# Talk:Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 11:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright. This is a pretty good article, but the quality of prose is far below what's needed, with parts of it being incomprehensible:

"After two years of regular cantata composition, Bach did not begin his third annual cycle with a new major new work. Only one year later, he composed Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot for the occasion."  - outside of the redundant "new major new work", it's not clear what this is trying to say - do you mean that he took a one-year break from composing cantatas, doing other works? Did he only produce what are considered minor works in the third year of this project? I presume that it's trying to say he didn't begin this composition until the fourth year of his project, but I'm not entirely sure on that point.
I am trying to say - and English is not my first language, so help is appreciated - that it was kind of a surprise that he didn't begin his third cantata cycle with a major work, as cycles I and II the years before, actually not even with a work by himself at all, BUT this cantata became that (expected) major work one year later. Unlike the others, the third cycle stretches over more than one year. Gerda Arendt (talk)

A text poet developed ideas from the Old Testament to central New Testament words. What is a "text poet"?
a too literal translation from the German Textdichter. Should I use librettist? Does it cover enough that the result is poetry? "Librettist" tried. Gerda Arendt (talk)
Librettist sounds right. Perhaps we could emphasise the detail by saying something like "The librettist responsible for turning the Biblical text into poetry". Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Only he didn't. The biblical text is quoted without a change, the librettist wrote the text for the recitatives and arias. Gerda Arendt (talk)
the second with a quotation from the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 13:16) as the central movement 4. - Do you mean that the second part begins with the central fourth movement? If so, that should be something like "the central fourth movement, which begins the second part, starts with a quotation from the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 13:16)." (Also, the first part of that section, "The author organized the text in seven movements in two parts", should be written "The author organised the seven movements into two distinct parts".)
I tried, but the central 4th movement doesn't begin with Hebrews 13:16, - that is the complete text of that short movement. - I won't add my own reflections on Bach composing complicated music for the Old Testament, simple music for the New, - OR ;) Gerda Arendt (talk)
Ah, right. I think I see a way forwards then.
While the article passes all other GA criteria, the prose issue blocks this from being a GA. However, there aren't that many problems, so if you can clarify the points listed above, I can probably get this fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Doing so. Thanks for clarifying, we should have this ready for GA pretty soon =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Right, I think that will do. If you plan to go to FA, I'd probably suggest getting in one of the expert copyeditors floating around, but, despite how I may have made it sound (for which I apologise), it wasn't that bad outside of the few bits that were unclear. If you ever want me to look over things again, please ask me!
 Pass Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. FA will be much later if at all. You read my mind, though, but I will start with an early work, BWV 172. I will ask you once I get there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds great! I'm a huge fan of Bach, although admittedly haven't heard as much of his works as I'd like. CDs get expensive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend using the English edition of Dürr for checking translations here (or in other articles on cantatas). There is also a more careful analysis of the structure of the first movement in Dürr, which could be added in the text. I regret that is not possible to have audio-visual material (even just musical quotations). Audio files are possible for the whole body of organ music, but how could it be done with a cantata? Another resource that has not been used so far are the older texts of Spitta, Schweitzer and Terry, which can be useful. Might it also be an idea to increase the lengths of the German text used for each movement and include an English translation from sources like Terry or elsewhere? Mathsci (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do so, - I don't have the English edition. Add the detailed analysis, - I don't have the vocabulary ;) - This is Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am adding new content to the article at present using Dürr (in English). The first problem I have found is the lack of inline page references. I suspect Gerda used used the German text, since I added the OUP English edition to the article when it was more or less written.  Please could we separate the portion in "notes" for inline references and "references" for a bare list of sources (books, journal articles, etc) used. That helps with harvnb/harvtxt referencing and actually helps the reader decipher what the sources are. Precisely two books are cited, Wolff and  Dürr (there are at least 2 others on cantatas).
I also noticed that the Lachterman programme notes were a deadlink. What had been quoted seemed to be cribbed from Dürr. That is not surprising: these were intended as programme notes, not scholarly texts of reference. Lachterman's programme notes are not peer-reviewed and do not represent the same level of scholarship. I would question his statements about recorders. The chronology of Bach's compositions, particularly the cantatas, has been more or less determined (e.g. by careful examination of the surviving manuscripts). There are scholarly articles on Bach's use of particular instruments, in particular the alto recorder. In BWV 39, the recorders and oboes are scored similarly in the first movement, with the two groups responding to each other (and the upper strings). So the statement by Lachterman about recorders representing poverty, written in wikipedia's voice, seems quite dubious. Two alto recorders have definitely been used as instruments of mourning in BWV 106/i, in keeping with the funereal nature of the actus tragicus. But that statement seems like an unhelpful generalisation when made outside the context of a particular movement: did the now deadlink text refer the BWV 39/i or the aria for soprano and recorder[s]?. (Revelation: I play the baroque recorder and play/am familiar with the secular and sacred repertoire of Bach for that instrument including BWV 39; also a flautist (not baroque wooden alas) and the same applies.) 
