# Talk:Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 12:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Short and a sweet one. Will be done by tomorrow. Yash! 12:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


### Lead
Shouldn't "Thomaskantor" be in italics?
done --GA
"different kinds of oboe" -> "different oboes"
not sure, - would people understand that it's as different as oboe d'amore and oboe da caccia? --GA
"3 oboes (oboe d'amore, oboe da caccia)" - there are three but why two in the bracket?
If it wasn't in brackets, the reader might arrive at 5, but three players play different kinds in different movements. --GA
"He derived the first chorus..." - can we start this as a separate paragraph? So that the bulk of the text can be a bit more evenly distributed.
I made a break for the switch from text to music. --GA


### Background, history and words
"the first day of Christmas, which was celebrated for three days." - it is a bit confusing to me. Perhaps a hatnote or a bit of explanation about why the first day was celebrated for three days?
Christmas was celebrated for three days ;) --GA
"In his first year" - do mention which year it was.
done --GA
Perhaps a link for "librettist"?
done --GA
A slight confusion. Is something wrong here or am I missing something?
The lead: "The text has no recitatives alternating with arias, but instead three biblical quotations,"
The prose: "In this early text, three biblical quotations alternate with arias"
Sorry, don't get the question. Normally recitatives alternate with arias, but not here, where it's biblical text in different musical forms, only one a recitative --GA
"but the find of the printed text showed that there was no relation." -> "but the discovery of the printed text showed that it was not related."
taken, may the original writer forgive me ;) --GA
"The cantata was not published until 1876 when it appeared in the Bach Gesellschaft Ausgabe, the first complete edition of the composer's works." - ref?
Please look in the free score (first item under "sources"), - I don't know how to make the template an inline citation, --GA
Instead of using "Background, history and words", I believe only "History" or Background and history" will do it.
dropped background instead --GA


### Music
"was already old-fashioned when Bach composed it" - can we use some another term for "old-fashioned"?
I don't know a good equivalent. The text has an old feel compared to others Bach set at the time. --GA
"outmoded" (my favorite), "dilapidated" (my second favorite), "antiquated", "tattered", or "worn out" perhaps? Yash! 05:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
My lack of English,never heard the first, so am unsure. The others don't work because theysound negative to me.Will try to say it in prose then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"The opening chorus is "Unser Mund sei voll Lachens" (May our mouth be full of laughter), It" - let's end all our sentences with a period.
yes ;) --GA
"seemed suitable" - seemed suitable according to? Better to add "according to XX" or rephrase it.
according to everybody then, - they treated the heavenly king as the secular one, - how to say that better?
Something like "was used" or "was preferred" or "was selected" maybe? Yash! 05:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"even more variety" -> "more variety" - 'more' is already a tricky word to use and 'even more' is even worse ;)
dropped "even" --GA
"Dürr interprets th choice" -> "Dürr interprets the choice"
don't you think it's easier for you to simply change such an obvious mistake? --GA
Yes, but I was on my phone and my Chrome chrases every time I try to edit any prose that is even less in size than that. Any good suggestions for a new Android phone? ;) Yash! 05:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Link for Klaus Hofmann?
yes --GA
"shining over" - "shining" is subjective and best to be removed.
yes, especially as it was part of a copyvio section, good catch! --GA
"energetic music" - "energetic" again a subjective term. Can you think of some other word?
the source has "demands all the more energetically" - how would you suggest to summarize that? --GA
Can't think of any better alternative. Yash! 05:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"When the text refers to the strings, the winds have a rest." - what does the "wind" refer to?
the winds from the table header, - linked for clarity
That should be enough :) Yash! 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking carefully, - tried to fix what I could, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Great work again Gerda :) - passing it! Yash! 11:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ihr Gedanken und ihr Sinnen" (You thoughts and musings)
Both the German (to my knowledge) and the English text fit "Your" much better than "You". The source says "You", but it's gotta be a typo. Art LaPella (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not. The speaker addresses her own thoughts, as in some psalms her own soul. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I read this article on the occasion of its featured article nomination, and became intrigued by the description of how Bach illustrates laughter in the first movement. Getting curious, I looked at the score and listened to it, and found the quoted descriptions quite fitting (except for the "a"-vowel bit – the four voices arrive at the end on the second syllable of "Rühmens"). So I transcribed the choral voices into LilyPond, but it's quite long because the voices have to be written on their own staff, and if placed in the article's section for the first movement, it might overwhelm it.

