# Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a

This article was begun in memory of Erhard Egidi, who died on 8 September 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should the first Rilling recording by "hybrid" - a combination of D major and Christmas. On the sleeve given as reference, I see no indication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Back of the sleeve, orchestration, which is given by movement. It is the BWV 243 orchestration (flutes in orchestral movements, oboes in Suscepit, etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we agree that the reference doesn't show it, but I believe you AGF?
Can we further agree that the title of the recording is Christmas Magnificats?
Can we agrre that it should not be changed?
Can we agree that the duration is of no relevance in a column saying "Title"? (Of what relevance is it anyway?)
Can we agree that the explanation could go in a footnote?
Can we agree that "interpolations inserted" is an unneeded duplication?
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Re.

The reference shows it. OK, one has to click on the image, and than click a second time for magnification, but it's the images as shown on the reference page.
no, that's a later CD re-edition. And not the only one, another CD re-edition (2014) is called Compare [1]
no, when referring to the 1967 recording, it should be the name of the 1967 recording (besides a little less possesiveness about this Wikipedia article would be welcome. WP:OWN etc... -"it should not be changed" is not what Wikipedia is about)
no, the duration is of relevance as a reference for duration times given like for most compositions
Prefer not, I don't see why it should. It's all standard info on a recording. Another option would be to expand the table with a column.
Not really: it is the D major version with the interpolations inserted, "BACH: MAGNIFICAT in D Major (with 4 Christmas Interpolations)" is how the recorded version is titled on the sleeve. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hope this all works out.  Best not to raise WP:OWN here, particularly given previous experiences.  Just a side comment. Suggest that while improvements and precision are always desirable, when it comes to style and formatting in particular, deference be given to creator and lead editor.   Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How come a Church choir is qualified as "chamber"? Such qualifications need a ref imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

E.g., does anyone have access to this source:
Fabian, Dorottya (2003). Bach performance practice, 1945-1975: a comprehensive review of sound recordings and literature. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-0549-3.
... which may provide such information? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The German term Figuralchor suggest a smaller ensemble, as Motettenchor would. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:OR – "...der Gedächtniskirche..." which is part of the same name of that choir suggests it is a church choir. which is not a "chamber" choir. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no research in Figuralchor being a name for an ensemble for delicate figurative music. A church may have several choirs and orchestras, dedicated to different types of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"Figural" probably rather refers to figural music, not "figurative music", and that type of music is, delicate or not, afaik rather linked to churches than chambers. Please stop filling tables with OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That article says "kontrapunktisch mehrstimmig ausgestaltete Musik" - music in counterpoint. I will eventually translate the article, just returned from vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
None of those qualifications say anything about the choir being "chamber"
Kontrapunkt → Counterpoint
mehrstimmig → several voices or parts (which is self-evident when performing counterpoint)
ausgestaltet → the way the music is organized/realized
Writing/translating the article on figural music is not by close a solution for covering up OR. Counterpoint does not by far indicate it is sung by a chamber choir. Would be nice if you write the article, but doesn't help on this issue.
Besides the German article on the choir has in the first sentence of the lead that it is a "church and concert choir" – nowhere in the whole article indicated that it would be a chamber choir.
And really, why would you want to keep losing time with this. There's no source for qualifying that choir as "chamber". No source, as in: not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, not with any amount of OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Starting over: what are the characteristics of a chamber choir for you? Our article is vague, and the German one is not much better. I had no intention to translate Figuralmusik, but the choir, - started. - The background colours are intended to show a tendency, rather than something clearcut. Rilling's groups are smaller and more flexible than the choruses of early recordings (not of this piece but others). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Really why on earth would we discuss this? For Wikipedia Figuralchor der Gedächtniskirche Stuttgart is a chamber choir only when a reliable source says so. Not in any other circumstance. When no reliable source ever says it is a chamber choir, it is not worth mentioning it is (even if by someones definition it would be one), per WP:UNDUE. We can safely say it is a church choir (a church not being a chamber), this is what the reliable sources tend to say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)