Although I admire Sir John Elliott Gardiner, I don't understand why we have an extensive quote together with a picture of him. Is he any more special in Bach performance than Gustav Leonhardt, Nicholas Haroncourt or Philppe Herreweghe? (Of course, they all originally performed together.) Why is his picture there at all? I can see that it adds a little bit of vitality for the reader. Why not Marcel Ponseele? He is the oboe soloist in Herreweghe's Concerto Vocale of Ghent. The gramophone review (1994) writes of him: "as usual, the oboe playing of Marcel Ponseele is a constant pleasure, above all for his poetic phrasing and communicative articulation."[1]
Anyway I'm still adding content on BWV 39/i, which should take the rest of the day. I might look for some new sources in book or journal form. I might even include some musical quoatations and some other images of the autograph manuscript. Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding, - brief replies:
Yes, I used the German text originally, - page numbers of the translation are welcome.
I am sorry that the Lachterman ref is so long ago that I don't recall it. Specific things about recorders would better go to Baroque instruments, - a work still at the beginning.
As explained in one of the GA reviews: I use the image of John Eliot Gardiner as a visible link to modern performance, what you called "vitality". At the time of writing, it was the only image of the conductors you named. Now we also have Harnoncourt, - but he looks much less "vital" ;)
Go ahead, it's lovely to see an "old" article blossom! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Like BWV 105, this is such a great work. I had forgotten that I had practised the complete recorder part. I'll try to get a reference for that instrumental volume. It also had the "Ruddier than the cherry" aria from Acis and Galatea, but none of the three Vivaldi sopranino concertos. Also some Purcell and Schütz (Xmas story). Almost all of my sheet music is still in France. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It was this, but with a red cover.[2] I remember the flutter tonguing for the dove from Britten's Noye's Fludde. (I bought the music at the Early Music Shop when it was still on Chiltern Street in London.) Mathsci (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Here are the contents. [3] Actually only partial contents. I do not think I played the Henze, but I remember the Rinaldo arias. It also had the Sonatina from BWV 106. I remember the sinfonia from BWV 152 because as it's also a first movement of one of the organ sontatas BWV 525-530. There was also "Stein, der uber alle Schatze", BWV 152/iv. [4] (your homegrown Barbara Schlick—what a terrible article, she sang Cleopatra in Giulio Cesare) They don't properly list the movements from BWV 161; I'll have to refresh my memory. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I found the Lachterman.[5] The corrected source is still in the article, but now unused. It is obviously derived from Durr and has several problems. It hardly describes the two arias: they are dismissed as "dulcet arias" dwarfed by the first movement. The first movement is in ABC form not ABA form as Lachterman states, and so on. It is a chatty, gossipy programme note with loose references to religious iconography. It is obviously not peer-reviewed and not written by a recognised Bach scholar.  It contains too many errors and/or vaguenesses and, as a result, I cannot see how it can be used for this article. Better to find sources elsewhere on Bach's use of alto recorders in cantatas. The use of two recorders in unison in the autograph score in the aria BWV 39/v is notable; the scoring is reminiscent of the much earlier sonatina BWV 106/i. I will look for sources. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a 1975 Ph.D. from one of the centres of Bach scholarship,[6] the Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester:[7] "The use of flutes and recorders in the church cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach". The author is Nan Ellen Orthmann Sharp, born in 1944. This is a useful reference with a chapter on recorders; there might be something more recent in a published journal. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The appendix contains a list of all cantatas using flutes and/or recorders. Those with recorders are: BWV 13 (1726, 2), BWV 18 (1713-1714, 2), BWV 25 (1723, 2), BWV 39 (1726, 2), BWV 46 (1723, 4), BWV 65 (1724, 2), BWV 96 (1724, sopranino), BWV 103 (1725, sopranino), BWV 106 (1707, 2), BWV 122 (1724, 3), BWV 127 (1725, 2), BWV 142 (1712-1714, 2), BWV 152 (1714, 1), BWV 161 (1715,2), BWV 175 (1725, 3), BWV 180 (1724, 2), BWV  182 (1714, 1) and BWV 189 (1707-1710, 1). Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There is also the English translation of a 2 part article that appeared in the online magazine Blockflöte.[8][9] by N. Tarasov. This includes the early version of the Magnificat BWV 243a and the Easter Oratorio BWV 249. In addition there is a 1736 accompanied recitative from the St Matthew Passion BWV 244/xix and the 1728 concerto for harpsichord and two alto recorders BWV 1054, Bach's transcription of the fourth Brandenburg Concerto (a work I've played). Mathsci (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

When we discussed how articles on Bach cantatas should look like, we decided against text and translation (archive Classical music 2010). The text is foreign to most readers, the choice of a translation is subjective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Adding: the translation from the King James version is available in the link in the words section. It is NO good translation of the German, which would be something worth having. "Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot" means "Break your bread to the hungry", not the complicated wording of the English Bible. Bach-Cantatas has several translations, - why have any in our article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
IF we have text (which I still think is not a good idea), the layout should match original and translation line by line. Images in that section are a problem on small screens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot ("Break your bread for the hungry" (tr: Dellal) or "Give the hungry ones thy bread"),(tr: Drinker), it's easy to see that the Dellal translation is closer to the German, - Drinker misses the image of the breaking (an important Christian symbol) and the singular of "dem Hungrigen", which would be "hungry one". I think we should not even offer it in the lead, if at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Re. "When we discussed... we decided..." – probably it's about time to have this discussion again (including how to handle this at chorale prelude articles, & including approach to illustrations).