It would make a nice demonstration of Bach's Tonmalerei (musical onomatopoeia, word painting), but because it's so long, I'm unsure whether it should be included in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Michael. I see the laughter more in the score than hear it in the rendition which gives prominence to the upper voice, and no clear distiction of identical notes following each other, as the second and third of the theme. What do you thank of making a "crop" - similar to the highlighting in the Bethlehem ref - for the article, and leave this full excerpt here on the talk, without archiving. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
MIDI renditions, especially those produced by LilyPond, are always rather poor. The idea of a "crop" as used in the Traupman-Carr citation is brilliant. Here's what I did:

I leave it to you or others to work it into the article, possibly omitting the sound. BTW, I also find bar 8 in the larger score a fitting illustration of laughter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)


### Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110
I've listed this article for peer review because... I hoped it was ready for FAC, but it wasn't, and I need help to get there. I would have preferred to resolve within the FAC but here we are. 
Open questions from comments from TechnoSquirrel69 include:

I would link aria, chorus, and recitative again in the table.
They are quite common words, and were linked twice already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
What do others think? --GA
I would not link those in the table - they might be not very common to most readers, but they have already been linked to twice and linking to them again would be redundant. Anyone looking at the table is expected to have at least read the lead, where they are mentioned and described.
I am on the fence about linking the Bible sections (e.g. Psalm, Luke). Second opinion on this would be welcome. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. The Bible sections have also be linked before, and I don't see a difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I would personally avoid repeat links in the body. If they have been linked there oor even the lede, it's pointless. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
From the policy perspective that Wikipedia is not a database, what justifies the long list of recordings, and especially the tabular detail of the conductors and performers?
A bit of history: the articles on Bach cantatas were first (around 2010) sourced almost exclusively to Bach Cantatas, and had not only the complete text but also the complete detailed lists of recordings (then) including performers, example. (Now, these lists would be far too long to have them completely.) For some articles, such as Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, the discography was moved to a separate article when expanding, but not for the "simpler" ones such as Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79. --GA
I appreciate the history, but this doesn't answer my question about why this level of detail is acceptable in a featured article today. —TS
Do you mean that FA readers should get less detail than what they are used to from the many GA articles on the topic, and almost all articles of lower quality? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
What do others think? --GA
I think it's a lot like song covers. To put it into more understandable terms, you usually place, and link to, all the notable covers of a popular song on its Wiki page. This "song" just has a lot more "covers". However I don't think that the source information "The following is from the website" should be included (but the citation should stay, though, obviously). - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the complete list of recordings should be included in the article. For one thing, there is very little relevancy in relation to most of the article's contents. If there are any notable recordings, I would include them in the article. Might be a good idea to split this section into a separate article, which can then be listed at the top of the section. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I was surprised by the relatively few scholarly sources in this article, and searching on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, and ProQuest gave me a lot of hits for potential sources not cited here. I haven't looked into these enough to determine if the article is comprehensive in spite of their exclusion, but it does suggest issues on that front.
Please compare source reviews for other Bach Cantatas. Bach Digital (run by Bach Archive and the University of Leipzig), seems as scholarly as you can get, the book by Dürr is the "Bible" about Bach cantatas, Gardiner recorded them all and knows what he was doing, we have Wolff, Hofmann and Schulze. Earlier people - such as Spitta and Schweitzer - seem to have looked into more prominent works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I understand that many important works in the field have been cited, but there seem to be a lot of minor — but still important — sources that have not made it in. Criteria 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (well-researched) taken together mean that you need a good reason for any scholarly source not to be present (for example, if it has nothing new to add to the article's content). I see no reason why this book that analyzes the piece multiple times, this paper discussing the vocal adaptation, or this paper discussing several recordings should be excluded from a comprehensive article. These are only examples; there are more. —TS
You asked why the book "The Pathetick Musician" is not cited. Because none of the snippets indicates analysis of the cantata, - it seems mentioned as an example, p. 80: "the chorus is made to laugh on an active melisma on first syllable of the word 'Lachens". Why should this reference be added when other authors handled the same information in more detail (and in better English)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
You asked why "Bach's Adaptations" is not used. Because it seems to use the cantata for a general discussion of Bach's adaptations, which other authors (cited) cover specifically for BWV 110. You asked why "Bach cantata cycles" (Recordings) is not used. Because this article is about one specific cantata, - we have Wikipedia articles such as Bach cantata where the recordings of full cycles are discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
What do others think? --GA
That book does not analyze the piece multiple times, at least from what I can see without buying it. It mentions the laughter on that one melisma twice, and provides a very short description. BWV 110 is also included in three lists (in the book). If you have access to the paid version of the book, and can prove me wrong, please do so. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
From the Oxford University Press website description of the book, The Pathetick Musician appears to be a comprehensive study of rhetorical music (i. e. a style employing musical devices to convey emotional environments), rather than a specialised analysis of Bach's cantatas, let alone the subject of the article. Not worth including, IMO. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I dont like the framing of this question, but its an issue. And however you overcome, am pretty sure if the sources are not widened the next FAC will also run into the same problems :( Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Please look at that specific book. - What makes you think of a next FAC? I want this article as good as can be, that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
My prob is the framing of the question, as if it's just ""The Pathetick Musician". A I've said, you do need to sprinkle more sources to pass FAC. Rightly or wrongly, but that's the reality. I'm inclidned to agree with you, but you'll have an uphill and fragemented struggle on the talk take, unless...you raise and pre-emp the matter on talk FAC. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
We can talk about sources in general, sure, - good reliable detailed sources are welcome, of course. I listened to this workshop/lecture of a conductor and a theologian, and what they say would add, but it's in German, and not available in writing, so not easy to verify. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I feel like the descriptions of the movements lack cohesion and flit between topics very quickly. I understand there's limited sourcing to go off of here, but strictly delineating the movements between sections is exacerbating the issue.
This is the result of consulting different scholars. What would you suggest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
What do others think? --GA
Perhaps if there are other scholarly sources, as point 3 states, those can be used to fill the content in. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
If, yes. I looked at the three in question, and said what I saw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Maybe greater relation between the sections describing the movements could be established through linguistic tweaks, e. g. starting the sentences with something like "the second movement begins with..." or "following the third movement...". — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 10:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm not quite convinced. Each movement can be reached by a link, not only from the TOC but also from the table of movements. Saying that 3 follows 2 seems not urgently needed. Perhaps I misunderstood? Thank you for your thoughtful replies! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to fix in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
With sofixit not a good reply in a PR. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I know my limits regarding English prose, and have to rely on help, and am thankful when it happens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Yikes. But I would be happy to help here re choppy etc. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
That sounds lovely! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Any other comments to improve the article are also welcome. We are heading for the 300th anniversary of this music on Christmas Day 2025. Even if not as TFA, the article should be in best possible shape. Thanks for all help! Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Tendencies
I suggest, to make commenting easy, to just sign below the general aspects of the four open question, and provide longer discussion further up, continuing the FAC dialogue:
1. "I would link aria, chorus, and recitative again in the table." (a third time that means)

