# Talk:Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes, BWV 40

This review is transcluded from Talk:Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes, BWV 40/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mkativerata (talk · contribs) 00:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, I'd be happy to do this one and am just posting here to reserve it for myself. After two reads through it looks like a pretty safe pass. But I prefer to aim above the GA criteria with reviews, just to get as good an article as possible, so if it's ok with you, so I'll probably have a few prose comments that aren't really necessary for GA level. I've downloaded a recording of the cantata off ITunes and I'll listen to that as well before posting comments here over the next few days. Cheers. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Delighted in many ways, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


### First half of article - 31 December 2012 comments
Hi Gerda, here are my comments on the first half of the article.  As foreshadowed, it's mostly on prose.  I suspect at times the article is trying to jam a bit too much information into single sentences.  Not that there are any major issues.
I won't do the checklist thing; it suffices to say that there are no apparent problems with the other -- much more important -- GA criteria (neutrality, comprehensiveness, accuracy, stability).


#### Lead
The second sentence of the opening para is a bit tough for the reader: (1) it's not immediately clear that "the Christmas cantata" referred to is actually BWV 40; (2) the word "Christmas" is mentioned twice; and (3) mentioning both the "second day of Christmas" and "26 December" is a bit confusing given that they're the same day.  None of these issues are significant, but I think they can be easily dealt with, perhaps by breaking the sentence up a bit.  A very rough suggestion: "He composed the cantata in 1723, his first year in Leipzig.  A Christmas cantata, the work was first performed on 26 December that year [here, perhaps mention the churches in which they were performed].  It was the first Christmas cantata Bach composed for Leipzig.  The title of the cantata [I think these words help] also appears in more modern German..."
taken, I modified your suggestion a bit, to remain more consistent with the other cantatas. I like to stress that Bach himself led the first performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk)
I'd suggest mentioning in the lead -- probably in the second paragraph -- that the cantata has eight movements, and maybe also briefly explain the way in which the movements are structured.  This is for three reasons. First, I think it's a significant enough fact for inclusion in the lead. Secondly, the lead is quite short as it is.  Thirdly, at present, the "History" section of the article discusses different movements before we know how many there are (unless of course you are the kind of person who reads infoboxes...). Introducing the work's structure in the lead would solve this problem.
taken, tried --Gerda Arendt (talk)
What does "festively scored" mean? I suspect I can guess at the answer, but I couldn't find any references to this terminology elsewhere. If it is an uncommon term, and given that there is no wikilink to help the reader, might it be easier for the reader just to set out the voices and instruments for which the cantata is scored rather than summarising that information with an adverb?
It means, for a feast day, many instruments, including brass, - opposed to no specification for a normal Sunday (oboes and strings) and "intimately scored" (no orchestra, just a few individual instruments, as in BWV 152). It is explained by mentioning the horns and the comparison with the Christmas Oratorio, that I hope many readers will know. In that work, parts I, III, IV and VI are festively scored, II and V are not. Do you know a better word for the summary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
A bit of explanation is here, how to link? (The link to the general article is in the lead.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


#### History
"The text quotes the Bible or alludes to it several times."  Would it be more accurate to say "The text quotes, or alludes to, the Bible several times." (parenthetical commas optional).
I would like to mention Bible sooner, otherwise the reader has to wait to know what it is about. I will try to clarify. --Gerda Arendt (talk)
"No less than three chorale stanzas..." No fewer?
Certainly. - English is not my first language ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)
"whereas the cantata performed a day before". I'm not sure what the whereas is getting at; it's hard to see the juxtaposition with the first part of the sentence. Given that it is a very long sentence in any event, perhaps everthing after "whereas" could stand as a separate sentence?
tried --Gerda Arendt (talk)
"but fitting the context well" How is it that the stanza fits the context well? It seems to be left unexplained.
"For the Christmas season of 1723" The two sentences from here to the end of the paragraph are quite dense. The final sentence in particular ("The cantatas were performed twice") has to be read about four or five times and even then I'm not quite sure I've understood it. Is there a way to make it clearer, perhaps by breaking up the sentences?
I structured it as a bullet list, - that was not possible for DYK ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)
I'll hopefully have the comments on the second half within the coming week. That is the fun part where I get to listen to the music against the commentary in the "Music" section of the article :) And Happy New Year! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful comments! (Sorry it took me so long to reply, I was busy with the infobox - in general) Happy new year to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda, I've earmarked some time on Saturday to post my comments on the remainder. I've read it through again and listened to my recording (Leonhardt) so just about there. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


