Talk:Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1

Early

I've removed my original note that BWV 150 is believed to be Bach's earliest surviving cantata. Now I come to check a few things again, I see that the balance of opinion certainly seems to be with BWV 131. I really can't remember where I got the idea that it was BWV 150 (I didn't recheck this when writing this article, I just lifted the info from what I'd already written some time ago at Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich)--if anybody has a source that states it is the earliest, it may be worth mentioning, but it seems I, at least, do not. Sorry about that. --Camembert

Help!

Can someone help me make a sucession box for Bachs cantatas? Gareth E Kegg 19:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not really worth the effort, for several reasons:

1. The BWV catalogue isn't ordered chronologically, so the claim that BWV 1 is somehow "succeeded" by BWV 2 misleading and confusing.
2. There are too many cantatas that cannot be dated specifically enough to produce a proper chronological succession.
3. Related to #2, Bach frequently re-used cantatas that he had already composed in lieu of composing a new one, particularly in the years following 1727.

Microtonal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I have gone through the twenty-some pages currently existing on Wiki for the Church cantatas, after editing a Bach Cantata Pilgrimage section, and thought I'd make an effort to standardize their presentation inasmuch as possible.

Consequently, I've created a few sections: a general intro that contains the German title, alongside a literal translation to English, BWV number, and type of cantata (sacred vs. secular).

This section also contains the prescribed readings and the authorship of the texts, when known, as well as the authorship of the chorale theme.

The articles are completed with a scoring and structure section, followed by the complete German text, in three columns, a list of complete recordings (as I can find online, obviously. I'm sure there are many more recordings).

I plan on applying this template to all articles (existing or to be created) on the cantatas. Any advice/recommendation would be greatly appreciated and surely taken into account. Campelli (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Application of a uniform template for Bach's Cantatas

I have gone through the twenty-some pages currently existing on Wiki for the Church cantatas, after editing a Bach Cantata Pilgrimage section, and thought I'd make an effort to standardize their presentation inasmuch as possible.

Consequently, I've created a few sections: a general intro that contains the German title, alongside a literal translation to English, BWV number, and type of cantata (sacred vs. secular).

This section also contains the prescribed readings and the authorship of the texts, when known, as well as the authorship of the chorale theme.

The articles are completed with a scoring and structure section, followed by the complete German text, in three columns, a list of complete recordings (as I can find online, obviously. I'm sure there are many more recordings).

I plan on applying this template to all articles (existing or to be created) on the cantatas. Any advice/recommendation would be greatly appreciated and surely taken into account. Campelli (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I removed the sentence "The vocal parts are embedded in the independent concerto of the orchestra." from the Music section as being essentially meaningless -- "concerto" is misused and the sense of "embedded in" is unclear. What could be said, if a source supports it, is that there's an obbligato part. --Stfg (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Yash! 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am a part of the 2016 GA cup. Yash! 08:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• "25 March 1725, which fell that year on Palm Sunday" -> "25 March 1725, which that year fell on Palm Sunday".

yes, thank you --GA

• "The feast was in Leipzig the only" - how about a "comma" after Leipzig?

tried to have Leipzig sooner --GA

• "The hymn suits the occasion, but also Palm Sunday" -> "The hymn suits the occasion and Palm Sunday".

that seems too weak, - it's rather unusual that one theme is good for two occasions, how about "The theme of the hymn suits both

Sounds better! Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

the Annunciation and Palm Sunday"? - tried --GA

• Shouldn't we link "oboes da caccia"?

we do in the scoring section, and we have a link to Baroque instruments, - compare other cantatas --GA

• Mention that Bach was Thomaskantor at that time.

done now,+ more explanation of the cycles --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Who was the "inspirational librettist"? Bach? If yes, you can write: "possibly because of the death of the inspirational librettist, Bach" or anything that you would like. If no, any link to an appropriate page or a better explanation for "inspirational librettist"?

