# Talk:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't "Magnificat" in italics, per the article it links to?
Because the article it links to still thinks it is Latin, while a discussion supported that terms from Latin that became part of the English language (Requiem, Agnus Dei, Nunc dimittis ...) don't need that. --GA
"narrates Mary's" I hate pipelinks to redirects, avoid that here with Mary please.
fixed, thank you --GA
"only beginning and end of the text were " "the beginning..." ?
fixed --GA
"which he also kept" replace "he" with "was".
why passive voice? --GA
You link trumpet but not oboe, why?
both unlinked now (links to Baroque instruments in the link before)
You appear to have different piped links for "Lutheran", please be consistent.
made two consistent, and removed the one to only a section of the same --GA
Why 76?
good catch! --GA
"Bach-Cantatas website." Wikipedia appears to italicise websites, certainly in its referencing templates such as {{cite web}}.
Nobody complained in FAs, but changed. --GA
Everything else seems in order, so I'll put it on hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for many helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for advertising the FAC, but FAC is the wrong forum. You changed a GA, I reverted, you should have discussed per WP:BRD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
What was unclear about keeping the discussion in one place? The discussion is "... at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1." (emphasis added) Don't see how such clear and simple communications continue to confuse you. Thus far the discussion is in three places, the first one initiated by me. This is a simple pointer to that discussion (not a third discussion on the same topic). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Re. WP:BRD: it used to be "...  BWV 10 ...", after which a series of Bold edits changed that to "... BWV 10 ..." + footnote (section). I Reverted the "BWV 10" mentioning in the opening sentence to the prior situation. So technically this re-revert was BRR (without discussion after the first revert), not BRD. In other words, if following WP:BRD it was up to you to see to it that a discussion was started before re-reverting. Please don't accuse others of what you didn't do.
Also this edit summary ("you changed a GA, that was bold") shows the inconvenience of having the same discussion in different places: in one of the other discussions you started arguing that it was a "minor" issue, not even something of note for a FA procedure... then you edit-warred over a minor issue, nothing to do with "FA", but "bold" with respect to a GA??? I've seen FA procedures closing unfavourable over less... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't "discuss" anything here, I gave you information. Same on your talk. You call that forum-shopping, what can I do? The article was stable for a long time (you quote a diff from 2013) until today, - that again is just information. For FAs, the principal editors can usually make editorial choices, - just another information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Re. "I didn't "discuss" anything here" – ??? So you admit to not following WP:BRD? Please remove your remark above that I would have been the one not following WP:BRD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If that helps. Fact: this article was reviewed as a GA, with the BWV bold, on 7 May 2017. You changed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
So you stating "facts" is not a discussion? Why is that so? Because you don't like replies? Because you think that if you say something everything is said? Anyway, if this is not a discussion, it doesn't belong here (the pointer to the active discussion in my OP should have suffised): this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for stating random & unrelated facts (you contend "BWV bold" and "FA" are not related – "BWV bold" and "GA" would by that reasoning even be less related thus please keep such unrelated facts off this page especially as you try to force me into not replying to such humdrum).
Sorry to see you still so clueless about forum shopping (way beyond WP:IDHT by now): also initiating a new talk page section on a new page about something that is being discussed elsewhere can be forum shopping, especially on user talk pages (while then usually also some form of disallowed canvassing). Again, how many more times do I have to link to such relevant guidance before you act  according to it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Your rudeness, Schonken, is an absolute disgrace. The Manual of Style dictates that incoming links and plausible redirects are to be rendered in bold text. I've restored the long-standing version of the opening sentence which complies with the MOS. --RexxS (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course BWV 10 should be bold in the lead sentence, if that is what is being argued about. The MOS does not quite insist on this, but it would be normal. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, you added to the lead a bold mentioning of the redirect German Magnificat. Please provide a source for Bach's composition BWV 10 being named so, and by whom, and add it in the article body. The lead should only contain information sourced in the body. I searched in the sources consulted for the article but couldn't find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

added the ref as requested [1] – sorry for writing it as a direct ref (instead of the ref/sources two-step format used on this page), feel free to reformat the ref according to that system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, will do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Formatting can wait. I understand that one author called it so, - is that enough to say "also known"? I doubt that we can say "the score of the German Magnificat is held by the LOC, if the LOC doesn't have that term, but

Title
    Meine Seel erhebt den Herren
Other Title
    Meine Seel erhebt den Herren 
Alternate Title
    Meine Seel erhebt den Herren

