# Talk:Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75

This review is transcluded from Talk:Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede
Rep of ambitious
"expands the contrast " -doesn't seem right here, try "illustrates" or "exaggerates" or something
The contrast is given by the biblical quote, he expands the thoughts, - better wording welcome. --GA
Tim riley Any thoughts? Perhaps you can also provide some pointers here..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if you make it "expands on" rather than just "expands" it will read very well. Tim riley talk  17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, tried ---GA
History
Delink Thomaskantor and link in first instance in Background. Also why is one in Italics and not the other?
Linked in lede and on first occurrence in body now, all italic, --GA
Again "expands the contrast" and rep of "The poet expands"
s.a. --GA
"non-Leipzig paper" -what is that? Is Leipzig paper special or something?
Musicologists know the (different) kind of paper used in Leipzig vs. what Bach used in Köthen, - better wording welcome. --GA
Scoring
Just a list, not your usual summary? Couldn't you find anything in detail on each part?
Will be a table - after Nielsen ;) --GA
Music
Watch ] here : chorale cantata]s
thank you, fixed --GA
A source for selecting recordings would be useful at the top.

Do you mean for criteria of selection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I mean add the citation link after "A list of recordings is provided by Aryeh Oron on the Bach-Cantatas website."
Made the source an inline citation, ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I was waiting to see if Tim riley had some further points beyond my own but this looks passable now, good work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75. 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/20120510104746/http://www.carus-verlag.com/index.php3?BLink=JSBach&selSprache=1 to http://www.carus-verlag.com/index.php3?BLink=JSBach&selSprache=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include the excellent recordings and videos of this and many other works released by the Netherlands Bach Society? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVigm_9XHj0&list=PLecKPCyj4yRMxTujJw1hSwtFK0-KiUTx1&index=41
§ Pedro Pereira  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profesorpereira (talk • contribs) 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC) 

They have been included, see other cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have heard recordings of the sinfonia from this work by good/responsible/informed groups, some of which have the trumpet part in the upper octave (which places it quite high but doesn't seem out of line compared with other trumpet parts by Bach), while others have it in the lower octave (which seems quite low, and I wouldn't be surprised if a different instrument was being used, but it fits, it sounds good, and is obviously favoured by some experts). Is there good information available about the reasons behind this detail? TooManyFingers (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that in the (older) Bach-Gesellschaft edition it is printed high, and in the (more up to date) Neue Bach-Ausgabe it is printed low. This almost certainly means that the topic is discussed in the editors' notes of the two publications. I guess someday I'll look it up. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)