This sentence is a summary - perhaps too short - of what we can read below: that the librettist is assumed to have been some Mr. Stübel who died in January of that year. Whoever he was, - he inspired Bach to one of his greatest creations, the cycle of chorale cantatas. Can you help wording that in lead fashion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How about we mention who the inspirational librettist was in the sentence. Stating who that person was and what he did would make it clearer. Perhaps something like, "The cantata was the last chorale cantata of the cycle, possibly because the librettist, Andreas Stübel who inspired Bach had died" or "The cantata was the last chorale cantata of the cycle, possibly because Andreas Stübel, the librettist who inspired Bach had died". Or anything like that? Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That would both be lovely, ONLY we don't know. It's a hypothesis that Stübel was the librettist, and I don't see a way to express that without getting clumsy. Do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"The cantata was the last chorale cantata of the cycle, possibly because the librettist, Andreas Stübel who probably inspired Bach had died"? Or does that sound odd? Yash! 12:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive me little enthusiasm about "possibly followed by probably", + I can't even judge if "probably" is the right term for the likelihood of Stübel being the one. He is qualified by expertise and that fitting time of death, but is it enough for "probably"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Better to leave it as it is probably. May I suggest something else then: instead of "inspirational librettist", use "librettist that inspired Bach". On the other hand, I don't have any problems with passing the article now. So, it is a GA now! Yash! 13:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

History and words

• "This cantata is part" -> "The cantata is a part".

changed in rewording, see above --GA

• "cantatas, begun" -> "cantatas that began".

yes --GA

• "and planned" -> "and was planned".

yes --GA

• The lead says that, "He composed it in 1725". And the first line, "This cantata is part of Bach's second annual cycle of cantatas, begun on the first Sunday after Trinity 1724" - was it 1724 or 25? Or did I miss something?

Trinity is mid-year, the cycle is for a year, but not a calendar year, not even a church year, - simply beginning when he began his job, which was at least not anywhere but the second half of the church year, with the first going from Advent to Trinity. First year June 1723 to June 1724, second following, taking us into 1725. --GA

Okay, noted. Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• "It was the last chorale cantata in the cycle and is based on" -> "It is the last chorale cantata in the cycle and is based on". - tense consistency.

the two are now separate, don't belong together, and I tried "turned out to be the last chorale cantata". The cycle wasn't complete. --GA

• "with Epiphany but also with the Annunciation" -> "with Epiphany and the Annunciation".

as above, unusual --GA

• "its joyful nature would have been all the more striking" - do not use words such as "joyful" and "more striking" please. Unless these words are quoted, best to remove them and perhaps reframe the sentence.

You feel right that I didn't write that sentence, - it was in the article before I met it, and I try to keep what I inherited. Not this time, I guess ;) - I dropped it and moved the whole thing to performance time. --GA

• "although" -> "though".

gone in rewording --GA

• "This cantata was first" -> "The cantata was first".

gone in rewording --GA

• "which in that year was also Palm Sunday" -> "which that year was Palm Sunday".

yes --GA

• "speaking of a longing" -> "expressing the longing".

yes --GA

• "especially fitting" - an explanation for why it was especially fitting would be nice. Or else, something more formal than "especially fitting".

there's now a link to the Palm Sunday entry in Jerusalem, an arrival fulfilling an expectation, - I would prefer not to venture more into theology, - replaced especially by also, --GA

• "If indeed Stübel" -> "If Stübel".

yes --GA

• Unlink "Trinity" the second time.

yes --GA

• "was begun" -> "began".

yes --GA

• "It was later listed as BWV 1 in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis." - ref?

really? it's in the title, we have the link to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis and a footnote leading to it, explaining that it was created again 100 years later, - I don't think we have to reference the catalogue of Bach's works in every work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm - Now, this is embarrassing. I mistook it for something else entirely. My apologies. Yash! 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not embarrassing, - perhaps mentioning how much later the BWV catalogue was determined would be helpful from time to time, especially as the article that explained was made a redirect. #1 would be a good opportunity ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Music

• Unlink "Epiphany".

yes --GA

• "Christmas Oratorio, for example" -> "Christmas Oratorio, for example".

yes --GA

• "thanks " - "appreciation".

no, it's Gratias agimus, Wir danken dir, - thankfulness is more personal than appreciation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• Either use "bach-cantatas.com" or "Bach-Cantatas".

yes --GA

In all of our interactions, this is probably the first time I am raising an issue for "references". That's how good you are! Great work, Gerda Arendt! Yash! 08:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

... and then I refuse ;) - thanks for diligent commentary, otherwise mostly followed! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Intention ?