 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Re. "one author" – here are some others (without ref formatting):
[2] (Gramophone, 1984)
[3] (Fanfare, 1989)
Google books has more I suppose – I just chose the one that was easiest to nail (with named authoritative author, at least snippet view of the passage, etc) in Wikipedia's ref format, but feel free to find more/better references for the same and add them to the article.
Re. LOC: I'd probably rather use this reference for Bach's autograph score: <ref>[https://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalSource_source_00004370?lang=en US-Wc ML30.8b. B2 M4] at [[Bach Digital]] website</ref> (instead of the direct link to the LOC website). The replacement reference I propose identifies the cantata (BWV 10) with the LOC shelf number, confirms the ownership description currently in the article (including when it came into the possession of LOC) and links to the digital scan of the score on the LOC website. It does however not confirm the "c. 1740" date of the autograph, for which I'd rather believe the Bach Digital website ("Date (exact): Aufführungsdatum 2.7.1724"), being run by Bach scholars, than the LOC (wouldn't surprise me they got their date estimation from pre-1948 research and never updated it to more recent research). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC) PS: also "RISM 000102323" could (additionally?) be used as a reference for the autograph score. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Bach Digital and RISM are now in the article, however RISM also has a wrong date. I tried more chronology, polishing welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


### German Magnificat in the lead
Even if some later English writers called the work "German Magnificat", I find it confusing to mention that prominently in the lead before the normal meaning of "German Magnificat", the Luther text with the reciting tone, has been established. If mentioning it in the lead at all, then later please. Would you have a way? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Added my proposal to the FAC page, as, as said, I would stop discussion in two different places. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Replied there --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
(looking for a quiet place to work on a second draft proposal for the opening paragraph, and the remainder of the lead section – will bring it to the FAC discussion when I'm comfortable with it myself – feel free to comment but realise this is only brainstorming stage)

[first three paragraphs of this proposal moved to FAC, with some further fine-tuning]
[last paragraph also moved to FAC]
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC) – continuing intro draft 08:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC) (complete draft moved to FAC 05:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC))

Thank you for thoughts. I am traveling, will comment probably tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No hurry, this isn't going anywhere in the first few days – I will probably need even more time to develop a coherent draft which I can get behind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Applied further updates. Still "preliminary" stage though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved first three paragraphs of the further updated proposal to FAC, see comments there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


### Recordings section
Similarly, a first draft (far from definitive or complete) of a proposal to rewrite the intro for the table of recordings:

 [updated an moved to FAC]
(first outline: references, e.g. OCLC 291046339 for the Indiana recording, still need to be added) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

