Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of two serving as his audition pieces for the post of Thomaskantor in Leipzig for which he became known. He had to show off, being not a favourite (Telemann and Grauper were) and the only candidate without university training. You may have met his more youthful BWV 172 before. This work is setting standards for the later cantata cycles. The article received a GA review by Cwmhiraeth in March 2013. After expansion of the background and especially the audition, I could win peers Montanabw and Tim riley for an informal review, thanking both for questions, copy-editing and a nice new table of the recordings. Looking at 7 February as the date of the first performance, I dare to skip a formal peer review and invite more questions about improvements. I happened to receive thoughts on collaboration and compromise on my talk page today ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tim

[edit]

Comment – I don't think my turning the list of recordings into tabular form disqualifies me from supporting this article, if the coordinator is happy with that. As Gerda's Bach articles so often do, it filled me with enthusiasm and sent me off to listen to the piece. The prose is fine, the coverage comprehensive and balanced, and, so far as the text goes, in my judgment the FAC criteria are all met. Lovely stuff. Tim riley talk 16:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jim

[edit]

Nice article. I know little about the topic, so general textual nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Estomihi. —Why this obscure term only in the lead instead of the more familiar one it links to?
Because it's the name Bach used, in a way I hesitate to use one he didn't know. The same question came up in the GA review. - open for discussion. --GA
  • Gospel—capitalised throughout, should be lower case, especially since you are not linking to a specific gospel,
it's the same Gospel, the prescribed for that Sunday, every time, just the link not repeated every time. - in the FA mentioned above, it's Gospel. open ... --GA
  • co-reigning Dukes—lc dukes
The people are linked, where duke is linked. Really repeat? --GA
  • Pentecost. —link
done, but then Easter also. --GA
  • Mostly written based upon texts by the court poet—"written" is redundant
replaced by "inspired", to hint at their cordial collaboration --GA
  • arrested him in prison for disobedience. —so he was actually in prison when he was arrested? Seems odd
lacking the proper term, dropped "prison" for now, - help please, I am not so familiar with prison as some of my DYK may make believe ;) --GA
  • The court was Calvinist, —link
done --GA
  • therefore most of Bach's work from this period was mostly secular, —most...mostly
done --GA
  • He later parodied some of them to church cantatas—to me "parodied" conveys humorous intent, which doesn't quite seem right
it's a term frequently used in Baroque music, and nothing negative or humorous about it, - now a link supplied that should explain --GA
  • on an occasion even two candidates—doesn't make sense
tried harder, - could be dropped if not good enough --GA
  • which the disciples don't understand—"don't" is too informal
right, thank you --GA
  • My Jesus, draw me after You—capitalised "You" looks very odd, even if technically correct
Its quoted from the source. --GA
  • musicologist—overworked in this section
You are right. Born in a discussion where a person without an article was simply named, and some description requested to be added. What can we do, if several are given the chance for a summary? - I dropped two of four. --GA
Thank you for diligent reading and good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and one follow up OK, I'm happy enough with most of your answers to support now, still not happy about capitalised "Dukes". I understand that a named duke(s), like Duke of Edinburgh or Dukes of Lancaster, is capped, but here it's just used as plural with no qualifying name, so surely lower cased? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
query from WereSpielChequers not my subject area, so mostly my comments are about how this reads to a general reader. I think that as regards prose it is pretty much at FA standard, but have some nitpicks, apologies if this is just a display of my total ignorance of the subject:
  • since the best could ot be obtained, I'm pretty sure this is translation or transcription error and therefore ot should be not?
you are right, typo fixed --GA
  • You mention that one part of his career was in a Calvinist court, but perhaps to give context there should be some mention that the rest of his career was presumably in Roman Catholic parts of Germany?
Surprised, I confess. With my bias, I thought everybody knew that Luther was about as Lutheran as Luther himself. Introduced the term in the section on Leipzig. Should it be mentioned earlier? --GA
Ah that makes more sense, I have just learned a little more about Lutheranism. ϢereSpielChequers 20:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saw more possibilities for a future academic career of his sons in Leipzig:" I'm not quite sure of the meaning here, especially as the quote refers to studies rather than career, and don't think of his sons is the best way to put this.
you are right, fixed --GA
  • "Of all candidates, Bach was the only one without a university education." Do we know that? Or do we know that he was the only one of the evaluated candidates not to have a university education? Would Bach was the only one of the seven without a university education. be better?
I will have to check, - I think "of the candidates evaluated" is meant by the source, but this would include Telemann as #8. --GA
  • Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. Two days before the event already, the town council agreed to offer him the position. seems inelegant to me. What do you think of Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. This was two days after the town council had agreed to offer him the position.
Well, I am not yet convinced that is better. Try to find something to express that the official date was the 17th, but that they didn't wait to make him an offer, leaving the official test as just a formality. Open for better wording --GA
  • There is a section on recordings, but if the sources cover this I would have thought it worthwhile to have some mention on ongoing use of the work. Excuse my ignorance, but the sort of questions that this raises for me include: Has it been continual fashion since or has it gone through periods of disuse? Is it widely used within German Catholicism, Catholicism generally or has it spread to other branches of Christianity such as Anglicanism? Or even beyond to secular use?
Two topics, recordings and perception, legacy or something like this. Recordings: the recordings came in a standard of listing when I met the topic, see for example BWV 172, - this is the first article with a table, thanks to Tim. Should the source (bach-cantatas) be mentioned? - The other: this is the same as for most cantatas, nothing special for this one: the composer's works fell out of fashion soon after his death. It was the 1950s, then again the movement to revive original Baroque sound in the 1970s which let people discover them again, mostly secular. Yes, Thomaskirche still offers them in services, other churches occasionally do a cantata service. --GA
I made the links consistent, - the best/shortest description for the purpose of this article I think is in Baroque instruments. Open --GA