Lucifer#Latin makes a conspiracy theorist wonder whether the atheist intellectual elite deliberately challenged the competence of the conservative elite by tagetting the linguistic prerequisites required to attain higher clerical offices during the age of reason advancing from the Netherlands eastwards through the Germanic states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.61.25 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, fail to understand the connection with this article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308060019/http://atticbooks.co.uk/default%284%29.htm to http://atticbooks.co.uk/default%284%29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-integrate discography?

I think it would be best to re-integrate the discography list (recently split to Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1 discography, where it has been cleaned up in the mean while). My rationale: the GA version of this article had a discography section with a list, the short paragraph that remains of the section now leads to an unbalance, bad enough to damage its chances for a FA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Kindly wait. My model is BWV 4. Yes, it had a discography as GA, but not FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: (edit conflict) The discussion already happened with you, me and then Graham87 on User talk:Gerda Arendt. Historically, there was no idea of merging Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 and Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 discography. So why here? Indeed there does seem to be a WP:consensus for a separate discography (you, me, Nikkimaria, Graham87, ...). But Gerda, you can always the FA reviewers for their opinion, in case of doubt. Doesn't BWV 4 set a precedent? Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No, when BWV 4 was promoted to FA it had a recordings list. The extraction of the recordings list was done later. Anyhow, what remains there in the main article is a three-paragraph summary, quite different from the single paragraph section we have now in BWV 1. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite generally, the details of a recordings list are hardly relevant for the understanding of a piece of music. Neither is this article "finished", nor its summary in the cantata article which will be longer than today. Please wait. When I said "I want to focus" I meant I don't even have time to look here, in memory of Wilhelm Knabe. Other FAs of music without recordings: Falstaff (opera) and other operas, Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart). Different subject: Morihei Ueshiba, which had a list of students which was separated during FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, go ahead, time enough, any workable approach may lead to an acceptable solution. In the mean while tags indicate where the work is to be done. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

& still a question: you write "... details of a recordings list are hardly relevant for ..." – can you describe, in your opinion, what a detailed recordings list of the BWV 1 cantata is relevant for? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) No. What I know is that these lists have been done (operas, oratorios, students, Busoni repertoire), and I like to preserve the work of editors who created something before me. They seem to find a few readers every day, so why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: From memory, systematic tagging for HIP, etc, has not happened on other cantata articles: perhaps an RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music might be required, to prevent time being wasted by bad faith edits. Anyway—as you've already written—precedent, WP:consensus and wikipedia policy suggest a merge would be ill-advised. The edit history of this article and the main article shows attempts to prevent the main article being promoted to WP:FA. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Well, firstly I said more than once that there's no rush for anything about this nomination. The earliest day it could appear is in 2022 (while articles such as Arik Brauer and Wilhelm Knabe need immediate, focused, uninterrupted attention, or the hard rules of WP:ITN about newness give them no chance for exposure]). I am determined to assume good faith, wanting to ensure article integrity. I hate tags in Main space, especially if massive and distracting, but styles are different. It's not without irony that I removed the tags from the discography article, and you reintroduced them ;) - They bother me less in that article than in one with a GA sign, and I am sure that we'll find a solution, however slowly. We know where the work is expected to be done without demonstrating it towards our readers. I'll return to this later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I initiated a broader related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the merge suggestion tags: the separate discography appears broadly supported and it has been summarized in the cantata article; I don't want this to stand in the way of FAC proceedings. Since the recordings prose description is no longer a recordings section in list format, I have made it a subsection of "Reception". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Commercial link

In this edit, a script removed the external link in a postscript cite param. This change had already been reverted by an editor. Looking at the original, I see it is a commercial link to a seller of the boxed set. I question whether we should be providing this information at all, since a Google search provides other commercial sources, including Presto Music at about half the price. Why should we advertise one supplier? Pings for @Gog the Mild:, @Francis Schonken:. --Mirokado (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that Wikipedia is not a marketing site and that this link is not required to establish the bone fides of the cite. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)