Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Bach cantata article names (again and again)

(This question is still open.): Dealing with the Koopman recordings of the complete Bach cantatas (that the composer himself typically did not name that way or any other) and observing ambigation problems I was pointed at a former discussion. Heaving read most of it I still don't see how the conflict could be solved: cantata and hymn same title, cantata and motet same title ... - Also it's a lot of German. My suggestions: for all the cantatas a redirect "BWV #" (already there for selected cantatas) that could be used in internal links, and/or a redirect combining that unique combination with the words of the title, example BWV 192 Nun danket alle Gott to distinguish from Nun danket alle Gott. The article BWV could explain this. Btw I don't understand why cantata 191 Gloria in excelsis Deo is not yet covered but BWV 191 points to the Gloria in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What about having "Cantata" as part of the name e.g Cantata BWV192 or Bach cantata BWV192?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those confirm to naming conventions. Cantata No. 192 (Bach) is how it should be, as the BWV should only be used if further disambiguation is needed. Though I guess Nun danket alle Gott, BWV 192 might work as well. Do remember that much of the time the ordinal numbers we give (especially to pre-romantic composers) were used by them -- certainly Mozart or Haydn would have NO idea what anyone was talking about if you ask about their Symphony No. 40s, or what not. So using the number as the title should not be a problem. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I don't see addressed so far is the TEMPLATE Bach cantatas that defines the names - at the moment just the German titles, causing the problems described - so that the BWV # cannot be added only in the case of an ambiguation, but always or never. I would prefer "BWV 192 Nun danket ..." to "Nun danket alle Gott, BWV 192" because someone not knowing the exact title might find it more easily. The Lists of Bach cantatas could explain such a naming to those who are not familiar with BWV. Btw, the cantata numbers equal the BWV numbers and will not change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting the BWV # first makes absolutely no sense, though. In fact, I've never seen that as a convention for Bach's or any similar catalog anywhere. And it's more the other way around, the BWV numbers were assigned based on the order they were published in the Bach Gesellschaft. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I created the template a couple of years ago. All I did was copy the existing links from List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach and followed the convention used there. If someone wants to change the convention, then I can do the work of modifying the template. If we do change it, I'd prefer the postfix solution (Nun danket alle Gott, BWV 192) but I understand I only get one vote.

As for your question on why Cantata 191 is not covered yet... there are a lot of cantatas. An ambitious editor started filling in all the gaps starting from 1 and ran out of gas at 44. BWV 191 is just a lazy redirect which will be fix when (or if) a full article is created.

A side question for you would be why are you on this Koopman project? It doesn't seem fair to be adding discography sections to all the articles and then only add the Koopman recording.DavidRF (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict: this an answer to Putting the BWV # in front: But then what? Cantata # doesn't make any more sense, the word "Kantate" also added later in most cases by the publisher, where Bach had just given a date, week by week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We're just brainstorming through how all the possibilities. *If* we do indeed plan on changing that many links, we want to make sure we've thought it through. Catalogue numbers are always listed last when used in article titles. The template can be used for navigation.DavidRF (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an answer to the later questions: I didn't ask WHY 191 is not yet covered, I asked why until it will be, cantata BWV 191 is a redirect to the Gloria, making no sense. Concerning the recordings I don't want to be unfair but have limited time, no time to add more myself. I created Klaus Mertens who sang in all the cantatas and got interested in the other singers. Can you see the recordings as an invitation to add more, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Once a odd redirect like BWV 191 is created, its usually left that way until a better redirect is found. I wouldn't have created it in the first place but there's not much need to remove it now that its there.DavidRF (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what's usually done - I still feel rather new here. Did I say how very useful I find the template? - Some time provided, I will create BWV 191 myself then, so close to the b-minor mass. - Many links: searching for "Nun danket alle Gott & Bach" yields just 22 results, not all of them the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. See BWV 80 for an example of where a disambigutaton was needed for the cantata. There used to be a group of editors monitoring Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. We could ask them for input on format issues, but I don't know if any of them are still active. Its been quite there for a while. DavidRF (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To solve a disamguation individually might be an approach I overlooked so far. But I would prefer not to wait for such a situation and treat them all the same (talking of fairness), otherwise who would monitor changes? What should an editor do who wants to write about a hymn and finds it "taken" by a cantata? - I came here to vote for Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191 for the practical reason that it might appear like that in an article. I found such a thing in Geography: Lorch, Hesse, a World Heritage site, on Main Page tomorrow, smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At present, Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach are all simple German text titles unless disambiguation is required (in which case there are irregular solutions). Would it be better if they were all moved to text+BWV number (i.e. Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein would become Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein, BWV 2). Is that what everyone wants? --Kleinzach 08:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would go for that but can't speak for everyone. Feel understood. Just the German name is no problem for me personally but probably for the majority of de-WP readers. I tried to explain a bit in the category mentioned (not beautiful, please improve) and volunteer to watch it and sort out links, cantata here - hymn there ... Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'd go for the German title plus BWV number. If the canata numbers and BWV numbers weren't aligned, it might be different. I can't see a neat way of including "Cantata" in the article titles. Tony (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other sets of articles that are comparable? Schubert's Lieder? If we are going to fix the Bach, we should probably make a guideline and cover all eventualities. --Kleinzach 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Returning from including bach cantatas (to come) in Arvo Pärt (and reverting not so funny play with his name), also happy to see Musik on Main Page: I think we should try this first and take it from there. Schubert Lieder don't compare exactly, I would say, or did he compose the same words twice as Bach did, cantata and motet, cantata and organ prelude? If not, just adding (Schubert) or the poet or another composer would be enough. I would rather think of establishing a guideline of how to cover a cantata - minimum and desirable info. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A guideline would obviate labour-intensive, composer by composer discussions. --Kleinzach 04:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not against it but would like to try one first. - I found Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland BWV 61, made me think of Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland BWV 61 to be considered also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want the comma removed? Can you explain? --Kleinzach 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The only other option is to use the BWV numbers or cantata numbers (identical): BWV 61 or Cantata No. 61 (Bach). The former is simpler since the latter needs the compser dab Maybe that isn't entirely a bad thing actually since most people in the real world have no clue what BWV means. Using both title and BWV is superflous, BTW (and Klein meant why miss the comma before the BWV 61 bit, just to clarify). --Jubilee♫clipman 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Bach cantata