Why not something like this (e.g. for the 7th movement):


#### Seventh movement: Chorale
The cantata is closed with stanza 6 from David Denicke's hymn "Kommt, laßt euch den Herren lehren" (1648). This hymn is sung to the melody of "Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele", which was codified by Louis Bourgeois.

This closing chorale, "Selig sind, die aus Erbarmen" (Blessed are those who, out of mercy) is a four-part setting, "symmetrical and predictable until the last two phrases" of two-and-a-half measures each.

– instead of having a separate "text only" section, while, after all, this is an article about how text and music are connected? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd support that, similarly for the other movements. Good point about the connection of text and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Compare (similar) Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161#6. Different question: Francis, why would you italicize the poem? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 Unfortunately I cannot see the purpose in writing a separate article on the libretto. When I've finished adding the content, it could be considered; but some parts of the text are required for the content, as in the principal source (Alfred Dürr, OUP edition). I've already found huge gaps for the hymns for chorales, which more often than not I have had to fill myself. Sometimes there are no hymn articles. A solis ortus cardine was an example of a hymn adapted by Luther. It had no text at all. 
At the moment the text here is still required for writing the new content for the music section. So please wait until I have finished that. 
I am not aware of any rules for these articles. I wrote BWV 105 without any rules. I do know that there are rules about infoboxes which apply to Gerda and Andie Mabbett. I have no views one way or the other about infoboxes and happily unearth high resolution autograph scores, when they exist. In preparing this, I noticed that the German article has almost no content and the Norwegian contains article very little more than the text. The French cantata template incoorporates the image of of the autograph score of Wie zittern  that I uploaded for BWV 105. That made me smile.
My main concern here was with an article which, although not unreasonable, I found considerably less helpful than the main reference (Dürr). The content of Dürr's section on BWV 39 has not been adequately summarised. The sourcing was also haphazard: what could be found on the web, but not much from books or journals. In particular there are also two English references (Whittaker and Robertson) which cover all the cantatas; they can be useful. Part is them have  been copied in the last month or two in the fourth discussion section on BWV 39 on bach-cantatas.com. These sources are not useful in the same way as Dürr, who helped produced the Bach-Ges. editions. Whittaker came from a quite different performing tradition, one that has been replaced by the original instruments revolution. Until about 50 years ago, almost all Bach choral works in England were performed in English translation. Indeed I have recently been shown the wartime weekly choir sheets for the oldest choir in Britain, St George's Chapel Choir (1348) in Windsor Castle. They would sing Palestrina and Lassus in Latin, but Bach and Handel in English. I am about to add a photograph of Doc Harris to William Henry Harris, which contains a description of the activities of the choir at Windsor during the wartime period
when the Royal Princesses were in residence.
The choice of translations was clear here. As with the hymn texts (largely covered by "Bach's Chorals" of Terry), I chose published metrical translations outside copyright. The hymn for the final chorale does not exist in any article on wikipedia. However, this contemporary translation was prepared by the same musicians in London who worked with the English Bach in introducing Bach's music to London. (That history is recounted in CB III.) It is a metrical translation. Not having access to Terry's book on the Cantata texts or the 1903 Novello text (Paul England), I chose the Drinker text, also a metrical translation. These translations almost always produce a rhyme where it occurs in German. The Terry and England translations are not available on the web but are in my university library and the library of the nearby music department.
I have not finished adding new content. The problems with the article were the following, There were too many direct quotes. The text of Dürr (2006) was barely used; and much that had been placed in the article from other less reliable sources was unscholarly. That applied to the statements about Bach's use of recorders, as explained above (I have added a source for the use of recorders in Bach's cantatas). It also applied to the statement that the cantata was broken by a sermon. I have found no evidence that that happened in any of the cantatas in 2 parts. The arias are not well described, nor the bass solo accompanied by an obbligato violoncello. The 1726 manuscript of the individual parts has two continuo parts, one of them annotated by Bach and containing indications when the cello should play without the double bass. 
The description of the complicated structure of the opening movement is not yet finished and requires the three parts of the text. I found errors in the tables of the movements. I have adopted the change of keys described in Dürr. The bass solo, movement 4, is a duet in canon and counterpoint between bass and obbligato violoncello. How was that missed? 