added preliminary ref proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think to highlight some recordings in an overview is more likely to be a personal choice or iew than a factual table, but feel free to add it to the article - even incomplete - if you don't agree. Can you get the live recordings in chronological order? Do you believe a uniersity recording compares in notability? (Recently, the notability of a complete university of music was questioned.) - Generally, use German Magnificat only when a source does, not in general remarks about the piece. Only some authors would call it so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Except for Kuijken all CD/SACD/DVD recordings as listed at the BC-website got comparable bandwidth in my preliminary proposal:
1960s recordings by Paul Steinitz,
Fritz Werner and
Karl Münchinger were originally released on LP, and later reissued on CD.
BWV 10 is included in Telefunken's,
Hänssler's,
Koopman's,
Brilliant Classics' and
Suzuki's complete Bach cantata recordings.
Karl Richter and
Hans-Joachim Rotzsch recorded the cantata in the 1970s.
Live recordings of the cantata were realised at the 1991 Bodenseefestival,
the 2002 Rheinisches Musikfest,
the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival,
and as part of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage.
A recording with the Regensburger Domspatzen was released in 2001.
Sigiswald Kuijken included the cantata in his Cantatas for the Complete Liturgical Year seriesrecorded the cantata in 2007 as part of his project to record a Bach cantata for every occasion of the liturgical year.
Yes, combining several recordings in most of these sentences doesn't combine too well with keeping it all strictly chronological (BTW, Wikipedia's preferred chronological ordering applies to the list, not to the list's intro that can group according to other principles, e.g. grouping live recordings at festivals etc). Kuijken had a few options for a Visitation cantata in his hypothetical cycle, but he chose this one, don't think that making a separate sentence for that one is too much. Also the first known recording being mentioned in a separate sentence doesn't seem too far-fetched. Still brooding on a way to mention the non-commercial recordings without wandering off in copyvio territory. Added a sentence and ref about recordings of excerpts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
How about confining the table to recordings of the entire cantata that were released on CD/SACD/DVD (or: recordings released with liner notes)? Then the table's intro could mention these only in passing (they automatically have more bandwidth by being in the table), while devoting a bit more prose to the ones not in the table. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Chronology: Within the sentence about life recordings, Gardiner (2000) is left at the end with no year. Our readers may not know when the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage was. - I don't know why we should mention excerpts (unless of special relevance) if we don't have room for all complete ones. I can read a table better than prose, so would not like to remove. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Just in case others look in this quiet corner: the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [4]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it. In previous FAs on the topic, Bach-Cantatas has been the name for the site. - In the sentence about the complete recordings, you mix labels and conductors, and miss Leusink. The topic is discussed in Bach cantata (linked in the article in the recording section), - needless to say in an individual cantata article that - naturally - it is included in the complete cycles. More interesting is when, and with whom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't mess with my proposal: write your own if you think you can do better. E.g. I included the ref for the Bach Cantatas Website (that's how they spell the name of their website on all of their pages) the way it is now in the article, then you make it invisible, then you re-add it, then you comment it is the best one. Please start with not making it invisible in the first place.
Re. "you ... miss Leusink": I didn't, it is the seventh of the mentioned CD/SACD/DVD recordings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if my effort to make a fat red notice go away was not to your liking, and for not finding Leusink, because it said Brilliant. I hope we can mention musicians, not labels, first, and consistently. What do you think of applying your style to write an article to a Bach cantata that is now a stub or a redirect? There are plenty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Telefunken (Teldec) worked with several conductors for their Bach series. The same is true for Hänssler and Brilliant Classics (Leusink, Schreier, Matt,...). Koopman and Suzuki are the only conductors who each led their respective orchestras throughout the whole series that are connected with their respective names.
My preliminary proposal (far from complete etc.) only involves an introduction to the table: the details that link series to conductor for the BWV 10 cantata can go in the table. The only difference is that in case of a table-less layout (e.g. Wikipedia's PDF export function) my current proposal mentions (be it briefly) all 16 CD/SACD/DVD recordings (and a few others), with a series of 56 references for the section, while the current table introduction only highlights the 1963 recording (in a somewhat too speculative sentence), leaves all the others unmentioned, and has only one reference for the entire section. So even if this preliminary intro proposal were introduced into the article today it would be an improvement. And that's not even a final proposal (nothing more than a first draft), which I intend to fine-tune somewhat more until I'm happy with it myself before I bring it to the FAC page for further discussion, as I said. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you think - if this section is growing so much - of moving it to a separate discography article? We recently had a FAC with a long list of students, which became better - and promoted - with the list separated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
More precisely: you could write your discography article, it can be linked under the section header of the cantata. - Opera tonight, and a cantata to improve for Pentecost (while this will be for 2018 the earliest), - patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved a shortened version of this proposal to the FAC. See also what I said there about "separate" articles not fundamentally changing the breath of the coverage in the parent article (for discography: compare, both in GA articles, neither Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#Selected recordings nor Magnificat (Bach)#Reception history fundamentally changing after Discography of Bach's Magnificat had been initiated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


### 20th- and 21st-century concert and recording practice
Trying out wording:

 [updated an moved to FAC] 
(ref for the Tomita sentence: http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/tomita/essay/BfestLeipzig2003/index.htm – this and other references still need to be added to the above, only the references for the last sentence are complete – same as for the other try-outs in this section: nothing of a complete proposal yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC) (moved to FAC 05:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC))


### Magnificats and Visitation cantatas in Bach's Leipzig
Following up on a suggestion at the FAC (rough draft which would need additional references, and would amend or replace some of the text already in the article – so this is all quite preliminary):