As mentioned before I would like to see an article on BWV 191 and started User:Gerda_Arendt/Gloria_in_excelsis_Deo_BWV_191, an approach for that particular cantata and to cover a Bach cantata in general. I would like to discuss and improve it. Some general questions: 1) church cantata or sacred cantata? I prefer church as the cantata itself is not sacred - or do I have a misconception of that word? (Quite likely.) - 2) I saw the "Lutheranism" info-box on some cantatas but think it does not belong, because Bach's music transcends "boxes", many hymns are sung in Catholic services as well, his music is understood beyond the limits of Christianity. - 3) I would vote for not wiki-linking voice parts and instruments in every cantata unless unusual. - 4) I would not state "(soprano)" ... for the soloist in the recordings section, the normal sequence being SATB. - 5) What do you think about using the word "choir" for the people singing and "chorus" for the piece they sing? More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the stub. I'd like a comma between Deo and BWV. Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191. That seems to be the most common way of adding the catalog number for cases where it enters into the title. I like sacred cantata over church cantata. In this context sacred just means that it is not secular. Many of the cantatas with BWV numbers in the 20s and 30s were all created at the same time with similar formats. I think its probably best to use that format which it looks like you have.DavidRF (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I changed some things - like "sacred cantata" in this case where church use is debated - please look again. I will try a second cantata with a comma in the title but not move this one. Once we decided how it should be that can be reflected in the final name. I took of the "format" and other examples what I liked, - things I disliked are in some of the questions. One more: 6) I think to through loads of German text in the article without a translation is not helpful. Both languages - or just a hint where to find it - it's available many places, s. External links.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't have to move your sandbox, but I think the comma should be there when the article goes live.

• The reason why English translations are sometimes not included is because they can often be contentious. Some people prefer literal translations and some prefer more poetic translations that maintain the same meter so they can be sung to the same notes. Some translations are copyrighted (whereas the original text for works this old is always in the public domain). And sometimes translations are updated so there can be disputes amongst people who know different translations. This is a bit of a worst-case-scenario discussion, most of the time there won't be a controversy, but these types of disputes have occured at BWV 147 and Beethoven's 9th. I guess if you have a good, public domain translation then include it, but nothing wrong with just the original German if you don't have a translation.
• I prefer to have the movement list in a different section from the text... even if its a duplication of information that's fleshed out in the text section. It provides a good overview of the cantata without clutter. See most of the cantatas in the 20s and 30s.
• I prefer to have soprano, alto, tenor, bass spelled out when they occur in Arias and Duets. Everyone understands what SATB means but "Duetto S T" looks odd. I'd prefer something like "Duetto (soprano/tenor)". The details don't matter as long as they are spelled out.
• I wouldn't capitalize the instruments in the instrumentation lists, but that's not a major issue.  :-)

