# Talk:Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"two solo violins (the second one only introduced in a later performance)" This bit of the lead is confusing; from the discussion of the tenor aria No. 4 it sounds like the designation "solo" was added to an existing part, which might or might not have been played tutti at first. This highlights the need for a discussion of sources: were completely new materials prepared for an unspecified performance after 1724, or was "solo" written in what appears a later hand? Sparafucil (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know more (yet) than what the source says, - not if in a different ink on the same sheet or a different copy, but don't think it matters too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see it at all in the Emanuel Church reference given below in the mvt 4 paragraph. I'm happy to save the source material discussion for FA nomination, but maybe the parenthetical remark had best be dropped for now? Sparafucil (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I will look (probably tomorrow) where I read it. In the Weimar version we have one, for movement 1. The two are in the tenor aria,movement 4, and I can imagine that in the intimate Weimar space perhaps only two violinists played, - no need to specify solo. OR, I know, but we see on the picture that there was not much room on the organ loft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments - many are not related to the GA criteria explicitly but I thought I might as well note them, now I'm here.

"first performed it" did "he" first perform it, or was it "first performed" on that date?  Minor quibble.
Both, he played violin, conducting the ensemble. More specific now, --GA
I am happy to take advice, but is it worth considering linking some of the other technical terms like "librettist" and "stanza"?
librettist yes, - stanza is unlinked for five years now, even in the FAs. Some say "strophe" which seems to be taken right from the German. --GA
I always prefer to use expansions before abbreviating them, e.g. SATB...
drop abbr at all in lead --GA
Bible references need en-dashes for page ranges.
fixed, I hope --GA
Relinking, is there a strategy?  For instance you relink St John's Day, but don't relink Leipzig.
the second St. John is a different link, - I hesitate to link Leipzig at all, - what has today's city to do with Bach? --GA
"He did not refer to the Gospel that relates to the birth of the baptist, nor to the baptism of Jesus, but is focused as the song..." maybe I'm tired but this doesn't read quite right - "He did not refer ... but is focused as..."?
My lack of English perhaps? Can we say it simpler? The gospel is the birth (and circumsicion) of the baptist. The librettist didn't refer to that. One might expect, looking at the title, that it is about the baptism of Jesus. He didn't focus on that. Both song and libretto focus on Luther's ideas about baptism derived from the gospel about the baptism of Jesus. Sorry ;)
Hi Gerda! It's not clear whether "He" refers to Luther or the librettist. I reworded the lead a bit; is it correct that Luther's verse 2 corresponds to the bass aria, verse 3 to the tenor recit. and so forth? It would be really interesting to know if the paraphrasing changed any emphases! Otherwise one could just say something like: "like Luther's hymn, the cantata is concerned with the implications of Christ's baptism for the believer, rather than with the the saint whose birth and circumcision are the subject of the prescribed readings." Sparafucil (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the wording. "He" refers to the librettist. - Yes, the verse - movement relation is correct. - Paraphrase: In case we get to FA some day in a distant future, the comparison between hymn and paraphrase could be done, but perhaps better not by me. I would be very careful with theological statements such as "the implications of Christ's baptism". The German article on the hymn has more details, the focus is more the implications of the baptism of a Christian than that of Jesus, - sorry, difficult ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm still struggling to see how this is grammatically correct English right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I simplified, - look if too much. More on the topic of the song should probably be in that article, linked in other settings, not in the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You could link "common time".
done, thought it is common ;) (and reads rather complicated)
I'm not really convinced of the utility of making the table of movements sortable.
you could sort by instruments, for example, - it's a new format, was developed for sortable, I would have trouble to make it not so ;) --GA
The movement headings, I think I'd prefer to see "Movement 1" or "First Movement" rather than simply "1".
Compare FA BWV 165 and others, - we are in a series, --GA
"cantus firmus" is swiftly overlinked in Movement 1's section.
I unlinked it for you... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting to see that Menschenkinder is translated as "humans" rather than mankind, I'm not an expert, just interesting!
