Talk:St Matthew Passion

message: Parts of the current article seem rather opinionated, and I'm not sure why the Gibson movie needs to be mentioned (especially multiple times).  As for no mention of the Ressurection, that may be for the simple reason that it was composed to fill a liturgical role as the Good Friday service -- Easter's not for another few days.  Just as the Easter service wouldn't have random references to Pentecost, Good Friday would tend to confine its texts to the crucifixion, since that's what happened on that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Kern (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten it to remove the Gibson references; that material came from program notes written when the Gibson movie was current. The importance of the Crucifixion in Lutheran theology of the time is supported by contemporary writings, although perhaps that means it isn't a distinctive feature of this particular composition. —Wahoofive | Talk 20:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps inadvertently, the section "Background of the Passion" has been blanked by Wahoofive. Not in the reader's interest. Has this text been transferred to another article? Or just suppressed? --Wetman 15:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That text was a duplication of the text in Passion#Musical settings of Gospel narratives and seemed unnecessarily detailed for this particular article. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Quite right. Could you work some brief reference with a wikilink into the text? For people like me, who need all the help they can get. --Wetman 22:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: There's already a link from the word "Passion" in the first sentence of "Structure of the work." Do you want more than that? —Wahoofive | Talk 01:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: According to the wiki there's no mention of the coming resurrection (see section "Interpolated texts") but that's not true — in Movement 14, Jesus recites "Wenn ich aber auferstehe.../But after I am risen...", in Movement 63a, the evangelist mentions "nach seiner Auferstehung/after his resurrection", and finally the Chorus quotes Jesus as having said "Ich will nach dreien Tagen wieder auferstehen/After three days I will rise again" in Movement 66b — so any discussion about it seems almost moot. It would probably be best to rewrite this part to read that the Passion doesn't end with the resurrection of Jesus like most Passion stories do if that's what the original author meant to say but since I'm neither theologian nor music historian I'm not sure about that. --Shirk 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be simpler to say that the narrative concludes with the interment of Jesus, in keeping with liturgical readings on Good Friday. Moioci 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gibson

message: This article contains a lot of statements which do not represent a neutral point of view, are unencyclopedic or at least require citations. Some of the most obvious are noted below.  -- MarkBuckles 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it would be fair to say in a NPOV kind of way, this is widely regarded as one of Bach's masterpieces. Moioci 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Hearing no response for a month, I've rewritten a lot of the article, removing all of the subjective statements referenced above. This article still needs a lot of work, particularly in the "compositional style" section, which really tells me nothing about the style of this piece. I'm out of town for a month and I don't have the resources with me right now to add much more right now, but it's a step in the right direction. -- MarkBuckles 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mark! Great job on the rewrite! I'll start a "references" section now and would be glad if you could also add some secondary literature. Cheers! Matthias Röder 10:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Whenever I try to edit this article, the diting window does not have all of the content in it. Does anyone else have the sam problem? Thanks! Matthias Röder 11:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with editing this article

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - more Google hits for the English name. Reginmund 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
:An obvious move, but you might want to consider whether it's St or St. or Saint. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: All the information provided above under Exact Instrumentation should be added, (all can be wikified)?
Shlishke (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not  above talk contributions in main entry? 

message: I feel that the section about the Passion in movies is somewhat tangential. It's not really about the work that Bach wrote, just about its later exploitation, and like all these lists may appeal to some readers while others may find it close to trivia. (Yeah, I'm in the latter camp.) On the other hand, the section on recordings is much more central to an article about the work, because it is listing the most direct means of access to it for many people. I am in no doubt that it is more relevant and valuable information. I am not going to be so cruel as to suggest the film section should go but I do think the recordings should come before the films. What do you think? Nomorenonotnever (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie section is too early 

message: As evidenced above I like the section on Notable Recordings! :) I also like it being split into modern and period. I just wondered, though, whether the descriptive language is correct - is it JUST the instruments which are different? I suspect that John Eliot Gardiner and Paul McCreesh, inter alia, might argue that it is more than which shape your bow is: that the whole performance, including the singing, direction, tempos, pitch, size of forces etc etc is ALL different, and that therefore to describe it as just being on old or new instruments is to oversimplify. I am not sure what better terminology might be used but I wondered what others thought. Finally, there doesn't seem to be an explanation on the page of what old-vs-new performances mean - I wonder whether there should be a link to other wp material which tells readers, or a short introduction to the recording section which explains the split, or both, or what? I know that many readers of this article will know this already but I am worried about those who don't, to whom I fear the reasoning may currently be a bit opaque. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern and period - language 