Some text will be required so please leave it there while I finish improving the content. After that I'm happy to discuss matters. But not while I'm creating new content. Please find something else to do while that is ongoing (s day or two). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you feel about including the text in the coverage of a single movement, instead of having it all in one uncommented section? That is how I understand Francis' approach, which I can follow. - It would be nice if we'd concentrate on improvements, rather than asking how something could have been wrong or missed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no fixed ideas about the texts, and your suggestion might be the way to go, once I've created the new content. I have an open mind on the matter, but need this text while creating the new content. I would prefer not to be rushed. There is no deadline here.
I have also found a nice high resolution engraving.of a baroque musical ensemble from the period with recorder, oboe, harpsichord, portly male singer (a castrato?), violin, cello, bassoon, etc. So please can we delay this discussion until I've added the content? I have an open mind. I am aware that more than half the score is taken up with the first movement, so particular attention is needed there. But the other movements require TLC. Perhaps you feel uneasy about a bare text section? Isn't that what happens in the hymn articles? It could be made collapsible, I suppose. Anyway I will continue uploading the image. This is a very poor doctored version of it.[10] I found the scanned original manuscript on gallica and reconstituted the tiles.
So I'm open to all suggestions once I've done the hard work of adding content and locating sources not on the web. I had to do the same for the Handel organ concertos and concerto grossi. In that case somebody had stolen the source (Sadie's BBC booklet) from the university library, so I had to order it from an antiquarian bookseller. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, BWV 39 is the only cantata with the full text and translation, BWV 105 has none. Featured articles typically have the chorale. I think that the Baroque texts are a barrier to Bach's cantatas, even in German, how much more in translation. What do you think about that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with you on the texts. (I probably would agree in the case of Handel opera.) The musical iconography of the repeated high notes in the recorder against pizzicato strings in BWV 161/iv is an example of how the sung text is reflected in the accompaniment. The accompaniment represents the funereal bells.[11] No need for any rush at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no rush, just thoughts. I am all for quoting parts of the texts in connecting to the music, but will have to be convinced that the full text is helpful for the average reader, - open to listening, but off for the weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, once the music section is written in a more complete form, that will become obvious. The present arrangement is temporary. The text at the moment quite clearly conveys the idea of "help thy neighbour, feed the needy". The text for the first movement is highly relevant. It's just a reworking of Isaiah 57:7-8. If everything is in a different place, that doesn't always help. Only summaries of the two recitatives will probably be needed. The arias are so short that they can be included in their own section. The Drinker translation are not bad; I will look at the England and Terry translations, hpefuly today. The hymn for the chorale at the end could have its own wikipedia article with the 1723 translation (of which this is the 6th verse from memory).[12][13] I will think about this while composing the content. Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


### Recitatives
An example of dealing with a recitative is Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161#2: Mention that it is a recitative + voice, the incipit, a translation with a source, the instrumentation, the relationship of text and music. BWV 39 is an "older" article, therefore didn't follow that pattern. Thank you for improving! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


### Images
I believe that a still life of instruments and someone carrying them would suit Baroque instruments much better than this specific work. Generally, squeezing text between images right and left should be avoided. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope to add more content on instruments, geared to this particular cantata.  The idea of moving new content into other articles (in this case images) is not helpful to the reader, particularly when the other articles are not well written or do not specifically mention Bach or this period in Leipzig.  I would say that it is better to duplicate images than create rigid rules. (I have noticed that whenever I upload an image of an autograph manuscript, I later find it duplicated in many places. That seems to be the way to go. The French use BWV 105/iii on their cantata template.)  One of the only good points about the German article on this cantata—it's not much more than a list—is that the German references are fully up to date, including the texts of Dürr, Koopman & Wolff and Schulz. Only the part of Koopman & Wolff on early cantatas has been been translated into English as far as I know. Have you seen it?
The new images of instruments were unearthed and downloaded to contain recorders and oboes. The still life was chosen to contain all the instruments used in BWV 39 (well, not the triangle, tambourine and hunting horn). Similarly the image of a baroque orchestral ensemble. I am still unearthing information about instrumentation, having seen that the anonymous copyist annotated a cello and double bass in one of the continuo parts for the BWV 39/i. Obviously there were no hard and fast rules—performances changed in revivals subject to availability of performers—but it would be nice to give a clearer picture.  Jeremy Montagu's article is good, but there are probably others. I was initially uneasy with the undue emphasis given to Ernst Ludwig by adding an image: he is only mentioned as a "possible" author of the librettos; the significance of Johann Ludwig Bach was underplayed in a previous version of the narrative. Perhaps you were using the 1981 edition of Dürr? It is spelt out in detail in the 2006 English edition and also probably in the 1999 German edition. At the moment I am busy encoding BWV 39/v in lilypond. Mathsci (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I think nobody doubts that an image of an autograph of a piece is not good for the piece. You can add them to whatever language yourself, the coding is mostly compatible, - a local editor watching can change a caption if needed. - I don't see what the image of the instrument maker adds to this article (with the instruments illustrated much better on the still-life), but I probably don't have to ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Ahem, what educational value did the image of John Elliott Gardiner have in the article? You mentioned "vitality". Only the bottom segment of an alto recorder, poking out from under the music book, is visible in the still life.