My two cents. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You deserve more, smile! Translations: if you go to the external link Bach cantatas you reach 10 translations, 3 of them to English. If you look at Emmanuel you have a decent juxtaposition. (That's where I got "S T" but will change that. - Movement list separate, mmh, I like to associate the instruments with the words because Bach chose them often with a meaning - provided the words are understood, s.a. - but would not know a good way to provide them "on the side" as this source has it. - Capitalization of instruments: I didn't, Bach did (and the source), broader smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You can list the movements again in the text section as you have done, but a terse list of movements with their titles in the structure section is very helpful as an overview.DavidRF (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Approach to an overview provided. Take your time, I'm off for a while. You might look at the mass mess (below) in the meantime. Got rid of two red links in all the cantatas, finally ... but will probably have to write Missa (Bach) also ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Closure of Composers project RfC

I have proposed that the RfC be closed. Please continue to voice your opinion at the straw poll, also, as that must be the barometer for consensus. After that we can consider the full implications, deal accordingly and move on. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal rejected by admin and discussion moved off Composers project talk page. New link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC --Jubilee♫clipman 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Missa

I didn't believe what I experienced trying to link the Bach concept of Missa ! - Missa Brevis proved not much better, where you can read "Mozart also composed a missa longa (the opposite of a missa brevis) which simply takes more time to perform, and is more elaborate". I at least pointed the former article to other uses of Missa and clarified the latter a bit, but a good disambiguation for Missa would be a better solution, I think. I don't feel ready to do that yet. Btw: why not Missa brevis as in other languages? Help, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a well-explained guideline on the idea of the 'primary topic', see here. In this case there is no other article on 'Missa', so I think the solution would be to make Missa into a disambiguation page and rename the pop page as Missa (album). --Kleinzach 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I was able to fix it and make Missa into the disambig.

Gerda Arendt: Can you please have a look at the disambiguation page, and add any necessary pages? I'm pressed for time and this is really your subject anyway. --Kleinzach 01:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added Missal, Requiem (redirects from Missa pro defunctis) and Missa Solemnis to the dab page. The latter is actually another dab page: should the two be merged? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a little more, linked to the wiktionary and grouped the musical settings under a single parent. I wouldn't merge the dab's. Missa Solemnis isn't really a dab, its a definition followed by a list of works. It would be nice if the definition was expanded to clarify what distinguishes a Missa Solemnis from other Masses. Requiem has a similar list in sections 6 and 7 but has much more description. Category:Masses (music). Perhaps the distinction between Missa/Missa Solemnis is much more subtle than that between Mass/Requiem. A much closer dab is Mass (disambiguation) which I've added a link for.DavidRF (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking good, though I should point out that "Requiem" refers to any one of the service, the liturgical text and the musical setting. Perhaps it isn't quite as necessary though, anyway, as some of the other articles included there? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Much much better! Requiem means both liturgy and music as pointed out before. A seperation was discussed de-WP but no more. Many masses are just called Missa, not brevis, not solemnis, maybe a nickname like Coronation mass. The Bach Lutheran masses are just called Missa - don't know yet if by him or later, will study - but obviously the recording people called them Missa Brevis with a B. I wonder if that unspeakable Mozart line (missa longa?) is supposed to be a joke or refer to the mass in C-Minor (that he wrote not in church office where he was pressed to write as short as possible)? - I will be back at my own computer on Saturday. But great praise for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Missa longa is not a joke. Brilliant Classics refers to K. 262 as such in its Mozart box sets. I don't know if there is a technical definition for it or if its just a length thing.DavidRF (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See: here, here and here for starters. Googling Missa longa K. 262 or even just Missa longa gives much more on this. It may of course be Mozartian humour... --Jubilee♫clipman 19:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, see here for instance on the forms, with a further reference of potential interest (as it is a review). Eusebeus (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Cool. Thanks for the link. That spells it out pretty well.DavidRF (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • A-ha! It isn't a joke. I must admit I had never heard of the term "Missa Longa", until now, so I had to assume it was either non-serious or rarely used. The latter is obviously the correct answer. Thanks Eusebeus --Jubilee♫clipman 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A-ha! (I'm back to the discussion.) Thanks for digging! I had also never heard of "missa longa" and still wonder if Mozart did - or who else named his (one work?) K 262 that way? (Too much small print for me, I confess.) - I actually see more urgent issues like: 1) why do we have articles for the exceptions (missa brevis, missa solemnis) but not for the majority of masses simply called "missa". Mozart traveled to England but wouldn't call a missa "Mass", I would think. 2) As there is an article Kyrie I am always tempted to link to Gloria - instead of Gloria in Excelsis Deo (which should rather be "excelsis" if at all). I would prefer a separate Gloria (disambiguation) to avoid that trap. 3) The misleading link BWV 191 to that Gloria instead of the (missing) cantata is in the Bach article! - I would like to solve that the sooner the better. Please have a look at the cantata user page (s.a.), comments welcome. - I added Ordo Missae to the Missa dab, - that - for a change - has "Kyrie eleison" and "Gloria", smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The plain Missa's are usually just translated to Mass here at wikipedia the same way that Sinfonie's are. See Mass in B Minor. I would just go ahead and move your BWV 191 article to Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191. It looks good enough. We don't wait for things to be perfect at wikipedia. Things are continually edited anyways.DavidRF (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll move if you think so. - As for plain missa: I don't mean to rename them all, but to explain once - somewhere (perhaps on the dab, but dab shouldn't say too much?) - that missa translates to mass and is the most frequently used name for it. But not today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved. + structured Missa brevis a bit, now "Missa longa in C" has a ref - makes me smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kantorei