Literally it would be "children of humankind" (vs. Son of God), - the translator - a woman - probably tries to avoid "mankind", --GA
"of the number 3 as" again not an expert, but why not "of the third movement"?
It's not the third movement but - the number 3: 3 beats to the measure, each subdivided in 3, 3 sections etc, - all symbols of the Trinity, - compare Mass in B minor#Et in Spiritum Sanctum, --GA
"when human beings" again, isn't this more likely to be "mankind"?
same as before, --GA
Other than these mainly subjective comments, I have no major issues.  I'll put it on hold and allow the discussion to continue a bit.  Good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for careful reading and detailed questions, - looking forward to more discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I had a re-read and I'm satisfied with the updates, so I'll promote.  Good work Gerda. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would 150 or so cantatas have a section header "History and words" but not this one? The "words", both the biblical words of the prescribed readings as the cantata texts, are not "History". - What's wrong with a section header "Music"? (now "Movements") - Music is generally understood, but I can imagine many readers for whom "movement" would need a link of explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Round two: now we have "Music and text". Well, for the other other cantatas, we first have the work of the librettist related to the occasion, in "History and words", then "Music", and that the music is related to the text for a composer like Bach, and that the relation to the text is discussed, is taken for granted. Introducing "text" this late is misleading, making the reader who looks at the TOC expect details on the text here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Also: we discussed how articles on Bach's cantatas should look in 2010 (example), they are a series. It's better for readers to find the same section headers when they go from one cantata to the other. If you think one of the headers could be improved, discuss it first at Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Re. 2010 discussion: the first example you linked to in that discussion looked like this at the time. Section headers:
## History
## Scoring, words and structure
## Movements, text and translation
Not so far from:
## History
## Scoring and structure
## Movements
(at least closer to that than to what you propose now) No section titles were discussed in the WikiProject discussion you are linking to afaics. I'm not sure what you actually try to accomplish in this current discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't "propose" now, I compare similar articles, and suggest that before you change a single one in a series, you talk to the project. In 2013, the first Bach cantata article became FA, BWV 172, and that is the model now, if not for all, then at least for all FA and GA, like this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
BWV 172? has other section titles. Yes it has a "Music" section, which starts with a paragraph on the text exclusively (without its relation to the music)...
Re. "you talk to the project". Yes, please, where is the communication point for the project? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The standard should be adhered to until agreement/consensus for change.
I would agree that readers scan headings before they read more detailed body of the section. Headings should be easily understandable for the general public. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC))
Re. "The standard should be adhered to" – there is no standard afaics. Where is it?
Re. "readers scan headings before they read more detailed body of the section" – this also implies that section titles represent the content of the section. That the description of the text is in the "Music" section and not in the "Occasion and words" section is less than optimal.
Movement is a generally understandable word, it is used multiple times in all of these articles, generally unlinked, so doesn't seem to be a difficult concept to grasp. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
In this article, "movement" is introduced by "Bach used the text of the first stanza of Luther's hymn for the first movement of his cantata", which should make it clear even to somebody for whom "movement" means "motion" that this is different. Then there's a table of movements, to clarify further. Then we had an explaining line "Bach structured the cantata in seven movements" which you changed to "The seven-movements cantata". But the reader of the TOC doesn't know any of that.
In BWV 172, the repetition of the development of ideas at the beginning of "Music" seemed good for a reader who skips to "Music" right away: a development from general to private which the music matches perfectly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
So, nothing tangible for this cantata. As said "movement" is used all over the place in classical music articles, I think this it seldom linked, so doesn't need explanation in a section title.