Melchior Hoffmann, one of Bach's predecessors in Leipzig—both composed sacred music for the Neukirche—, wrote a German Magnificat based on Luther's German translation of the Magnificat. There is little doubt that Bach knew this composition while its score survived via Bach's legacy: it was even for some time attributed to Bach (Kleine Magnificat, BWV Anh. 21). BWV 189, a Visitation cantata on a libretto that paraphrases the text of the Magnificat canticle, was composed by either Hoffman or Bach. Johann Kuhnau, Bach's predecessor as Thomaskantor, composed a Latin Magnificat in two versions: one version with only the Latin text of the Magnificat for Marian feasts such as Visitation, and another version expanded with four German and Latin laudes relating to Christmas. When Bach presented his Latin Magnificat in 1723 (B-flat major version, BWV 243a) it had the same expandable format: without laudes for Visitation, and with four laudes, on the same text as Kuhnau's, for Christmas. That year Bach also presented his cantata Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147, an expanded version of an earlier Advent cantata (BWV 147a), on the feast of the Visitation.
The libretto of the cantata performed in Leipzig at the feast of the Visitation in 1725, a Magnificat paraphrase, survives without music. A year later Bach performed Der Herr wird ein Neues im Lande, JLB 13, a Visitation cantata by his second cousin Johann Ludwig Bach. Picander's libretto for the Visitation cantata of 1728 may have been set as part of Bach's fourth cantata cycle: the libretto, surviving without music, starts with a dictum quoted from Luther's German translation of Luke 1:46–47. Around 1733 Bach transposed his Latin Magnificat to D major (BWV 243). Besides transposing, he also applied a few modifications: for instance in the movement that has Luke 1:54 as text he replaced the trumpet as performer of the cantus firmus by two oboes. Around a decade later Bach prepared two Latin Magnificats by other composers for performance (BWV 1082, BWV Anh. 30). Probably around the same time he also presented an updated version of BWV 10.

Several characteristics of the Magnificats and Visitation cantatas of the first half of the 18th century are combined in Bach's German Magnificat: it uses text of Luther's translation of the Magnificat, like BWV Anh. 21 and Picander's 1728 libretto, and it uses text paraphrased from the Magnificat like BWV 189 and the 1725 Visitation cantata. Like the Meiningen libretto used for JLB 13 the cantata not only starts with a dictum but also has a second dictum, directly quoted from Luther's translation of the New testament, near the middle of the cantata (movement 4, "Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn", in Johann Ludwig's cantata, and movement 5, "Er denket der Barmherzigkeit" in BWV 10). This characteristic sets BWV 10 apart from Bach's other chorale cantatas, which as a rule contained quotes from Lutheran hymns, not from biblical prose. Both Bach's Latin Magnificat and BWV 10 present the melody associated with Luther's German Magnificat as a cantus firmus in the movement that has Luke 1:54 as text. Both Magnificats exist in a 1720s version where the cantus firmus of that movement is performed by a trumpet, and in a later version where it is performed by two oboes.
(added some audio examples that may accompany the text). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good text for a separate article, which could then be cited from the various works mentioned. It should not be part of one of them, imho. - In the last FAC, even my addition of adding other Bach cantatas on Luther's hymns was criticized as not to the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Introduced shortened version, with references, into the article, also moving the music examples there. Regrouped the "context" subsections from more "general" to more "narrow" context (i.e. texts and melodies relating to a very broad christian context → Magnificat/Visitation in Leipzig in the 1st half of the 18th century → "chorale cantata cycle" context with an even narrower context). See also FAC comments, including whether or not 1740s repeat performances of various Magnificats should be mentioned (depending on reliability of the sources that could support that). Anyhow, the article now has quite some commented-out text relating to this: about time to settle it... I don't think an article to be a suitable candidate for FA promotion if too many uncertainties (signified by commented-out text) remain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Short, but may be worth mentioning:

The cantata's concluding chorale was published as No. 357 in Part IV (1887) of C. P. E. Bach's collection of four-part chorales by his father.

