# Talk:Mass in B minor structure

As discussed on Classical music (when the template was designed and again now), each individual instrument is important, for example the horn for exactly one aria. "Instruments" appear at the very end of the box, I don't understand how anybody who read so far would be "intimidated". Please consider to restore information that would help interested readers. The abbreviations are standard for publishing, well known, each with a link to what it stands for, and a link to a table of all of them. Why should knowledge be limited to the level of those who wouldn't bother to look up what an abbr means? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gerda! You had previously argued that infoboxes should be for those who know nothing about the topic. It would be very unlikely for such people to know anything about standards in music publishing. They would thus be very confused, even intimidated, to see "3Tr Ti Co 2Ft, 2Ob 2Oa 2Fg 2Vl Va Bc" in an overview - if you don't know what those mean, it looks like gobbledygook. Sure, there are tooltips, but not everyone knows about or can use those, and as said in the discussion you mention it may not be clear even what kind of instrument "trumpet" refers to. Listing the full names would be unwieldy, as would be explaining how the instrumentation varies over the course of the entire mass (as would be necessary for "instrumentation" to have much meaning). It's much clearer and more accessible to explain instrumentation in the article itself. After all, you suggested that we should keep it simple, right? Hope that helps you understand. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I responded at Talk:St Matthew Passion structure: Trying to understand, but unconvinced, sorry. - Did you see where the link on "Scoring" takes you? Your quote above is a bit misleading, it said "instruments 3Tr Ti Co 2Ft, 2Ob 2Oa 2Fg 2Vl Va Bc", - I would think that people reading on a composition would get "instruments" as "musical instruments", and those who know more get the details. Please note, that this is not the article on the Mass in B minor, but its structure, addressing those who want to know the bit more. It's a work in progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that confused readers who just want an overview should be made to read a whole other article on a different topic just to understand this stream of letters? That seems a bit counterproductive when the infobox is, as you have previously argued, meant to be a quick overview. It would be much simpler to give the explanation about the instrumentation of the mass in this article's text, where it belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I give those who know the abbreviations (without explanation) a short way to the scoring, and offer a longer way to the others, - you cut the short way. Please read {{infobox Bach composition}}. - Messiah structure has a similar list of instruments, the article received more than 2000 views when Messiah was TFA, nobody made a comment about being confused or mystified, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
No, your explanation seems consistent with my understanding. As to Messiah, having no complaints doesn't mean no one was confused - the people most likely not to be able to understand the tooltips are also most likely not to be able to post on talk. Or maybe people just ignored the infobox ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If they ignored it, it could be as I prefer, no? - So much talk about people wanting articles their way, without an infobox, or with a collapsed one. I like it open and detailed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If they ignored it, then surely it would make more sense not to have one at all? I know you want things your way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please cease your personal attacks, Nikki.  You know better than this.  Gerda seeks accuracy and completeness, she has shown a willingness to compromise.  I suggest you look at your own psychological projection here and cease accusing others of what you yourself appear to be doing.  Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Er, what? The statement you're replying to made no accusations or personal attacks. Not to mention it was almost two months ago...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you are right, I do apologize for not checking timestamp. Mea culpa on that one!  Montanabw(talk) 16:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I slept over this - not well - and arrived at the following thought: the abbreviations are internationally understood, therefore I would like to have them visible at least "also", for those who are familiar with "Fg" but don't know what a bassoon is, as a little service - needing only a few extra characters - to the international community. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely it would be more helpful for the international community to read an article in their own language, rather than trying to decode what our words are? Besides, the abbreviations are not even close to being universally known. I suppose if you insisted you could have something like "bassoon (Fg)" in the article text, but that does seem a bit silly. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I doubt I would have done it like this myself, but the abbreviations are likely to be known & understood by most people reading a relatively detailed article like this. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur. While I don't think that instrumentation details are the most useful part for a composition's infobox (if such a box is to be used at all), I can't see how their presence would diminish a reader's encounter with this page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not "a composition", but one in which Bach especially asked for a corno in only one movement, for a specific meaning, trumpets in others, with a meaning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It is important to note Johnbod's point that the article itself is of primary interest to people who already are interested in details of a musical piece, this isn't Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring.  Gerda's points are well-taken, a more detailed infobox containing instrumentation matters here, obviously. Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This infobox was replaced by a less specific one. Needless to say, I designed both the Bach infobox and the article and prefer it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It has features the general one doesn't have:
Unique catalogue number, which for many readers may be the only clue to a title full of German
Three parameters for text sources, because some 200 of his works (cantatas and motets) require distinction of different sources
No title in the header because the same some 200 would look extremely long - and German, - this is the English Wikipedia ;)
It has planned features the other one should not have, such as a link to Musical instruments of the Baroque or similar, discussed on the template talk.