For the "you talk to the project" and "The standard should be adhered to", I assume these positions are de facto retracted as my questions in this regard were left unanswered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I looked around: Messiah (Handel) has "Music", Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) has "Composition". That would be an alternative. "Movements" seems too narrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd replace the the "Scoring and structure" section title by "Structure and movements" (compare Magnificat (Bach)#Structure and movements), and remove the "Music" section title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
edit conflict:

@Francis Schonken: I've reverted to the original version. Better to discuss respectfully than edit war the change once an editor disagrees with the changes. Movement is often not known or understood by  people who have no classical musical training or background so I would disagree with that suggestion. Its up to the regulars in classical music to decide what is standard. If FA articles are using a particular version that would seem to me to be the standard set for best articles. If editors disagree and want to change that, again, reasoned and respectful discussion is the way to go. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC))
Oh please, let the niceties aside: your first edit to this article was a revert. And then you come here and say others shouldn't revert, unless they "disagree with a change". Please self-revert your tendentious edit to the article, and spare us from your preaching here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I reverted to the original version pending  discussion and agreement. You didn't have agreement at any point and your edit was contentious.
You made an edit that was contested. You were reverted. You then reverted again with out agreement. Perhaps you are familiar with WP: Bold. I also suggested that movement was not necessarily understood by general readership. That is the position I am offering in this discussion.  A revert pending discussion especially by an uninvolved editor  when there is disagreement is a standard editing procedure. And, I prefer to not put niceties aside. I haven't bashed you in this discussion as you have others, per nicety.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC))

Frankly, I was growing tired of all the bullying, including yours. Re. "I haven't bashed you in this discussion as you have others": you're wrong there, so I'd prefer you retract these words.
Re. "standard set" for section titles in composition articles: the GA/FA's don't show a "standard" in this sense, so you were wielding something that doesn't exist. The only "standard" in this sense is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure, but you were bullying me into not using that because I wrote it in part. So here's my coming out: yes I write policy, guidelines and essays every once and awhile. I am perfectly aware how consensus etc. works when doing that. The fact that I contributed to several of these should not be an impediment for me also using them, when they may help out in a discussion etc. So for this article, I propose to go to the "standard set" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure, instead of various WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variations, or links to discussions that don't confirm the current structure for this article (see above). If anyone can improve it from there, they are welcome (the "standard" at the WikiProject guidelines isn't too immovable to not allow variation, see various FAs and GAs that use another structure), but when options are open, and various positions are strongly advocated, the optimal way out seems to follow reccomendations of the WikiProject guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss instead of reverting:

I think "Editions" is a better section header than "Score editions" because some of our readers may know "score" in sports, not music. This article is not only for experts, I try to avoid terms with ambiguous meaning in section headers. "Publications" would work.
Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe seems to exist, but doesn't, it's only Bach-Gesellschaft. Explain a bit? How about: the first attempt to publish all works by Bach. Word it better but don't leave the reader alone with a link to the Gesellschaft.
Neue Bach-Ausgabe in German is the perfect match to this, also our article name. If English is needed, it could come as an explanation.
How about mentioning that the work was assigned BWV 7 because it was the seventh in the Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Some thoughts:
J.S. Bach Complete Edition is an "edition" too, I'd try to avoid confusion with editions of recordings. scores:Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7 (Bach, Johann Sebastian) contains a (web) publication of the score: it is a separate "publication", not a separate "edition" (the edition is the BGA edition). As such the section discusses "editions", not the various publications of these editions. How about "Printed editions" as a section title? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Re. Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe: see bolded incoming redirect in the first paragraph of Bach-Gesellschaft.
Re. Neue Bach-Ausgabe: now moved to New Bach Edition, per WP:USEENGLISH: this is the name the publisher (Bärenreiter) uses on their English-language pages.
Re. your last point: don't see the point of asking that on this talk page: find a reference for the claim, and add it to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Now you, Francis, moved Neue Bach-Ausgabe to New Bach Edition, a publication in German to an English title, while we have operas and universities more and more under their original name. Shaking head. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes I did: see reasons for that move above, and in the edit summary of the page move. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7. 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/20160304191941/https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/ to https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 05:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The correct link is https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/catalogue/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/ – no need for a link to the web archive (which would normally only contain obsolete, and thus non-operational, links). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)