Is this all we have for the century between c. 1748 to 1851? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Good find, thank you. It tells me that CPE regarded it as a Choralgesang, no? Any other English word for that than chorale? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ready for insertion into the article I suppose?:
I gave a more general comment regarding 18th-century German terminology vs. 21st-century English narrative at the FAC;
The article may give a somewhat clearer explanation about how "not a hymn" transformed into a "chorale" (also already suggested at FAC), but by the time the last movement of the cantata was published in 2nd half of the 18th century it was definitely a "four-part chorale", so I don't think we need to explain or modify that as far as the "publications" section is concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken:, I saw this diff, so I Googled "'Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10' + 'piece'", and the first non-wiki derived result was: Bach's Major Vocal Works: Music, Drama, Liturgy, by Markus Rathey (2016). There are others, including this article, which currently describes BWV 10 as a "piece" in the Music section. Why do you think it's use is inappropriate? Kirk Leonard (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rathey source, looks like an excellent source for use in this article. Sorry for never having spotted it before.
My analysis of the "piece" indicator for the cantata was rather based on the English-language sources currently used in the article. The one I checked most thoroughly was the Dürr/Jones source. Jones (the translator) uses "piece" most often when referring to individual movements of cantatas (e.g. [5]) —despite what the Grove's quote in our Musical composition#Piece paragraph says—, exceptionally for an entire secular cantata ([6]), and further, afaics, only when literally translating 18th-century German expressions ("Kirchenstück", "Probestück") for referring to entire multi-movement church cantatas.
I agree with the Grove's quote that "piece" is a "non-technical term". In Wikipedia I wouldn't use it for a multi-movement composition: the more generic non-technical term for compositions of a somewhat broader scope than a single-movement piece is rather "work".
Rathey has some interesting approaches, for instance he capitalises Chorale Cantata Cycle (I'll definitely make that a redirect to our chorale cantata cycle article), uses "cantilation tone" for what I saw indicated as "tenor note" in other sources (the latter expression somewhat confusing for the inexperienced user while it is not related to the tenor voice type) – etc. Will certainly try to adopt some of it into the article. Note that Rathey uses "piece" for individual movements of the cantata too ([7]), so I'd still prefer "work" for the entire cantata (for which composition works fine for me too), and optionally "piece" for separate movements. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. For what it's worth, at the Merriam-Webster website it states that the "Definition of cantata for English Language Learners" is "a piece of music for singers and instruments that usually has several parts (called movements) and often has a religious subject". The Macmillan Dictionary website lists cantata as a "piece" of music, and the Oxford website says that "piece" may refer to "A written, musical, or artistic creation", as in "a haunting piece of music". I think that, for native English speakers, "piece", when referring to music, does not mean part, as you seem to think. It refers to the whole. Movement refers to a "part". Kirk Leonard (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Not too impressed by the dictionary definitions. First, they use "piece of music", not "piece". Second, dictionary definitions don't provide much context: it is not because one word is by (dictionary) definition a synonym of another word that both words are interchangeable in any context. E.g. "piano composition" may by definition be a synonym of "piano piece", I'd still rather use the first in the context of Schubert's last sonatas and the second in the context of D 946. Third, the dictionaries hardly explain why, for instance, Jones (in the source I mentioned above) uses "piece" around 30 times for a single movement and less than five times for a multi-movement composition. If one leaves the literal translations and the secular cantatas aside he uses it 29 times to refer to a movement, and zero times to refer to a multi-movement church cantata. Fourth, I'd avoid the word "part" for referring to a movement while ambiguous with the meaning of "part" as an independent melodic line ("four-part", where "part" has the second meaning, is difficult to avoid when describing the last movement of BWV 10).
Re. "I think that, for native English speakers, "piece", when referring to music, does not mean part, as you seem to think" – no, I didn't think that. I assume that Jones, afaik a native English speaker, and an unmitigated reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, knows what he is doing when he uses "piece" rather for individual movements than for entire multi-movement compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. Above you stated that Jones used the term "piece" around five times when referring to multi-movement compositions. Then here you say, "I assume that Jones, afaik a native English speaker, and an unmitigated reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, knows what he is doing when he uses 'piece' rather for individual movements than for entire multi-movement compositions." And it took me less than five minutes to find examples of Jones using that term for entire Bach compositions, such as BWV 1026 and BMV 951 (look here). While I disagree with your position, I might be wrong. And since I don't see it as anything worth dedicating more server space to, I'll leave it there. Thanks for discussing. Kirk Leonard (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I was very clear: "My analysis of the "piece" indicator for the cantata was rather based on the English-language sources currently used in the article" and "Jones (in the source I mentioned above)" (emphasis added): I wasn't discussing sources not used for the article, nor all the books published by Jones. Nor BWV 1026, nor B[W]V 951 are "multi-movement church cantatas" (like BWV 10) nor are they mentioned in the Dürr/Jones book on Bach-cantatas: the BWV numbers you indicate refer both to rather short single-movement instrumental compositions, so this still seems to confirm what I said about Jones' use of the "piece" indicator, even when extended to his Creative Development of Johann Sebastian Bach publications (thus far not used in the BWV 10 article): in the first book of that series Jones uses "piece" 45 times (according to google books' counting), also here nearly exclusively referring to separate movements and not once, afaics, to a multi-movement sacred composition for voices and orchestra. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent WP:RSN filings regarding this article:

Discussion about the Hofmann (& Suzuki) liner notes now archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#Hofmann liner notes in BWV 10 article
I proposed a review of my decision to remove the Bach Cantatas external link at the RSN page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
archived --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)