I am currently adding content on instruments. The recorders are the exceptional instruments that Bach added to the Meiningen ensemble for BWV 39. In the article there are now at least three separate sources for material on Bach's orchestra in Leipzig. I have already added the words "Kunstgeiger" and "Stadtpfeifer" to the history section from Hans-Joachim Schulze's 1989 article. Adrienne Simpson's article has a detailed explanation of the use of recorders in baroque orchestral music, including what they represented and how and why Bach used them (and why he stopped using them). There is also Sharp's 1975 article.
To change the subject, do you have access to the 3rd volume of Wolff's 2006 German book on cantatas? It would be useful for all the cantata articles (from one review I read, I understand that it does not go into any detail on particular cantatas). Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want us to see the alto recorder, I'm afraid you need to mention it in the caption. Please don't change subject, make it a new header then. I'm sorry to be just a lover of music, without access to scientific literature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
(ec) The first image shows baroque instruments in general. The second now has an image which describes the flute maker, explains that he is carrting recorders and instructs the reader to click three times on the image for more details. When he or she does so, they find a high resolution image of exceptional quality showing a manufacturer of baroque instruments who would have served the ancient guilds of Stadtpfeifer from which many of Bach's instrumentalists were drawn (indeed Bach was later in his period at Leipzig responsible for selecting and training these musicians). The engraving is annotated in French and German and the caption, with numbers 1 from 10, describes the tools of the artisan, and the baroque wood2ind instruments that he carries including quite visibly two recorder and another form of fipple flute. In the background can be seen an oboist and a flautist. The image accompanies two paragraphs of detailed description of the use of the recorder in the baroque period and by Bach itself. This content replaces a misleading phrase about recorder which was drawn from a gossipy programme note prepared by a media classical musical critic from Upper New York State.  In BWV 161 you again list the 1971 [sic] edition of Dürr. Please update that to the 1999 edition, which is radically different, and listed in this article. I do not have the German edition, only the English translation which I bought when it was first published (in that connection, see my email). Happy hiking, Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I still get an image-table collusioncollision in Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39#First movement and an image-image collusioncollision in Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39#Seventh movement. Can this be sorted? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The section is headed "in use" so is still being actively edited, as the template suggests. The musical quotation is part of the text. There will be other musical quotations and three audio files for BWV 39/i, BWV39/iii, BWV 39/iv and BWV 39/v. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean "collision"? And do you mean between the coding of the German-Englsh texts and the Rembrandt image? Are you using an iphone or some tiny device? Mathsci (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about the collusion/collision confusion, corrected above. If it is sorted by the time you are done I'm OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

imho,
a general discussion of which types of flutes where used by Bach at which time should go to Bach's choir and orchestra#Winds, and not reside in the article on a single cantata (Bach's choir and orchestra#Instruments seems also suitable for general baroque instruments images).
a general discussion of the structure of the "Meiningen 1704" librettos should go to Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig#Libretto cycle published in Meiningen, and not reside in the article on a single cantata.
The rationale behind these suggestions is WP:CONTENT FORK. Summaries of such general discussions can of course be in the article of this cantata (with a proper link to the general discussion).
Also here I don't want to interfere as long as someone is working on it: when it is settled by the time that work is done, I'm OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure these comments are helpful at this stage. I am writing appropriate content for this particular cantata as a model of how it can be done: I am only halfway through (the lilypond encoding will take a while, particularly for the first movement, where I hope to create a compact eight stave miniature score). In creating this, I am not going to create content on other poorly sourced or poorly written articles. Of course the content created here can be amplified, rewritten and duplicated elsewhere (with attribution). Removing it from here would not help the reader. I am aware that that much content related to cantatas is not at present on wikipedia: I am doing my best on this article.
