Talk:O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 21:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

Should finish this within the next 5 days. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! --GA

Lead

• "It is the first cantata he composed for his chorale cantata cycle, the second annual cycle, meant to base each cantata on a Lutheran hymn." Phrasing is awkward and clunky here.

  This is taken from several featured articles, such as BWV 125. What would you prefer? --GA

  Not sure if this retains the meaning, but: "It is the first cantata he composed for his second annual chorale cantata cycle, where each cantata is based on a Lutheran hymn" seems a lot clearer with less breaks. The confusing part in this sentence is primarily "meant to base", since you're probably trying to say "Bach meant to base each cantata on a Lutheran hymn", but here it sounds like "the chorale cantata cycle ... meant to base each cantata on a Lutheran hymn". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  English isn't my first language, and I would use "where" for locations. Learning. We can't say Bach meant to base, because it could be the pastor's idea, or that of both. It would be easier if we could say "based on Lutheran hymns" or "each based on a Lutheran hymn" but the plan worked only for about 40 instead of 50+. Open for wording help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless, only a human subject could "mean to base" a work on something, not the work itself. As for the usage of "where", the word is customarily not restricted to modifying physical locations. However, formally speaking, you would be correct, so a substitution from "where" -> "in which" in the proposed sentence could work. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  "in which" fine, but what can we do about "in which each is based on a Lutheran hymn? It's not true. It was the idea, the plan, but didn't come to pass, - end of March was the last such cantata (BWV 1), while the cycle would have run to May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "the hymn was paraphrased by a contemporary poet who retained the hymn's first stanza and two more (to concluded the cantata's two parts) unchanged" Another awkward phrasing here.

  Same, only that in most cases, it's just first and last movement retained, while here, there are three. Do you have a suggestion? --GA

  I'm not sure if the meaning is correct, but how about: "the hymn was paraphrased by a contemporary poet who retained the first stanza as well as the two that each conclude a movement"? I just observe some writing issues in the original version, since "to concluded" is in the wrong tense and "unchanged" is redundant. The parentheses also add to the confusion. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, and will think. The "unchanged" is redundant, but - compared to the "normal" chorale cantata, and his own early BWV 4 - is so unusual that a bit of redundant emphasis may be in order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Despite the importance of emphasizing the "unchanged" part, I feel like the redundancy still leads to confusion for the reader rather than emphasis. In the original, it goes "retained [the first stanza and two more] unchanged", in which "retained ... unchanged" just doesn't make any sense. I feel like I might have overcomplicated the solution to this though. How about: "the hymn was paraphrased by a contemporary poet who retained the first stanza and left the two that each conclude a movement unchanged"? This keeps "retained" and "left ... unchanged" as two distinct actions as opposed to "retained ... unchanged". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'll have to think further because that almost sounds as if the treatment somewhat different, but is same: retained three stanzas, one to open the whole thing, two others to conclude the two parts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is more content here regarding the movements' openings than the actual "body" of each movement.

  I am not sure I understand the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm just saying that the Lead places more emphasis on each movement's opening than their later sections. Unless these overtures are actually more significant than the other movements in the cantata? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  In Bach cantatas, only few have an overture (Sinfonia), but not this one, nor any other of the chorale cantata cycle. Usually first movement is the heavy-weight. (Compare BWV 1) This one is in the style of an overture, for opening the complete cycle and new endeavour (not only this cantata). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then I'll drop this concern. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I went ahead and applied minor changes to the lead, which should address the two concerns above, as well as potential confusion between the chorale cantata cycle and the second annual cycle (which are technically not synonymous). Please feel free to revert though if the edits are not satisfactory.

  Thank you - will check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  As said above "for his second annual cycle of chorale cantatas based on Lutheran hymns" is too simple, because that was meant to be so, was the plan, but didn't succeed for the whole cycle. Bach's second cantata cycle redirects to Chorale cantata cycle although they are not the same, as explained in the second para there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, the lead right now looks much better. Just noticed one last detail: the claim "published in 1642" is mentioned in the lead, but never supported anywhere else in the article (unless this is supposed to refer to Schop's chorale). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  1642 is for the melody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  All right, I adjusted that statement in the lead to better reflect that. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

1 History and words

• I did some editing to the structure and phrasing to improve clarity.
• It could use some clarification that the cycles' beginning and end correspond to the liturgical year, but other than that, this section looks good.