ϢereSpielChequers 10:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for excellent questions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at just the lead section, and found nothing to change. Good work.

  • I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with how we generally deal with acronyms such as BWV in music articles (and yes, I know what Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis means). The custom at FAC is to either explain or spell out acronyms or provide a footnote, unless just about everyone will already know what they mean. For instance, you might stick a footnote on the first or second occurrence of BWV and say simply "BWV numbers (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis) are used to catalogue Bach's works".
  • If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! BWV: until recently, BWV had a link, - then Finnusertop pointed out that link and bolding should not appear together. BWV 22 is a redirect. BWV is prominently linked to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis in the infobox. Spelling it out or explaining it would be a bit like spelling out United States (or explaining US), or Köchel-Verzeichnis. The other FA BWV 172 has none of that, but I admit that it still had the link when it was TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a good case to ignore all rules in service to the reader, then - not all look at the infobox. Most English-speaking people know what US is, BWV not so much. Either linking or a footnote are good options. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a footnote, not so happy about separating "BWV" from the number though. --GA
It comes after the BWV 22, now, and it looks fine. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Lead image should use upright scaling instead of fixed size
    • I defined no size now. How would I do "upright scaling"? I don't like the image smaller than the title and the captio, but would not know how to achieve it. --GA
      • The defaults look fine to me. The problem with fixed size, Gerda, is that if someone has their prefs set for something other than the default (which is 180px I think), the results can be really odd-looking if, for example, someone sets their prefs for 300px because they have low vision (or, for that matter, if they hate images and set their prefs at 100px, then same problem). So, if you want to make an image larger or smaller than usual (for any reason), "upright=1.5" (to make it 1.5 times larger) or "upright=0.8" (to make it 80% of full size) or something will cause it to scale appropriately no matter what browser or prefs are set. (For example, I did this at Rosie_Napravnik#Career to make the photo of the horse and rider look bigger. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Thomaskirche-1885.png: when did Kutschera make his engraving? Also, should include full source details instead of just a GBooks link
  • File:Leipzig_Nikolaikirche_um_1850.jpg: can you clarify the licensing status here? What is the status of the original image?
  • File:Johann_mattheson.jpg needs a US PD tag and Wahl's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nokioaikirche image was created by Ludwig Rohbock (1820-1883), so I added a pd-old-100 tag to it. The person who took the photo of the two-dimensional image clearly didn't understand which tag to include (or, based on the rant at his commons userpage, has an issue with photographs that are faithful reproductions of 2-D works). But either way, I think it's fixed. Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thomaskirche image was created by an engraver born in 1830, so I think we are safe with that image being a PD, either PD 100 or at least PD-70+. Montanabw(talk) 02:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, per the instructions at FAC, too many transcluded templates slow the load time on the page. Could you replace the od and y templates above with text? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Afernand74