The first rule of writing wikipedia articles was broken here: find good sources. I am not criticising Gerda for that: she used what was available to her, without seeking out references in books and journals. That takes quite a bit of effort and sourcing is found gradually and often serendipitously—one source leads to others. I have privately supplied Gerda with one of the main references. But I cannot improve this article by simultaneously having to work on related poorly sourced or poorly written articles, to which this article has never made reference (by wikilink). It is true that BWV 106, which also has extensive use of recorders, needs a lot of work. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I seem to be the wikipedian who added Dürr as a source for BWV 106 in 2008 (with a quotation).[14] Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ... (Pardon my French.) Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that the content I created is specifically about BWV 39, particularly the second paragraph which explains its relevance to the theme of the cantata. The first paragraph is provided for context, to explain why BWV 39 was the last occasion Bach scored for the recorder in his cantatas. The six or seven sources used contain far more material, particularly for the pre-Leipzig period when Bach used recorders far more extensively. Text on that general topic would be quite different and would include a careful discussion of sopranino recorders. Mathsci (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, Sonntags- und Fest-Andachten is available as a link now (it currently redirects to Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig#Libretto cycle published in Meiningen). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Ahem, content you added just recently after my edits on this article.[15] That list redirects to this article. No source is given for the list. Why do you refer to Dürr/Jones? Jones was just the translator. The discussions of the librettos are in the publications of William H. Scheide, Küster, Goltz, Ercke & Schneider and Dürr (who summarises the research of Scheide and Küster), included as references in this article. Scheide's articles are "Johann Sebastian Bachs Sammlung von Kantaten seines Vetters Johann Ludwig Bach", Part I: Bach Jahrbuch 1959,52–94; Part II: BJ 1961, 5–24; Part III: BJ 1962, 5–32. Küster discussed the librettos in "Meininger Kantatentexte um Johann Ludwig Bach", BJ 1987, 159–64 and "Die Frankfurter und Leipziger Uberlieferung der Kantaten Johann Ludwig Bachs’, BJ 75 (1989), pp. 65–106. Those references are given as a footnote on page 169 of Vol 2 of Richard Jones contained in list of references here ("The Creative Development of J. S. Bach"). I have not seen any list of the librettos in a published English language source, just footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see where that is a reply to my suggestions above. If you think there's room for improvement at Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig#Libretto cycle published in Meiningen then WP:SOFIXIT. There's no {{in use}} there afaics. As long as we agree on the principle that the *general* treatment of the Meiningen librettos is there, and the *specifics* of the BWV 39 libretto are here, with a link to the general treatment, I couldn't care less who wrote what first, or which of a variety of sources the footnotes use (as long as these footnotes conform to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Blanken 2015, and Bach Digital 2016 (sources I used) are of course "cutting edge" compared to Scheide 1959–62. Of course these more modern sources refer to the older ones, we're talking about serious scholarship here, so no reader of the article following up on the references used for it has to mis out on anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The content you are talking about is from two footnotes (one in Dürr and one in Blanken). The Blanken footnote just gives the titles of the 1st and 3rd editions of the Meiningen librettos, but without any context and no discussion; Dürr writes that it is possible that Ernst Ludwig was the author, not probable. He quotes the two people who did the original research, i.e. William Scheide and Konrad Kŭster. In the Oxford Companion to Bach, Kŭster, in the entry for BWV 39, writes "During this period Bach had recourse to church music originating in the court chapel of Meiningen: to texts written perhaps by Duke Ernst Ludwig, and to compositions by Bach's distant cousin Johann Ludwig Bach." The word "perhaps" is non-committal, like "possibly". The Bach Jahrbuch periodical can be found in most university libraries.[16] Blanken is not the expert on the Meiningen material, indeed her preliminary report is on a tangential topic (Birkmann). Erck and Scheider also discuss this in detail.[17] 10 pages on the relations between JL and JS Bach, not two ambiguous footnotes. Unless you actually go and read the detailed references, I cannot see any point in discussing this further.  It doesn't have very much to do with writing the article. The audio file and miniature score for BWV 39/v are almost ready, so I would appreciate it if you would allow me to get on with that. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a lot of new sources. Some are less reliable (giving the wrong date of composition), but some, such as Cantagrel's immense volume in French, are useful complements to Dürr's 2006 text. I am unconvinced by the reliability or authority of Julian Mincham's webpage, well meaning as it is. Other lecturers in music at similar institutions have used BWV 39 as a model for discussing Bach's compositional techniques. Luke Dahn, a composer and teacher in the US, has created a lot of content on the cantatas, in particular BWV 39. He has produced a page with the comparative list of all the harmonisations of Bourgeois' hymn.[18] He has also produced a teaching video on the beginning of the first movement based on Herreweghe's recording.[19] While probably not suitable as authoritative sources, both Mincham and Dahn are useful guides as to how to present the material on wikipedia. I liked Mincham's use of audio files, even if his actual audio files leave something to be desired. Luke Dahn's video is very informative: on wikipedia such information can be provided by suitable renderings of the score—taking the hint from Dahn—along with midi files. My plan is to create lilypond files for BWV 39/i, BWV 39/iii and BWV 39/v, starting with the second aria. I also would like to dig out material on Bach's orchestra: the use of chamber organ, the use of doublebass (marked in the continuo part in Bach's hand), the use of other continuo instruments (bassoon and harpsichord (Seoul Bach soloists), lute (Koopman), etc). Dürr discusses Bach's orchestra in Leipzig (in particular Bach's letter of 1729) and there is plenty of literature on the topic (books, articles in journals or books, etc). I have not yet resolved the problem of how to render a chorus on a midi file, but have found one reasonable solution for a similar choral fantasia movement: BWV 140/i on kunstderfuge.com. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Gerda, are you using the 1981 German edition of Dürr? I have updated the reference to the 11th edition from 1999. The English translation of Dürr was based on all research available up to 2000 and almost certainly the same is true of the German 11th edition. A lot of research about BWV 39 post-dates 1981 (Meiningen cantatas, precise dating). Might it possibly be time to acquire the new edition if you don't already have it? 14 euro Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have prepared and am preparing audio files for movements 1, 3, 5 and 7. I have completed the first and longest section of the first movement and think I have now achieved a reasonable approximation to a cantata sound, with chorus singing firmly within the orchestra, without too much resonance. I will prepare a similar version of the chorale. I am still contemplating whether to render the remaining three movements. If I can simulate the sound of muted gut strings, I will do so.  Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the apparent consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 63#Bach question I'd replace all MIDI-based audio examples in this article by a sister project template (see →) in the last section of the cantata's article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Implemented the above apart from leaving the audio file for the 7th movement (which has a rather smooth organ sound after the inopportune scratching sound with which it seems to start). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Content is still being created for the analysis section, so could you kindly please stop interfering with my edits while I am in full flow? I have added audio files of various kinds to articles on wikipedia since 2009 without any objections at all, There are no rules. The statement above made it clear that the in use tag still applies. I had obviously not added the audio file for the third section of BWV 39/1 which I started creating a week ago. Nor have I added the criticism for BWV 39/1 as I said I was going to do. That needs the musical quotations from the lilypond file. I've already explained this, so don't why I should have explain it to for an umpteenth time. Here and on Talk:List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, you appear not to take any notice of hat you've been told. I don't know why, But you thought it fine to add a highly negative comment here, eight days after my pregoress report; then, without waiting for a response, you chose to make a  highly contentious edit which you knew would be reverted. Presumably you that knowing how much effort was required to crate these files and that removing them might cause some distress. It causes me no distress, since these were purely disruptive edits per WP:POINT.