  Well, the cycle began rather when Bach took office, in the middle of the liturgical year, first Sunday after Trinity, to be precise. New chorale cantatas ran from then to Palm Sunday of the following liturgical year (BWV 1). For Easter, Bach reused an early chorale cantata (BWV 4), the rest of the cycle were "ordinary" cantatas. Over the following years he wrote some chorale cantatas for the missing occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hm, this seems to be some background that isn't really that critical to understanding the main subject of the article. Dropping. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

2 Music

• "Bach structured the cantata in two parts, to be performed before and after the sermon." Is it that the first part is performed before and the second part after? If so, this needs to be specified.

  Really? Isn't that sort of default? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's not really clear from this sentence alone though, as the wording is quite ambiguous. Another possible interpretation from this phrasing is that the cantata as a whole needs to be performed both before and after the sermon. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  I had rephrased it yesterday, just not mentioned here - too tired then. (You are the first - in years witih the topic - to think of that possibility, DYK? ... and I still don't get it. Why would he structure in parts, only to perform the undivided thing twice?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Of course, it wouldn't make sense for that interpretation to be a possibility, especially for readers already knowledgeable in the subject. Regardless, we should avoid such ambiguities in the way the sentences are phrased (because bottom line, sentences should be as clear as possible without room for misinterpretations). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I said that I rephrased, no? By now two days ago. I will not rephrase similar articles, because it has been worded like that without problem for many years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Whoops, I was only looking at the sentence in the Music section proper, not the lead. I made the transfer. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Bach scored the work festively..." What is festive about the scoring? This is not apparent.

  It's a bit much to explain in each cantata that oboe and strings is normal, and almost everything beyond, especially trumpets or horns, signal festivity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Okay I see your point. Dropped. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The duration is given as 31 minutes." Given by whom?

  By the same Dürr mentioned before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I specified it there myself. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Use of terms like Stollen, Abgesang, and recitativo secco without much context/explanation may be confusing for unacquainted readers.

  bar form is linked which explains stollen and abgesang, - if we link them, we have three links to the same. recitativo secco is a redirect to recitative, - similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  True, but we can't expect the reader to read into every internal link provided in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm only talking about reading bar form (or recitative) in case they don't know. What do you suggest? The disappointment of clicking on stollen and landing on the same thing the same reader may have just looked at seems worthy of consideration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  All right, I guess there's no need for Stollen or Abgesang due to their proximity to the bar form link. However, an in-text (not linked) explanation that a recitativo secco is "accompanied only by continuo" should still be included (since it's less clear where the reader should consult to find out the meaning). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'd rather link it than waste space for an explanation that will waste the time of most readers having followed this far. It feels like explaining that "Allegro" means joyful and is used to indicate a fast tempo, every time that Allegro is used. For most people knowing a bit about classical music these Italian terms are familiar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Putting it that way, it does seem quite convincing that readers who are willing to read this far would probably not need the explanation. Dropped. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Bach seems mostly interested in illustrating the text..." This run-on sentence needs to be broken up.

  GP, tell me how? It renders the many ways that Bach illustrated the text, and is structured by the words from the text with their translation in brackets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  The sentence is simply too long (~90 words). I guess the sentence can be split into individual sentences where each one corresponds to a word from the text and its analysis. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  How, if split, would the reader know that it's all under "illustrate" with a colon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Are we talking about the same sentence here? I don't see a colon. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's not written but perhaps could be, after "text", - all items are specific illustration cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I think the problem here in this case is the unclear punctuation (just comma after comma after comma). I used semicolons where I thought necessary. Let me know if the new change is satisfactory. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Fine, thank you. Semicolon is practically unknown in German, - sorry that I didn't think of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Sources look good. Though I can't confirm website sources Dahn and Oron's reliability, their use is minimal and is not involved in scholarly analysis or history.

  Dahn was accepted in the source review of BWV 1, Oron wasn't, but I'd use the site only for recordings, for which it has more detail than any other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, no problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Judgement

The article overall is well-written, well-cited, neutral, and broad. It could use some additional illustrations (e.g. an image of Bach), but that is not particularly important for an article on a musical composition. More importantly, the article has a few minor prose/clarity issues that could use some cleanup. I am putting this nomination on hold until July 2. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Image of Bach: we have one which shows him 23 years too old for this work, and one which is disputed, + way too young. None of the featured articles have the former, but those about early works (BWV 161) do have the latter. For this work, nothing is suitable. July 2 is in the past ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no need for the images then. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that, I meant August 2. Thanks for the catch! GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

All right, all raised issues have been met. Passing. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)