yes
no
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
— ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2. "From the policy perspective that Wikipedia is not a database, what justifies the long list of recordings, and especially the tabular detail of the conductors and performers?"

yes, move table to separate article
— ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
and you already know my thoughts on this per List of compositions by Sofia Gubaidulina :) Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
no, leave table
Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
3. "I was surprised by the relatively few scholarly sources in this article."

yes, include a book such as "The Pathetick Musician"
no, not a quality reference
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
— ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. "I feel like the descriptions of the movements lack cohesion and flit between topics very quickly."

yes
Somewhat. They are a little choppy, but nothing outlandishly inconsistent with the contents of the other subsections. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 10:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I would be happy to help here re choppy etc. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
no
Grimes2 21:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)


#### 750h
I'll take a look 750h+ 06:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but please take it to the second FAC that I'll start now. Thanks to all who commented here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Attitudes to this piece have changed over time, and some attitudes were possibly swayed by contemporary politics. I'm putting the following extract here in case anyone would like to work it into the article, for historical balance.

Generally speaking, the best [of J.S. Bach's] cantatas belong to the last twenty years of Bach's life, though he wrote some beautiful speciments during, and even before, the Leipzig Period. But it is among the later cantatas, when he had perfected his consummate technique, and had entirely assimilated in his own personality all the traditions of his predecessors that we find most of the works that remain household words today. For instance, the splended Watchet auf and Eine' feste Burg belong to this period. It is not a mere matter of coincidence, perhaps, that of all the cantatas, they are, in their rearnestness and solidity, two of the most thoroughly Teutonic in style and feeling.
Interesting for a general look, but not this specific piece, and he got the datings completely wrong, with the majority of the cantatas written in the 1720s ;) - the beginnings of Ein feste Burg possible even sooner than that. - for some other article, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)