message: I notice in the Use in Cinema that at least three movies have used "Erbarme Dich", the prayer for forgiveness following the "St. Peter's denial" scene.  Shouldn't that aria get more attention in the main article?
CharlesTheBold (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erbarme Dich 

message: I have restored the section detailing the use of Saint Matthew Passion in films. I found this section useful when I chanced upon it, and spent some time cleaning it up. I did not think it was trivia. Mick gold (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont find this useful at all; it's a list of junk that only properly belongs in the sub-articles, that hopefully nobody reads, before they are deleted. Very much trivia. Surely there is something more interesting to say. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in film 

message: Good Evening. I apologize in advance for my mediocre use of English language. 
I decided to ask some questions, but also didn’t hesitate to also introduce some possible answers for the sake of rapid advance :) 
To whom is such an article aimed at (=useful)? I would assume: Primary to someone not familiar with this composition. 
Why would such a person bother to look for an article like this? I would propose: To learn all the facts that the article rightly presents, but also to gain an idea of the compositions’ value. After all, should he go out and purchase a CD of this work?
I ask then: Does the article serve in any way such a need? I would answer: No.
Do we justify such a need, and do we believe that an encyclopedia ought (in some occasions -and I believe this is such an occasion) to satisfy it?
I would dare to answer again, that, (among its other functions) most probably yes. 
I have to ask all the authors of this article: Do you believe that this work is a masterpiece? 
Again, I presume and answer to this question: Yes, you most probably all believe it is. You would declare it to any friend of yours, to your son. Go get 2-3 recordings, I imagine you would tell him. 
So, why are you so shy to just spit it out here? Is it because you don’t regard the possible reader as a possible friend? I would say, no, it’s not because of this. I, again, have a possibility in my mind and would like to present it: It’s because we all are somewhat obsessed with the need to be “objective” and we are also afraid of being accused of subjectivism. But I would, once more, ask: Is it an (objective) fact or not, that the work referred to here is a true masterpiece of western music? 
Objectivism isn’t about eliminating value judgment all together, I believe, but more about soundly determining value and presenting it at times, and I presume that all essential citations for any possible adjectival definition of this work would have been ease to be sourced out. Adding such judgments from time to time, to where they justly belong to (with moderation, of course, and with subtlety, different from those presented by Moioci in the beginning of this page), makes an encyclopedia article more vivid and educational as well. I would also dare to say, more precise. Of course, overdo it and everything collapses - but I think that this danger should not end up with such an exhaustive elimination of anything implying a form of value judgment, as experienced in many articles of wikipedia that refer to masterpieces or masters. 
Regards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaalis (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value? Is there? Should an Encyclopedia care? 

message: This section has become a very long list and is suffocating the rest of the article. Any objection if i spin it out. Ceoil sláinte 18:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This section just lists the title (and singers and instruments) of every movement. (Such an overwiew was wanted for the Bach cantatas, quote "but a terse list of movements with their titles in the structure section is very helpful as an overview". Some of those even come with the complete text additionally.) I included it to show how Bach arranged action and reflection, and what instruments he used for which situation, thinking that it tells more about this great work than a description could do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Architecture and sources

message: I would prefer the passages about Mendelssohn and the (overly detailed) first English performance appearing somewhat later in the article. (Someone new to the article gets details on that performance before knowing about the work.) What do you think? Do it? Discuss it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; there could be a section "Performance history" before "Structure", with the two last paragraphs from the lead (Leipzig, 1829; London 1854), and possibly others, if significant. Such a section should probably start with a repeat of the relevant sentences from the lead about the original performance (1727, 1736). I also noticed on the talk page that the article's sentence "there is no mention of the Resurrection in any of these texts" should possibly be qualified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: this far copied from talk page. Adding: since the word resurrection is only mentioned once by the Evangelist, almost in passing, I don't see a need to qualify. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance history 

message: I have seen performances using e. g. a theorbo (Koopman), and others using (baroque) bassoon and contrabassoon in the continuo. Is there a consensus which instruments were historically used by Bach? -- megA (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuo instrumentation 

message: There were documented performances in the later 18th century, at least one in 1780, about which I will insert details as I have a chance. Marlindale (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  intermediate performances 