I will ask people what to do to make the two templates more similar, - it's desirable to have the same parameter names for scoring, even if their representation and links are different. It is desirable to overwrite the BWV number by a title in the case of a short title such as this one. Some "titles" should not be capital, such as this one, I learned that today, thank you Toccata quarta ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Those may be good reasons to use the Bach template instead of the general compositions template for the cantatas, but most of those reasons do not apply to this particular article. Why do you feel this article should use the box you posted above? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Those are perfectly valid reasons; the various infobox designs can be refined as they are put into use.  Montanabw(talk) 21:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
They might well be perfectly valid reasons in a different article. However, a) the compositions infobox does include a unique catalogue number, and the title in this case is not in German; b) the Bach box here did not use those parameters, and this is neither a cantata nor a motet; c) again, the title here is not German, and not long. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that IF we have a separate template for Bach, we should use it for all his works, for consistency. On the talk of that template, I mused about more similarity and even merging, with caution, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mass in B minor structure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to reviewing this work. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Check fn.4 - On a quick glance, I there is a stray "|ref=" sticking out in the text.
Content questions and issues
in "History and parody": The parts Kyrie, Gloria and Credo are all designed with choral sections as the outer movements, framing an intimate center of theological significance Is this sentence someone else's estimation (thus, needing a source), or is it your summation of the previous statements?
Mere observation: the outer movements are choral, the center in Kyrie is a duet, in Gloria a duet, in Credo a four-part choir. Source Rathey points out the significance for each center piece. The sentence summarizes what follows. Gerda Arendt (talk)
in "Structure" - since "mixolydian" is mentioned, should the column be relabeled "key/mode" since modes technically aren't keys?
mixolydian was in a comment until someone wanted the table smaller, - I understand it more as the mode of the cantus firmus than of Bach's work. Gerda Arendt (talk)
in "Confiteor" -- "I profess" is profiteor (profess, declare), not confiteor which is "confess" or "acknowledge"...speaking as a former seminarian, there is a big difference...and it has its roots in a long discourse on the word by Augustine.
I may have a language problem, "confess" and "acknowledge" seem very different, and I would not "confess one baptism", or would I? Learning. Gerda Arendt (talk)
This is the point that Augustine makes...when we "confess" we "acknowledge" the depth of our sin. It's the same situation in various translations of the Te Deum. The protestant faiths in the United States use "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin" more frequently than "I confess one baptism for the remission of sin" (which some Anglo-Catholics adhere to, as well as some Baptists).--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In German it's "bekennen", - "acknowledge" seems to weak, will take "confess" then. (I think I took "profess" from a source but don't remember from where.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised in the German creed that "beichten" isn't used.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"Ich bekenne die eine Taufe", - "beichten" is an act, exclusively used for confession of sins and asking forgiveness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In "No. 4 Osanna..." probably on opening movement of the secular cantata Es lebe der König, der Vater im Lande, BWV Anh11, of 1732. -- should be sourced.
done Gerda Arendt (talk)
In "Dona nobis pacem" - By quoting Gratias, Bach connects asking for peace to thanks and praise to God. - needs a citation.
A citation for the fact that the same music "connects" "Dona nobis pacem" (Give us peace) and "Gratias agimus tibi" (We give you thanks")? Other wording? Gerda Arendt (talk)
Not for that the same music is used, but whether there is a source that it was Bach's intent to  connect the two thoughts of "Thanking" and "asking" for peace.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Bach's intent is not mentioned, - we simply see that he used the same music for both thoughts, - how can that be worded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Original research concerns.