The third audio file has been very difficult to to create. the orchestral parts were fine; but the choral parts harder, particularly the staccato repeated notes in the tenor voice. Regarding lilypond midi files, they exist in the hymn articles with the themes Bach used. I have even written lilypond code in one article. So again you contradict yourself. The statements you made on [[[Talk:List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach]] was self-contradictory. The same is true here. Please stop making negative statements trying to misrepresent consensus. It is not constructive and ultimately extremely unhelpful to the reader. You should try to stop editing like this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Re. "The statement above made it clear that the in use tag still applies" – your behaviour involving the {{in use}} tag is currently the subject of a discussion at ANI. I refer to that discussion.
Regarding synthetic audio files in articles on Bach cantatas I refer again to the WikiProject agreement: if you want to change that agreement, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music is the place to re-raise the issue. Until if and when WP:CCC applies to the current preferences in this area (which I don't think very likely to happen), I keep to the current agreement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There are no hard and fast rules. I am not aware of any audio files like this on the web. You don't even know for what these are intended. Again I cannot agree with you. The audio files, including the extracts, serve a clear educational purpose. I do not see a list of instructions on cantata articles, any more than when I created BWV 105. I know that some editors use CD liner notes to write articles on cantatas. I give precedence to academic sources like Cantagrel. Mathsci (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I looked at that discussion. It involved one editor adding low quality files to an article. I see my friend Graham87 commented there. The article was BWV 1. Looking at it, I can see that somebody has not worked out how to download high quality images from the Bach Archive. The image in the infobox is a scan of a poor quality photo from a book. The audio files were Michel Rondeau's files from IMSLP. They are not even vaguely comparable to the files I created. Nor were they something created painstakingly by a wikipedian with educational purposes and an article in mind. This example File:IMSLP206674-WIMA 15bb-BWV1(V)Sco.ogg is low quality, the solo cannot be heard at all. It sounds as if the singer is being kept imprisoned in the basement of a suburban house. The sound does not even approximate that of a baroque orchestra. Likewise this is appalling quality.File:IMSLP206670-WIMA b627-BWV1(I)Sco.ogg There is no comparison with what I am producing.  My renditions are actually approximations to what I know fron live performances and CD, which I listen to repeatedly while fine tuning and articulating each voice and instrument. I use as models Philippe Herreweghe, his mentors Leonhardt-Harnoncourt (amazingly Jacobs is one of the best altos I've heard), Rilling (for the choir work) and Koopman (for the theorbo); also a little bit of Gardiner. Why suggest a comparison with Michel Rondeau's abominable files? He produced a version of BWV 39/iii for trumpet and organ, which is uneducational.[20] So that discussion was about files of that kind, not a general discussion as you've been suggesting. I am surprised you made that comparison. Not particularly helpful. The files were rejected then because of their very low quality and because they had no educational value. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, for the audio files it seems about time to re-open the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why comment on the section while it's in the course of being written? Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I am preparing these and gradually adding bits to the article today. The orchestral excerpts will be on four staves for the first section of BWV 39/1. I'm not sure if I'll use an audio excerpt for the sinfonia/concerto. Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Step I. Miniscore of sinfonia on four staves and two lines. Should be ready some time in the afternoon. I am not feeling very well at the moment, so it might not be as fast as that. The editing process of the Movement section will probably take at least a week. Maybe longer. Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Step II. Having created the miniscore, I will now contemplate whether perhaps short single stave quotations of motifs might be useful for illustrating the first section of BWV 39/1. The section itself falls naturally into parts as described in the sources: orchestral sinfonia (bars 1-22); slightly lengthened variant of orchestral sinfonia with the motifs of the choir superposed to the words of the first part of the text (bars 23-46) with "florid melismas" on "führe" matching the semiquaver responses of recorders and oboes, contrasting with the sighing suspensions on "elend" [up to figure A in the vocal score]; fugal section accompanied by starting motifs of sinfonia, started by the tenor part, followed by alto, then soprano and finally the bass, leading to a madrigal like cadence (bars 47-69) [up to figure B in vocal score]; reprise of material from bars 23-46 now in the dominant key of f major leading to a cadence beginning the second section (bars 70-92) [up to figure C in vocal score]. Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The page seems to be suffering increasingly of excessive primary material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Which page are you talking about now? This page? The article? Are you talking about the the three books analysing this cantata? At the moment hat you have written is indecipherable. Perhaps some key words were omitted when translating from Flemish into English. At the moment your sentence just reads like gibberish to me. