# Talk:Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn, BWV 132

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn! BWV 132/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As politely requested, I will give this a review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


### Lead
Why does the article have an exclamation mark (!) - the Bach Cantata source doesn't include it.
bach-cantatas doesn't have the last word on this and other facts, - however after checking a few others, I will move,- thank you! - Should I perhaps do that after the review? --GA
Yes, let's get through the review first, then we'll worry about the move. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The lead says the cantata was first performed on 22 December 1715 twice. Also it would be worth making it clear that this was the fourth Sunday after advent for that year.
Second time dropped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Omg my birthday is on 22 December! Vincent60030 (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


### History and words
What does "dating it himself" mean?
It means that we are lucky enough that Bach provided a date. (Most often he didn't.) --GA
When did Bach write the Cantata - 1714 or 1715?
1715, why?
It wasn't clear from reading the prose that it was Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The second paragrah refers to Philippians 4:4–7 and John 1:19–28, but the next source along (Bach Cantata's) doesn't mention this
The readings for the liturgical come from Church cantata (Bach), but I will add a source for you. --GA
"The same thought appears in the beginning of Handel's Messiah" - is "thought" the right word to use here?
What would you say, - one is English, one is German,so it's not the same, also Handel's librettist started a verse earlier. Perhaps "bible passage"? --GA
I think "passage" is the right word to use here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
"He could not revive the work in Leipzig" - why was he trying to revive it there? Also the remainder of this paragraph needs a source.
He "revived" almost all Weimar cantatas as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, for Easter, Christmas, you name it, - how to say that? --GA
The source for the publication is in the free score, how to reference that. I will look for Advent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's one of several, but I hesitate to include an extra source for a term for which we have an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Better: found it on page 86 of the Dürr source, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


### Structure and scoring
Minor stylistic point - do we normally put letters after each part (eg: "soprano (S)")
"it may have been noted in a simple setting on a separate sheet" - I think the word you want is "recorded" instead of "noted"
"written"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


### Music
"in a swinging 6/8 time" - I'd expect "swinging" to be something a jazz combo did, not a Bach cantata, maybe lose this word?
Compare BWV 140, look for "funky" - if you are concerned, we can drop it,now that I added a Gardiner qiote. GA
"The soprano calls in melismas of several measures of semiquavers" - what does "calls in" mean in this context?
Added a bit, calls "Prepare the ways!" - Open to better suggestions. --GA
"The voice and the continuo are at times set in imitation" - what does "set in imitation" mean here?
wl now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
More later Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's too much else to add for the review as it stands, so I'll put the review on hold now. Sorry about doing it in fits and starts, real life has intervened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What still needs attention? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the main thing that needs attention is my commitment to finishing off GA reviews, which I have now addressed by completing the few outstanding issues, so I'm happy to pass the review now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of the reception history of the composition seems a bit weak and one-sided (basically: only first publication mentioned and a very elaborate list of recordings) — where are the other reception topics? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First publication of a work is generally mentioned when such information is relevant (hint: almost always), without that bringing any kind of bias (example, On the Origin of Species has it's initial publication date in the lead sentence, even though there are other editions mentioned later and even though a dedicated section is there for the actual reception of the work). As such, I am removing the tag. Listing the publications of the work could be done as in BWV 4, but still, simply listing all the different editions of a work doesn't make the article better unless there are significant differences between them. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)