I wonder if there is an English term equivalent to the German "Kantorei" as described in Gächinger Kantorei? I guess Choir (frequently used these pages, s. Helmuth Rilling) would translate to "Chor" - a less specific term in German. Learning, hopefully --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Content from Westbury Park Strings

Hi all. Wikimedia UK have received an offer of content from the (slightly chaotic/rambling) Westbury Park Strings website under a Creative Commons license. Would someone knowledgeable in string music be able to take a look at the website and say what content would be of use, and if possible the best ways to copy it into Wikipedia/Commons/etc.? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata 120

Now that cantata 191 is on its way I'll turn to 120 because it's a red link in the Mass in B Minor, Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille, BWV 120, help welcome, also for the mass itself that supplies contradicting information to say the least. I moved the other cantatas linked from the "Bm" (11, 12, 29, 46 to come, 171 to come) to the new format and hope the template will follow. For your inspiration a sample of the music of 191, "in other words": Cum sancto spiritu [1] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata 191 reviewed

Content moved to article talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata move

Now the first cantatas follow the discussed name format, some new, some of the old ones. My idea was to move the existing ones individually, checking each of them and cleaning up its links. But doing so showed me that most links to cantatas are on pages that contain more than one (like Monteverdi Choir). Therefore I suggest to move them all first and then check and cleanup, to avoid an in-between state and update a page once instead of 100 times. I guess I will go by numbers starting from 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cantatas moved, the two major lists changed, template changed, tired ... - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Remarks: some cantata names don't follow the template because they end in a "?" or "!" - I omitted the "," in those cases. - Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern now points to the creator Otto Nicolai until there might be an article on the hymn. - I'll look at Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (chorale) - the (chorale) not really needed any more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: the cantata is now separate, the (so far) title points to (chorale) but there is also the organ prelude ... disambiguation? - And what should be done about the Book:Johann Sebastian Bach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More monologue: looking closer at BWV 120, 120a, 120b I tend to handle them in one article as the movements refer to each other - difficult to see clicking back and forth. Assuming that: would there be just one entry in the template or redirects for the 120a & b? (I was trained to avoid redirects, you see.) In that context: BWV is a redirect, but used a lot more than Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. Is the short link ok? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A redirect like BWV normally isn't that bad, but redirects in a template prevent the link from going bold when the user is on the page in question. So, templates require a much stricter avoidance of redirects than normal articles. I've cleaned up the template so they all point to the main BWV 120 article (adding a special comment by the 120a link that that version the cantata has a different name).

I'm not always sure that 120/120a/120b all deserve full slots in the template. It looks like sometimes the "lettered variations" are completely independent works and each deserve a slot and other times they are relatively subtle re-arrangements in which they might not. I'm including them all to be safe, but it a cantata expert decided to clean up the appropriate duplicates then I wouldn't object.DavidRF (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the 'letter variations' in the cantatas tend to be the same music music with new words (save recitatives which are completely new). I don't know of any in the whole catalog that are fully independent works, even in the instrumental music (though I admit I don't know the catalog THAT well) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Three new questions: a robot removed a link to nl because of the new name. More may come, what could be done? Only by chance did I see a new cantata page (177) - how could I monitor that, just a link changing from red to blue?? I wanted to find out how Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein, BWV 2 is linked to "Buxtehude", "Apostles Creed" and the like, could not obviously see it and guess it's somewhere in Lutheranism??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you could watchlist the page the redlink points to. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't get that idea. The more than 100 missing pages then ... Any ideas to the other 2 qs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The links to BWV 2 are coming from Template:Lutheranism. New articles can be hard to find if they aren't categorized correctly. I periodically sweep the main categories and stub categories and click "recent changes". Turns out that the guy who started BWV177 also started BWV110 and BWV142 and BWV1083. Actually, its not a bad idea to keep an eye on that particular editor. He means well, but his new articles usually need some clean-up. He gets too much of his information from allmusic and classicalarchives (not just him with that problem, though). Part of the problem is that I don't think english is his first language. Anyhow, its a bit rude to "stalk" one editors contribution list, but with him its not a bad idea because he creates so many new articles. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)