[edit]

Nice article. I have two minor comments

  • Recordings: I assume that the recordings are not the only ones ever recorded. Explaining your selection criteria may be useful for the casual reader. I will refrain from adding personalised ASIN codes to Amazon. ;-)
  • Sources: I personnaly prefer to separate sources actually cited in the article from generic ones. The generic ones could be listed in the article Bach cantata but why repeat them here? For example, the two following refs do not even specifically mention BMV22:
  • Koster, Jan (2011). "Weimar 1708–1717". let.rug.nl. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
  • Sartorius, Michael (2012). "Bach's Leipzig / 1725–1750 / The City of Leipzig in pictures". baroquemusic.org. Retrieved 11 March 2013.
Creating a "Further reading" section seems more appropriate imho.

Keep on the good work on Bach, Gerda! ;-)--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!
  • Recordings: these are 11 of 12 listed on Bach-Cantatas (now referenced), - the 12th would repeat most performers and have more red links for soloists, could easily be added if wanted. Btw, there will we be no more red links in February.
  • I looked at the "extra" sources once more, dropped what I found to include no added information (including Sartorius, nice images but better for the later Leipzig time), used the others as references. Koster is there to reference the history before this cantata, therefore kept, unless you think the political situation in Weimar should be referenced to a different source.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support' Thank you Gerda. All clear for me. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]
  • We link Bach in the lede, but fail to do so on his first mention in the body.
done --GA
  • The last para of the "Background, Mühlhausen, Weimar and Köthen" section, could do with a "Bach" being removed and a pronoun being put in its place. For example: "In Köthen, Bach found an employer who was an enthusiastic musician himself. The court was Calvinist, therefore Bach's work from this period was mostly secular, including the orchestral suites, the cello suites, the sonatas and partitas for solo violin, and the Brandenburg Concertos. He composed secular cantatas for the court for occasions such as New Year's Day and the prince's birthday, including [[[Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a|Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). He later parodied some of them to church cantatas without major changes, for example [[[Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134|Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
I would hesitate to replace the first pronoun, because "he" couldmean the employer just mentioned before. The third one changed to pronoun. --GA
It was the third one I was referring to, sorry. CassiantoTalk 09:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bach was interested, because he saw more possibilities for future academic studies of his sons in Leipzig" -- Not sure the comma is needed after "interested".
Not sure either, but a little hint that there were probably other reasons also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest that it isn't needed. The clause is unnecessary here as we follow with a conjunction. Tim, what are your thoughts? CassiantoTalk 10:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand "not needed" as "doesn't have to be there but is possible", ---GA
I don't need the comma ;) ----GA
I didn't think so...;) --CassiantoTalk 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By August, the town council had already chosen Georg Philipp Telemann as Kuhnau's successor, but he declined in November. In a council meeting on 23 November 1722..." I would give 1722 after August instead seeing as it is a new paragraph. We could then assume chrono order using that year from there.
good catch --GA
  • "Bach and Graupner seem to have been the preferred candidates at this point..." -- Seemed to whom? Watch for POV here.
The source says so, implying "to the town council", others seem to have had no say,
Then I would attribute them, just to be on the safe side. CassiantoTalk 09:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is given for the paragraph, and "why" the source regards is explained (because they were given 2 cantatas), what else? ---GA
Sorry, am I missing something? Who considered them to be preferred candidates? Seemed to who? The way it is currently worded suggests that you do Gerda, which is a POV. If it was the council, I would say so:
  • "The decision to invite Bach was made by the council on 15 January 1723. Bach and Graupner were [the councils]? preffered candidates at this point, because they were invited to show two cantatas each, while other candidates were requested to show only one. Two candidates even had to present their work in the same service. Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. Two days before the event already, the town council agreed to offer him the position."
I tried a bit differently, please check, ----GA
That's a lot better! I would also adjust "seem" to "seemed". CassiantoTalk 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – That's it. Great stuff Gerda, and nice to see you at FAC again! CassiantoTalk 20:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my pleasure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Prhartcom