#### Scoring and structure
I think the list of eight movements needs an introductory chapeau, like "The cantata consists of hte following eight movements:"
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


#### Music
I couldn't read all the sources for this section, but the sources I could read -- mainly Mincham -- support the material cited. This section of the article deals with some of the eight movements only very briefly, but so do most of the sources, so that treatment doesn't seem unwarranted. Specific comments:

Given that we don't have an article on Mincham, I think the first sentence needs to explain who he is. Something parenthetical would do, like: "According to [musicologist/Back expert] Julian Mincham, the cantata has three parts"  By contrast, because Hofmann and Gardiner are wikilinked, they don't need any introduction.
done Gerda Arendt (talk)
"Bach used material from the chorales in his own movements". What is meant by "his own movements"?
tried example. The tunes of the chorales are NOT his composition, their four-part setting is (and the other five movements, of course). Gerda Arendt (talk)
"finally repeated in madrigal". I think an "and" before "finally" would help.
you are right Gerda Arendt (talk)
"Then the theme contrasts with the two other elements depicting the works of the devil and the destruction, it shines through almost throughout the fugue." I'd suggest replacing the comma with a semi-colon as they seem to be two separate but interdependent sentences.
ok --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


#### Passed
Thanks Gerda -- i've passed it now. But where on this page do you think it should be listed? "Pre 1990 songs" is the closest, yet seems totally inappropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - I didn't know, looked, the others BWV 36 and BWV 76 are under Albums/Compositions. Perhaps we should eventually have a separate section for Classical music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it looks a bit silly to have Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky and Bach hidden among dozens of One Direction and Mariah Carey albums. I'll add it to Albums/Compositions for the time being. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The article cites Dürr 1971 while the Biography gives a date of 1981. Which is correct? Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. (A page was requested, I have it only for the 1981 paperback edition.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Title Should be "Dazu...."
Researching Bach Cantatas for my job, I find that only wikipedia has this spelling. "Darzu" is meaningless, at least in Modern High German.  While it's conceivable that it's a spelling that's changed over time, I can find no other source with this spelling.  Most use "Dazu". 
Jrgsf 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgsf (talk • contribs)  

I reverted, because this is the spelling of the NBA, which is Bach's spelling. Several spellings in titles and texts are kept from Bach's time, some also from the time of print, - before the latest Germany orthography reform. Please look at the sources, - the better ones all have this spelling, - not Bach Cantatas, but that tells you a bit about the site, - it's great, and I am happy it's there, but is not reliable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Moved from the wrong page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article states that Bach scored it for a "two horns (corno da caccia)." Bach could not have possibly scored it for corno da caccia since valved horns did not exist at the time. Perhaps a statement like "(corno da caccia in modern performances)" would be appropriate. I'm not sure about England, but in the US corno da caccia is normally called the French Horn and that name would be better than corno da caccia. Mike32065 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

certainly not a French horn, - I wonder why in the US those two would be equivalent. Corno da caccia translates to hunting horn, and they were simple and valveless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Prior to my post, I was not familiar with corno da caccia so I googled it. I found I could buy one for about $6,000 (US), which is very expensive. What is being offered is a French horn. Having said that, I will now take your word that a corno da caccia is a hunting horn and the French horn I found for sale was given a fancy (meaning a foreign) name to increase its price. The majority of French horns I found for sale are under $1,000. Mike32065 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I added a wrong pic in 2012, mislead by its caption, which I now removed, - sorry --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)