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Step III. As part of Step II I am creating three musical quotations from my lilypond files. The first quotation of bars 23–31 as a four stave vocal score (not dissimilar from the vocal scores of Carus and Breitkopf & Härtel, but with soprano-alto and tenor-bass sharing staves), The second of bars 38–46, in the same format. The last will be of the fugue subject in the tenor part from bars 45–50 on a single stave. It will have to think about how the text is added for these examples. I cannot determine how long this will take, but the in use tag is in force as I continue my edits, preparing and adding material both here and on Commons. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I have created half the miniscore for bars 23–35 by combining 7 instruments into the treble clef. Here it is:

I am now adding the vocal parts, with soprano and alto in the treble clef and tenor and bass in the bass clef. Adding the words might be problematic, but I will do my best. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are the corresponding vocal parts scored using the standard template for an SATB vocal ensemble. I shall next combine the two scores, hoping there is no hitch.

Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Step IV. I am beginning to add content from Dürr, Cantagrel and Zedler for the choral part of the first section of BWV 39/1. Before doing so, I will be remastering the audio file.  I noticed that in following Heerewehghe's dynamics the beginning of the fugue section in the tenor part is inaudible on my ogg file. The same is true in Herreweghe's Ghent performance. Helmuth Rilling's recording seems to be the only one where the problem of balance is solved and the entry of the tenors is audible. The other recordings I have used for reference are those by Leonhardt-Harnoncourt, Koopman and Gardiner as well as a video recording of a South Korean group. I will check to see how they handle the problem. It arises of course because the fugue starts during the last two bars leading up to the cadence in the reprise of the ritornello when the full chorus and orchestra are playing (colla parte). I will try to correct that balance by adjusting the dynamics on the lilypond files. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Step V. I have to consolidate the analysis of section one, which will mean a trip to a university or college library. Section three is unwritten so far and will need at least two musical quotations, possibly more. It will be more straightforward than section one. The audio file for section three is in a rough form at the moment. The chorus is OK, but the articulation and checking of the instrumental parts has not been completed. Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: William Gillies Whittaker's book on the cantatas contains a bar by bar account of this cantata and all the others. It is a useful reference, but not directly available on the web. I have looked at the two volumes in the past. They are old-fashioned in some ways. But the musical analysis is correct and very detailed. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Step VI. I am consolidating the analysis of the movements with detailed material from Whittaker, starting with the last section of the first movement. Where other commentators have lifted sentences verbatim for Whittaker, I am giving precedence to Whittaker. When he completed the second draft of his text in the late 30's and early wartime, the precise dating of Leipzig manuscripts had not occurred (it happened during the 1950s) and Whittaker adheres to the idea, current at the time, of a sudden influx in Leipzig of protestant refugees fleeing from Salzburg. That does not affect his analysis of the music, which John Eliott Gardiner happily uses. Although I find it to be written a bit stodgily (my first reaction when I read it in the early 1990s), knowing his history now, I can recognise—as a fellow Novocastrian familiar with almost all the places where he lived, worked and performed—the unmistakable tone of an ardent self-taught geordie in exile. (Given his circumstances, he almost certainly had an identifiable local accent.) I am now in the process of creating two or three more musical quotations for the final section of BWV 39/i and one or two for the intermediate section. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Step VII. Most of the criticism has been added from Whittaker for the first movement. I will consolidate the remaining movements using the same source. I do not envisage adding ogg files for the recitatives, but might do so for the bass arioso in the fourth movement possibly with one or two more musical excerpts. I am also modifying the instrumental parts (articulation, etc) for the last section to create a ogg file; after that I will assemble an ogg file of the whole movement without breaks. The continuo changes in the different sections: positive organ & bassoon in the first section; positive organ & cello in the second  section; and lute, positive organ & cello in the final section. Wikimedia software might permit sections to be marked in some way and might even permit an accompanying commentary: I will look into that. The rescoring will take a while and could possibly be interrupted by another period in hospital.  Mathsci (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I discovered that from time to time whole sentences in Gardiner's blog are lifted from W.G. Whittaker's book. This is not surprising, but shows the perils of relying on a blog. Whittaker's accounts of all the cantatas are long and detailed, but have the advantage of giving a fairly accurate analysis of where motifs first appear and how they are later re-used in other voices or instruments. Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)