Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

Sorry, can you explain that? Even if BD omits the comma, that is poor style. Jmar67 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See {{BDh}}. I suggest, for these references, to not add a comma to the actual title of the web page at the Bach Digital website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Gerda's comment about the hymn stanza translations:

• The German of movement 11 (= stanza 6) reads "Trauergeister", not "Trauerfeier" (Weicht, ihr Trauergeister – emphasis added)
• I think a modernized version of Jacobi's translation works best for that incipit, that is "ye" replaced by "you" in "Fly, ye gloomy spirits", anyway (in this case) better than the other translations I've seen.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Geister" is the plural of "Geist" = spirit and "Trauer" refers to grief, sorrow, mourning then Trauergeister = mournful/grieving spirits. See what I added. This has "Go away, mournful spirits"; not too far from what I was proposing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Gerda's comments: the translation of Weicht should be short and forceful (comparison to Ring etc.): imho "Fly" does a much better job at that than the rather weak "Go away". I also think that, as a translation, "gloomy" captures the essence of Trauer-, in the Trauergeister composite, very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stanza incipit made me think about another opera scene, this one in English: the first chorus of Purcell's Dido & Aeneas,

Banish sorrow, banish care,

Grief should ne'er approach the fair.

The context is different (& secular, like the Ring's) but a similar casting away of what oppresses. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Banish" is addressing people to do something about sorrow, while "Weicht" is addressing these spirits (Sorrow) themselves, - big difference. "Fly" has the right vowel and length but misses the meaning. "Gloomy" seems wrong, if I hear a depressive undertone right, while "Trauer" is an upright, dignified kind of mourning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afaics, these are the options thus far:

1. "Hence, you spirits of sadness" (Dellal, which we'd rather not keep for the copyright, that is unless we're very sure this is the best way of rendering the incipit in English)
2. "Give way, you mournful spirits" (RandomCanadian's more literal translation)
3. "Fly, you gloomy spirits" ("modernized" Jacobi)
4. (anyone with another proposal?)

Thus far I'd prefer #3. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The verb could also be "flee", but I thought the "forceful" idea was about "Trotz" (another verse - although it then strays a bit from the meaning, an alternative for the forcefulness would be "Out! the ancient dragon, &c."). Agree that "gloomy" seems to have the wrong undertone. 2a. "Flee, you sorrowful spirits"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another variation of Jacobi's might be: "Flee, you gloomy spirits"; or a combination with RandomCanadian's: "Flee, you mournful spirits". Could we compromise on that last one? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Flee" is much better than "Fly". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Flee, you mournful spirits" works for me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: on an unrelated matter: the GA approval came, on my talk page, with an invitation to make a DYK for the article. I won't be doing that for this one. If you (or anyone else) would be interested in doing so, feel free. Just don't mention me as contributor in the DYK proposal (for my credits score). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Fixing the ping above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? - You could nominate for FAC now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not what? I think me not liking to see my DYK credits score increase further is self-explanatory. Re. FAC: imho this is far from ready for FAC, for instance the rather haphazard ref formatting would make little chance to pass FAC unscathed, and that is only one of many things: others I'm thinking of include the Picardy third ending of the third movement (not even mentioned leave alone a source for it); the far from perfect image for the fifth movement; less than perfect overview of performances and recordings history, etc, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think a separate discography article for this composition is a good way forward: there's already

@Thoughtfortheday: for the above concerns, please reply here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this discussion. I think that the article about the motet could do with a better section about recordings, so perhaps some of the material could be moved there.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun integrating the material, but I haven't had time to deal with all the loose ends.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, discography should be deleted or redirected. Do you understand what I mean? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for any confusion. I take your point that there is a good case for not having a separate discography article for this motet, and yes, it follows that the new article will be deleted or redirected. What I think is still at issue is whether the material about recordings in the article about the motet could be expanded. Given the levels of approval the article has already gone through, I was a bit reluctant to change it, but I think there was scope for improvement in what it said about the recordings. Does this make sense?--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See also above #DYK & FAC prospects and the currently open Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227/archive1 where I commented on the "... less than perfect overview of performances and recordings history ..." – so indeed such improvements to the article on this motet seem perfectly welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding nonetheless some precision (this should be self-evident, but it apparently wasn't):

• Don't just remove well-referenced content: if it is in the article and has a reference since it was GA promoted that usually means the content is fit for this article;
• Don't add generalities that are not very specific to this motet
• Don't repeat content that is already covered elsewhere in the article
• Avoid overlinking and other style deterioration
• Provide appropriate references for new content
• I'd like some focus on recordings that are *not* part of a five-or-more motets recordings set. These sets can be further detailed in the discography article, and in the article on this motet, on the other hand, some more detail about where the motet was recorded independently of such collections. Compare O Fortuna#Recordings: it focuses on recordings of the chorus independent of the recordings of the complete cantata (which are at Carmina Burana (Orff)#Recordings).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I find it takes time to sort out inconsistencies, such as the date of the earlier Herreweghe set. (Unfortunately, I haven't got a subscription to Gramophone and I can't remember what light they throw on whether it is 85 or 86). Also, I think there could be more discussion of instrumentation in the recordings without repeating material elsewhere in the article.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gramophone article doesn't mention the date of Herreweghe's first recording of the motet, nor when that recording was issued. You'd need another source for that. What you shouldn't do is "guess" a date (like you did) without an actual reliable source confirming it. Memory can play tricks too: don't depend on it unless an actual reliable source confirms the information (the Gramophone article indicates 1985 for Herreweghe's recording... of another work). Note that the Gramophone website lets you see the content of their articles without subscription, if you don't access their website too often. Apparently it was long enough since my previous visit to their site, so I could see the entire article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I found about Herreweghe's first recording:

• Recording date: November 1985 (see
  OCLC 855707487
  )
• Released: 1986 (see website of the record label)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the Gramophone website. I had a quick look at allmusic, but perhaps that source doesn't rank high in the pecking order.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a college minor in music and play piano. I had never heard the phrase 'colla parte' before reading this page and had to look it up. To make this page readable to the average user, I suggest we spell out what we mean by it rather than use the phrase. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismartin76 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See, not everybody has the same context. I'm quite familiar with it and other terms which frequently appear in Baroque music (arguably, pianists rarely have to play "colla parte", as they're usually the soloist...). If it is too obscure, a link can be provided to the glossary (Glossary_of_music_terminology#colla_parte); spelling it out here would be a bit too verbose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RC explained that better than I could. There's a link, and we don't explain what a motet is, what a movement is, what a chorale is, - links are the most useful feature on Wikipedia: provide quick reading for those who already know things, and in-depth checking for those who don't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I'm bringing up is reader friendliness and accessibility. I understand that my vocabulary as a pianist is limited when it comes to choral music, but that misses the larger point. I wouldn't even use advanced piano terms here. Wikipedia isn't Grove's Dictionary of Music, and to be reader-friendly, it's good to explain things so that people don't have to jump back and forth between the article and the glossary. We can expect terms like "movement" and "unison" might be understood because someone with even a little exposure to classical music knows those terms but it's not reader-friendly to use terms beyond that level in Wikipedia. I looked up the use of "colla parte" in Google Books, and it seems common to define the term when first using it. I also wouldn't define the use of glossary as a "quick" solution. The quickest solution would provide the definition in context because this involves no mouse or keyboard use. Chris (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you don't know colla parte, and someone else doesn't know motet. I am not going to explain what motet means generally and specifically here. Why should I not explain one, but the other, just because you don't know the other? I was wrong - and sorry about that - about there being a link, the link being there earlier in the article. Should we perhaps make an exception and link again? But in that case we might link motet each tine ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, no need to be so defensive. If its that irritating, it might be possible to put an {{efn}} and copy over the the definition. However I'll note that there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia which are written in even more impenetrable jargon, so whether it is entirely necessary is another question. With the term being linked and in italics, interested readers should be able to figure out (and it's literally one click away!)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(not that it matters here but being called not not caring about user-friendliness and accessibility hits a nerve) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the slippery slope argument here. One does have to draw a line somewhere. I wouldn't be opposed to also defining motet the first time it's used on this page, so if it's consistency that you're worried about, I'm fine with being consistent. The creation of Simple English Wikipedia is an indicator that Wikipedia has an unhealthy level of jargon, so I think one can play a small part in keeping Wikipedia simple. Another problem is that the definition of colla parte in the glossary is not that clear. I have been trying to revise that page so it's clear enough for a novice to understand but people are reverting the edits. Chris (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a good short term, I think we don't serve the majority of the readers of a rather specialised article if we don't use it, but - for the sake of the few who don't - use a lengthy explanation. Those who don't know can follow the link. If what's explained there is not good, that should be improved. I never looked at the English, which leaves much to be desired. Could someone please translate de:Colla parte? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the translation: Colla parte (Italian "with the part"), abbreviated c.p, is a musical instruction originally used in choral works. It states that the accompaniment by the instruments is (largely) identical to the vocal parts. The instruments either support the vocal parts or replace missing parts. A good example of colla parte is Venetian polyphony.

In a broader sense, the term colla parte has come to be used when the rhythm, tempo and expression of the accompaniment of an independent main singing part (e.g., in an opera or cantata) has to be copied.

As an abbreviation in a score, colla parte means that one part should play the melody line, for example in flute or first violin, without writing it out again. Usually only a wavy line indicates the duration of the colla parte notation (cf. Faulenzer).Chris (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Or, as tis example has it: "Oboe d'amore I/II e Violino I col Soprano, Violino II coll' Alto, Viola col Tenore, Continuo", instruments double the voices, - however, as no such parts survived for the motet, it's up to a conductor to specify which instruments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the inclination, please contribute to the Talk page of the English glossary. A certain editor wants to retain the brief definition, which can be interpreted in multiple ways.Chris (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I have discussions enough right now. What do you think of a footnote here, then? It might be enough to say that instruments play along with the voices, instead of independent music (which is characteristic of Bach's cantatas). Unless you just want to drop it. The article had almost 30.000 readers over the last week, and you were the only one to miss something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote sounds great.Chris (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around, and was surprised that Oxford Reference also had no good definition. Fine, I'll try. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a footnote in the infobox, and explained in the lead and when it's first mentioned, - that's where we would link. I left the later references to the term unchanged, as we wouldn't link again. Feel free to translate the little German article (which is taken word for word from one of the definitions on the web, so beware of copyright violation) and link, instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]