[edit]
  • Spot checks done; selected sources Jones 2013, Crist 1989, Loewe 2014, Randel 1996, Mincham 2010 referred to by the article are now verified; occasionally the text is reproduced here verbatim without quote marks, (i.e. Crist 1989, p. 36), but this is probably fine. In the Bibliography, titles of book sources containing links are URLs to the Google Books source, linking directly to the first page referenced by the article (as opposed to the overview page), which is fine. I think the arrest of Bach referenced by Randel 1996 also appears in Loewe 2014 p. 54; there may be other examples of facts claimed by this article appearing in more than one source from the bibliography; I notice this article not once uses more than one source to back up any particular fact (the article uses Template:sfn but never once Template:sfnm). No research errors or technical errors that I can see. I was unable to verify one of the most highly referenced sources, Dürr 1971, as I didn't go to my library. :-) Very nicely written and well-researched article, prepared by an obvious expert on the subject. I located and listened to the cantata while reviewing it; magnificent. Prhartcom (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for FA. Prhartcom (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - could the nominator respond to the point about verbatim text without quotation marks. Graham Beards (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgive me, it had quotation marks all along. Thank-you Graham. I checked three more sources: portions of the article referring to Gardiner 2006, Koster 2011, and Oron 2014 (which is the source for the article's table; only partially verified) and all is well with them. FYI, I believe I found one of the items in the bibliography, Edward McCue, not being referenced. I believe all of this article's references to sources are in order. Gerda, would you like to separate the soloists in the first four rows of the table as they are separated in the remaining rows? Prhartcom (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soloists separated, good catch, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RHM22

[edit]

Support, first of all, but I do have a few comments:

Lede - "...and a chorale in the style of his predecessor in the position, Johann Kuhnau." I was a bit confused by this on the first reading, because it wasn't clear that Bach had succeeded Kuhnau as Thomaskantor. Could you add a brief mention of which position you're referring to? My suggestion would be: "...and a chorale in the style of his predecessor as Thomaskantor, Johann Kuhnau." or "...and a chorale in the style of the previous Thomaskantor, Johann Kuhnau." I know that you mentioned it earlier in the lede, but based on the distance between both mentions, it's not entirely clear that's the position to which you're referring.

Audition in Leipzig - "Two days before the event already, the town council agreed to offer him the position." This reads awkwardly. Is "already" an unintentional remnant from a previous revision? At any rate, I think that the word "already" could probably be removed without compromising the meaning of that sentence. Audition in Leipzig - ""This is the Leipzig audition piece" (Das ist das Probe-Stück für Leipzig)." If you're going to include the original (German) version of the quote, it makes more sense to me to mention it first and then include the English translation in parentheses. However, if there is established precedent for showing quotes in this manner, then please feel free to disregard this suggestion.

Thomaskantor - "performing the ambitious cantatas Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75, followed by Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, both in 14 movements each." in my reading, this sentence is a little bit confusing because it makes it seem as though the "ambitious cantatas" being referenced are 'Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75' (some may not know that it's one item); that is because the comma effectively separates the sentence, making it seem as though the descriptor only applies to the first part. (Apologies if that is worded confusingly). I would add a colon, as such: "performing two ambitious cantatas: Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75, followed by Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, both in 14 movements each."

Music (1) - "((Luke 18:34): Sie aber vernahmen der keines ("However they understood nothing")." it looks like there should either be one more or one less parenthesis here.

Reception - ""The audition cantatas … show Bach feeling his way towards a compromise between the progressive, opera-influenced ad the conservative, ecclesiastical styles."" Is 'ad' a typo of 'and'? If so, was it in the original quote? If it was, a little (sic) should probably be added. Reception Ishoyama's full name and profession are only mentioned in this section, although his surname is used earlier with no explanation. I would suggest moving his full name and title to the earliest use and replacing it in this section with just his surname. The same occurs with Julian Minchum and John Eliot Gardiner, so I would suggest changing those as well.

That's it! This article is very informative, and as an abject layman, I found it easy to navigate, which is a good sign of article quality, in my opinion. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for diligent reading, I took most points, not yet the last one but only for lack of time right now. Later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good now. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing some yourself while I am on vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jesus_nahm_zu_sich_die_Zwölfe,_BWV_22/archive1&oldid=1138464579"