Talk:Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 91

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 91/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 14:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have agreed to review this article. My knowledge of music almost exclusively comes from not particularly successful childhood piano lessons so apologies if I sound ignorant.--Llewee (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and also thank you for patience, - I had too much going on also in RL and simply failed to watchlist this review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

History

• "based on the main chorale for Christmas Day" - I feel a bit more context might be useful here. Was it used for for a specific event or concert?

  the specific event was the Christmas Day service (one performance in the morning, one in the afternoon at the other church), - all of Bach's church cantatas were dedicated to a specific occasion in the liturgical year or another function such as wedding and funeral. --GA

  Perhaps you could clarify that e.g "based on the main chorale, which was performed at churches in Leipzig on Christmas Day"--Llewee (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  but it wasn't only in Leipzig --GA

• " It was published in 1524" - clarify that the "it" refers to Luther's work

  tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Epistle to Titus" - Could you clarify how the readings link to the song?

  The readings are prescribed to said liturgical occasion, year after year the same at Bach's time. --GA

• "but paraphrased the ideas of the inner stanzas into alternating recitatives and arias." - I think this could be rewritten in a way that is more accessible for the common or garden idiot like myself.

  probably, but then it would be different from FA BWV 1 and several GAs. "stanza", "recitative" and "aria" are all linked (somewhere) and "paraphrased" seemed a normal enough word to me. --GA

• "even after his Christmas Oratorio had been first performed in 1734 for which he also used two stanzas of the same chorale" - I would suggest taking out "even after" which gives impression that their something surprising about him continuing to perform it after 1734.

  but it is surprising, - people might think that once he had the "better" cantata from the oratorio, he might use that instead, no?

Hi Gerda Arendt, have you seen these comments?--Llewee (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, but only now, thank you for patience! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

rest of the article

• "Both text and tune of the hymn are retained in the outer movements, a chorale fantasia and a four-part closing chorale" - I think a clearer way of wording this would be "The text and tune of the hymn remain consistent between the outer movements..."

  sorry, not convinced, - it's a standard wording --GA

• The final sentence of the first paragraph after "Structure and scoring" is uncited.

  sorry, I forgot, - the ref is in the linked article. I am travelling, - will do later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  You still need to do this.--Llewee (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• "makes use of four choirs" - My impression and our page on the subject says that a choir refers to a group of singers. Could the wording be changed to something like "four types of sounds". Also, there should be a gap between citation 2 and "makes".

  sorry, then the choir article should be changed, - there are choirs of trombones, guitars, flutes - you name ist --GA

• "thr cantata" I guess this is meant to be "the"

  fixed thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence of how people felt about this cantata at the time or since?

  no --GA

Hello Gerda, sorry for the slowness of my response. I think some of the terminology used in this article makes it slightly hard to follow for a general audience but there probably isn't much that can be done about that.--Llewee (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

sorry, I can't help that - First replies for which I don't have to look at the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I have conducted some spot-checks on sources which are all fine. Earwig has found quite a high level of overlap between various websites and the article; though this seems to be because of the lyrics. Answer that last point and I will be happy to pass it.--Llewee (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, do you mean overlap of the lyrics? I'd agree that there is, but think that providing beginnings of the lyrics and translations is the only way to connect English-speaking people a bit to the content. The lyrics are partly 500 and otherwise almost 300 years old ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok Gerda, sort out the issue with the missing citation and the article will be ready to pass--Llewee (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

found and fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.