message: I just noticed this article has a  tag on top for over two years, I propose to solve this by merging in the referenced content from St Matthew Passion structure (which largely overlaps with the content of this article, but with better references), as I don't see (after nearly two years of being tagged) this article will get better references otherwise.
Other reasons that seem to support a merge:
* I came to St Matthew Passion structure with a WP:EGG link (clickable text was St Matthew Passion, I didn't check, but suppose there are more of these.
* There is a lot of description (I mean, more than a summary of the St Matthew Passion article) that is not strictly description of the "structure" of the work in St Matthew Passion structure, so there appears to be some degree of content forking going on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article St Matthew Passion structure is too big to be merged into the main article. It contains more than 100 images and its 11 screen lengths (on a large monitor) would overwhelm the main article and double its size in bytes. I agree that piped easter eggs should be rephrased. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose to proceed on the WP:EGG linking? And on the ?--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the current St Matthew Passion has a total of TWO images: one of these is also used on St Matthew Passion structure, the other is a difference in lead images... so merging the content of the other article in while keeping the current lead image doesn't create an article with more images than the current St Matthew Passion structure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, when the table of St Matthew Passion structure, is moved in as a *replacement* of the very long list at St Matthew Passion#Movements (with the same content but less detail), and any other double content is avoided (best to choose the version with the best references for each of these), the merged article won't be all that much longer than either of the articles now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we'd still be far from Orgelbüchlein and very, very far from Clavier-Übung III length, we'd arrive rather at something of Clavier-Übung IV length. I don't defend the excessive length of the first two, but the third is not an article with a "length" issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text:  St Matthew Passion structure is supposed to be expanded by adding paragraphs to the individual movements (in 2017). Please keep that in mind when considering to merge. If you don't mind that, a merge is fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That can be kept in mind from the St Matthew Passion article too, so says nothing about the merge now. Further, detailed description of separate arias and chorals is not so much a structure thing than that it belongs in the main article of the work, being its detailed description, not saying anything about the structure of the work as such (apart from what is, or can be, summarized in the section about the structure and its table). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text:  Did you have a view on how to resolve WP:EGG and  issues? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to be unclear today, sorry. The question is that IF we merge - again: fine by me - will it not get too long with sections about the individual movements? If we don't merge, it would make more sense to add that to "structure" where scoring, key etc are already established. - IF we merge, no need to deal with EGG, and probably not with footnotes. I didn't want to step on the feet of the authors of this article, so created structure. It would be interesting what they think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual process is: expand content → split off when it becomes too bulky. The other way around, i.e. starting an alternative article with content fork issues and then merge is not forbidden, even a valid approach, but often more problematic, see Talk:List of Bach cantatas#History merge request which makes the history on prior work by fellow Wikipedians a bit harder to find. In that scenario there is stepping on feet, not in the usual expand → split scenario. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The charts in the Structure article are too complex for the main article, which rightly only lists the speaker (singer) and the text, which are the two most important elements for each, and which are too hard to read in the Structure article's charts. The charts in the Structure article rightly focus on the technical aspects of the music and structure. There is absolutely no good reason to divide up either article into Part 1 and Part 2 -- it's one whole piece always performed in its entirety, not two barely related pieces that happen to be performed together. The Messiah sub-articles only exist because there are three (not two) sections and they go into much finer detail than anything in the SMP articles; they are also largely summarized in the main article. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: This was recently deleted, but why, the edit summary didn't say. In my experience of WP editing I've only on one previous occasion deleted and added sound clips. (That was to correct a factual error in the Clara Schumann article, to replace a Robert Schumann clip by a Clara Schumann clip of a piece of the same form.) I'm going to temporarily restore the bass aria clip, have a listen, then return here. Marlindale (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This link tells you who deleted it and why. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bass aria "Mache dich, mein Herze rein.ogg" sound clip 