I notice a lot of content is based on (putatively) your interpretation directly from score reading and analysis...as a fellow musician and classical music buff, it's rather obvious to me what it means when you write "Whenever the word "mortuorum" appears, the voices sing long low notes, whereas "resurrectionem" is illustrated in triad motifs leading upwards" which cites back to pp. 180–181 in the score.  However, I'm a little curious and cautious about the balance between what is considered original research and what is not original research...and how this comports with WP:SYNTHNOT (especially WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not obvious II).  This isn't like a matter of a corresponding translation of a passage for an article, the interpretative nature of the music theory goes a little beyond that balance--almost to the point of putting out an expert opinion.  Could you convince me otherwise?--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I could say more specifically that the low notes for "mortuorum" are for example in the alto in measures 133 and 134, the upward triads in the tenor in 134, simultaneously, on p. 181, - but would it help? No interpretation, just observation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(after "our" great performance, mentioned on my talk:) I could say very specifically that this can be observed on page 9 of this pdf, - would that help? - As the numbering of movements and measures will be different in different editions, pointing at a specific one which is accessible online might be a good idea. However, it shows only the vocal parts and the continuo, so can't be applied to matters of scoring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Pic captions?
I tend to think that for most of the images of the incipits, the caption seems redundant or self-explanatory. What do you think of having it for the first but drop for the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think they all should be kept. Some provide useful further information, but even if they don't (admittedly, the majority), there's no guarantee that the images will always show up next to their respective description. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Michael's comments and observations on placement, and add that I err on the side of providing more information and direction through caption, even if redundant.  Sometimes it might not be self-explanatory...especially for the regrettable "readers" who only look at the pictures. Also, while it's not GA-required but knowing you always look ahead to FAC where the question will be asked: have you thought about adding "|alt=" parameters to the images, per WP:ALT? --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, helped. I didn't think of FAC yet, but you gave me an idea ;) - what would I say as alt for incipits? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good question. :) It's not an easy think like saying "white castle hamburger patty, bun, onions" or "painting of a ugly man in a red shirt".  Let me think about that and get back to you. Or maybe we'll ask at the WP:ALT talk page. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would try "Notes of the first sung music in the movement xyz", or "Music of ...", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


### GA Final Assessment: Pass
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a comprehensive article on the structure of the Bach b minor mass--an article topic which is both ambitious to conceive and difficult to address--especially because it concerns an arduous musical work that is huge and unforgiving for the unprepared. User:Gerda Arendt is to be commended for the breadth of musical knowledge she brings to this article and for the depth of research which augments its content.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
Excellent well-written English prose by a native German speaker.  It is compelling and addresses the work with a proper balance of concision and depth.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
I do not see any issues with the GA-relevant MOS policies.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
An appropriate reference section per MOS and related guidelines.
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
The article is exceptionally well-sourced to reliable sources.
C. No original research: 
I had some doubts concerning a theoretical question regarding OR, but the nominator has assuaged me of them with a cogent argument.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Article addresses sufficiently the topics major aspects with a keen, expert focus.
B. Focused: 
as above in 3a.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Article is neutral and does not express any bias.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Article seems stable to me. I do not see any evidence of edit wars or content disputes.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Article contains several images that are informative, illustrative, and appropriately tagged.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Images are relevant and sufficiently captioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Congratulations on preparing an excellent article on a difficult and quite demanding subject.
Thank you! So far this is the article I am most proud of, dear to my heart for more than one reason. During our recent concert, I had a good view of Bach's score because the continuo player used it (bottom pic). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the table in the "Structure" section causes the article to stretch beyond my computer screen, even though mine is not particularly small. Is there some way to make the table more flexible? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be split in two, but I don't think it would really help if you had to make the connections from one to the other by scrolling up and down instead of sideways. I just moved the images out to help. I will try to place the comments to the text section. The comparable table in German is larger but shows not as many details such as where brass plays and year of base for parody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The article, created as "Mass in B minor structure" was moved to "Description of the Mass in B minor", which leaves the links above broken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mass in B minor structure. 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/20131004231552/http://www.sfbach.org/notes-bach-b-minor-mass to http://www.sfbach.org/notes-bach-b-minor-mass
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230137/http://www.asochorus.org/BMM_Credo-Essay_2013.pdf to http://www.asochorus.org/BMM_Credo-Essay_2013.pdf
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) 06:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mass in B minor structure. 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/20131005000850/http://www.breitkopf.com/feature/download/4377/3268 to http://www.breitkopf.com/feature/download/4377/3268
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209171355/http://www.arthurwenk.ca/J.S.%20Bach%20and%20the%20Mystery%20of%20the%20B%20Minor%20Mass.pdf to http://www.arthurwenk.ca/J.S.%20Bach%20and%20the%20Mystery%20of%20the%20B%20Minor%20Mass.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 20:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)