggestion

Coordinator comment: @Francis Schonken, Yunshui, Wehwalt, Montanabw, Ceoil, and Edwininlondon: This FAC is becoming very long and therefore potentially intimidating to new reviewers. I wonder would it be possible for reviewers in this instance to move any sections of addressed commentary to the talk page, leaving a note on this page with a diff of the move? I don't normally advise this, but we have a lot of text to plough through here. This is not to judge the validity or otherwise of any commentary, and I guarantee that whichever coordinator closes this one will also read the talk page, but it would be much easier if we can see which points have and have not been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Numbered as in #Francis Schonken above:

0. (article lead section) – still active: intro proposal was introduced in article, and later again modified. Some of these later modifications were no improvements, but am taking these one small step at a time (e.g. [15]). Further: I'm primarily working on the body of the article (and refs) now and thought Gerda's "look at the rest first, please, the lead will follow" (in #Ceoil section) the best way to go forward.

• Follow-up on "one small step at a time (e.g. [16])" – a rather elaborate discussion regarding precisely the quoted edit (which changed a single word, for the record) developed at Talk:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#couldn't find a single English-language source that refers to BWV 10 as a "piece". Please discuss there not here. Just drawing the conclusion that some of the steps need to be very small and wide apart in time to settle down. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

("not a chorale" explanation) – not addressed yet, so suggestion not ready to be removed from this page

(coherent use of "chorale"/"hymn"/etc. throughout the article) – not ready: the article currently contains as well "not a chorale" as "genuine (...) chorale melody" (the last one quoted from one of its reliable sources)

(Spitta on BWV 10) – handled, moved to talk page

(contemporary Magnificats & Visitation cantatas comparison) – handled, moved to talk page

(1740s repeat performance) – handled, moved to talk page

(Recordings) – still active (although already partially handled)

(provisions for a table-less layout) – in progress

(comprehensive approach to reception topics) – still active

(origin of German doxology) – question unanswered

(navbox collapse options) – handled, moved to talk

(Oron website as source) – in progress (see also RSN)

(in-text attributions) – still active (see also current tags in article

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Diffs: [17] – [18] --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with moving addressed comments to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Done. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominator speaking. I confess that I have problems with this nomination. The version which was approved by Wehwalt and Yunshui was this of 25 May, the version we have today is this which I don't approve. To name just the most obvious differences:

• Francis not only questioned the reliability of Bach Cantatas Website, disregarding experienced source checkers such as Nikkimaria, Prhartcom, Brianboulton and Wehwalt (their previous source checks linked above), but he eliminated links to the site and information based on it from the article. That leaves our readers deprived of the most detailed resource on the topic I know. The idea that the pdfs of liner notes are reproduced without consent of the labels seems absurd to me.
• Francis added background about the Magnificat in Leipzig general, and the reception of Bach's chorale cantatas in general (about which he knows a lot) that seems too much for this particular cantata article, imho.
• Francis added a paragraph about recordings before the factual table of recordings that accents labels (instead of musicians), talks about general trends in Bach cantata recording, and singles out some recordings. I recommended to write a separate article Discography with that material.

Instead of 10 more points that I'd oppose: we need to decide how to proceed.

• I can withdraw the nomination.
• We can leave the nomination but I remove my name from the nominator position, and Francis takes over (which he de facto did already).
• Other ideas? It's a new situation, at least to me. In Bach's time, they'd celebrate the third day of Pentecost today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a tough one for you, but the article is clearly unstable; its content changes daily, and not just with minor fixes. When nominated the wordcount was 1,996 – it is currently 3,734 and rising, so it's virtually twice its original size. I'd advise that in future you get together with Mr Francis Schonken and iron out your differences before nominating any further Bach chorale articles. Otherwise this debacle will repeat itself. For the present, the only sensible course, since you don't approve the current text, is for you to withdraw the nomination. It shouldn't be renominated by you or anyone else until the content is broadly stable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Per the advice above, I withdraw the nomination. I nominated only one Bach chorale cantata article (if that is what you mean) before, which passed without any interference by Francis. I nominated six Bach cantata articles before which passed without interference by Francis, who tried to question one, but to no avail. I was unprepared, sorry. I would like to see Francis first learning a bit about FA reviewing before doing it again, or perhaps even write a featured article. The Magnificat has potential, imho. Accusing fellow editors of edit warring because one single revert seems not in the spirit of collaboration, nor accusing them of canvassing because of this piece of advice. I am concerned about the quality of the article, - see three major points above. Brianboulton: please say a word about the alleged copyright violation of the Bach Cantatas Website. - I thank Yunshui, Wehwalt and Montanabw for support, Nikkimaria for the media review, and Ceoil and EdwininLondon for good comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I have to agree with Brian that the article is currently unstable and has changed too much in the course of this review, which is never ideal at FAC. As Gerda has asked to withdraw this, it doesn't matter now, but I have to say that rather than changing an article wholesale during FAC it is far better for a reviewer to oppose outright, giving their reasons based on WP:WIAFA, and wait for the end of the review to make large changes, away from FAC, if that is the consensus among those working on the article. Hopefully this consensus can be worked out before the article is renominated, after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.