message: There is one wrong note in the Opening Chorus sample ; the c sharp in the soprano in the 2nd group of the 2nd bar should be a c natural. I haven't checked a sea of sources, but the Neue Bach Ausgabe and all the recordings I recall tell me so. Neither do I know how to replace it, so it's an open call. Anapazapa (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your eagle eyes and your sharp ear. I raised the matter at  and asked the uploader to have a look. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The uploader confirmed the mistake at his talk page, but stated that he currently can't correct it due to problems on his computer. Unfortunately, a crop from the full open score from the BGA (vol. 4, p. 4) doesn't lend itself for use as an incipit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a serious mistake I advise removing or commenting out for the time being. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you comment out part of an image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  We could make a footnote, but I guess the next person to notice may arrive in a year, - I didn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was suggesting to comment out the whole image -- or remove it -- until the creator or someone else can fix it. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see. I wouldn't do that. The important opening theme is correct, and choirs will not perform from our incipit. - Do we have people who could make such an image - or music score - easily? We could have that one larger and separately on top, as #1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to create a correct version; see :File:BWV 244 Nr. 1 Kommt, ihr Töchter.png. Although it's less clear in appearance, I'm going to use that file here soon. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! - Could you perhaps also create the melody of "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden"? Without text, because I want to use it for "Herzlich tut mich verlangen", where it was used earlier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this. Alternatively, you could try it yourself with Help:Score. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in score sample

message: :St Matthew Passion →  – Non-controversial grammatical fix, adding period after abbreviation. The page history at St. Matthew Passion is an old disambig page that now redirects here. HGK745 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: when we discussed this last, the agreement was to have it the English way, for whom "St." is short for street, not saint. I don't care. An equivalent to saint is no part of the original Latin title (Passio Domini nostri J.C. secundum Evangelistam Matthæum - "The Passion of our Lord J[esus] C[hrist] according to the Evangelist Matthew"), nor of the German Matthäus-Passion, - not a Protestant concept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Don't know. It was controversial last time, must be in the archives of Classical music. Don't we have more important things to do than debating such minor things? It was stable for estimated five years, has hundreds of incoming links, related articles such as discography, + the same for Bach's other Passion??? - why change??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text: ps: found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 31#St. John Passion, 2010, many participants. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 October 2016 

message: I'm slightly confused about the location of the performers in the first performance. In the article currently it is stated that: "The St Matthew Passion was composed as to perform a single work from both organ lofts at the same time: Chorus and orchestra I would occupy the large organ loft, and Chorus and orchestra II performed from the small organ loft", and the source provided in the end of the paragraph is this jstor article. However, in the jstor article I couldn't find the information about the location of performers (maybe I have overlooked it...) Then I have found this article, which states: "The two choirs and continuo players were placed one in each gallery. At ground level, one to the east and one to the west, were the two orchestras." So there is contradiction. Unfortunately, I don't have access to much printed literature now, only online sources... --Yury Bulka (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of performers in first performance 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for for not following guidelines. However,the text of the recitative itself makes reference to whipping, so the change does seem appropriate. Ganahan11 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, no problem: did you read that somewhere, or is that your own interpretation of the music? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The text reads 'Ah, yes, you have a heart/It must be like the whipping post/Or even harder still'. But I cannot find a source which explicitly connects the rhythm and chords to the whipping. Ganahan11 (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The score of the St Matthew Passion, that is text ("... like the whipping post ...") and music (... the rhythm ...), are considered a primary source for the purposes of this article. See WP:PRIMARY (that is a clickable link to the guidance on the subject). That guidance says: ... interpret ... material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.... so, if no source can be found, this Wikipedia editor's interpretation will have to go. Sorry about that. A lot has been written about the St Matthew Passion: Wikipedia's approach is to summarize what can be found elsewhere. So, the recommended approach is to find decent commentaries and explanations (which are published elsewhere) about the composition, and add summaries of these to the article (with a reference to where you found it). If you'd like to do that, I'd be looking forward to your further improvements of the article. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Guess I'll have to read the guidelines more thoroughly. Ganahan11 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Whipping

message: This article has been renamed from german Matthauspassion title to english title but nobody gave a thought to America's cherished 1st Amendment? "...  make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Note that both the lyricist Picander and composer J.S. Bach were protestants (lutherans), thus no saints existed for them, because sainthood is a catholic and eastern orthodox idea. Yet, Wikipedia turned the article into St Matthew's passion, taking away Bach's right to exercise hist saint-less, lutheran christianity. That's just not right.
The proper solution would be to use the very title Bach wrote in his own hand on the cover sheet: "Passio Domini Nostri J.C. Secundum Evangelistam Matthaeum" for the article and make the english and german titles redirect there. The swiss kind of do that successfully: they are officially a 4-languaged country, but sometimes all that text won't fit available space. So they just write in latin on their coins: Confederatio Helvetica. 188.143.6.216 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:COMMONNAME - "St Matthew Passion" is by far the most common name for this piece in English. Antandrus (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody seems bothered by the First Amendment?