Talk:St John Passion

message: Hi to all. I have reverted to my previous version of this after deletion of 2/3rds of the article by 82.67.201.179. Since this individual contributed no material of his/her own to the article, and even deleted "Further reading" (while leaving the heading up)--and did not explain on this page why he/she made these changes--, I'm thinking this may be just vandalism pure and simple. I'd invite this individual, however, to explain and perhaps make a good case for the deletions. Maybe there was a reason that person legitimately did not feel they belonged here? Thanks. -MollyTheCat 16:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to previous 

message: The line "and to read into them bigotries and race-hatreds that originated many decades after the time of Bach" deleted because those "bigotries and race-hatreds" did not originate many decades after the time of Bach. They were in the air he breathed. The line about historical context seems in keeping with NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.238.104.209 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigotries etc

message: Removed recordings section (hopelessly inadequate and unrepresentative). Instead added links to websites where comprehensive lists of recordings can be found along with reviews, etc. 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recording section

message: The section about antisemitism seems hugely disproportionate in terms of what one would expect about in an article about a great musical work.  Wouldn't one or two sentences that set out the 'controversy' and provide a balance to it in terms of the context of the work suffice?219.90.238.85 10:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus of article

message: I think, one should mention that the passions of Bach are not typical cantatas, but much more elaborated and that they are called oratorio in German. --Cethegus (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oratorio]] 

message: I urgently need helpful information on the master piece in question.  But I am astonished, because instead of a real WikiPedia article, I found a WikiPolitics article.
Namely 2/3 contains generalities, not too useful, and 1/3 contains polytics, what in addition is more related to the general critics of New Testament, than the critics of this musical master piece itself.  Only one of the two "further readings" link is alive, namely the link belonging to the 1/3 polytics.  This page is not encyclopedic.  A simple link to pages accessively explaining this kind of problems would be more useful and encyclopedic.
Everybody has to understand, that a missused weapon becomes contraproductive. The missuse of a weapon similair to the overdose or to the too regular use of antibiotics.   The result is well known: the antibiotics resistance.  If someone does not believe me, then I suggest to analyse the polytics in Hungary between 1988 and 2008: more and more people became resistant aginst the "warning label" in question, effectively opening doors to enter the problem.
I will be soon 52, and to perform or listen to the live performance of this master piece is an old tradition in my church, and I had never made any connection between this master piece and the problem mentioned in the polytical 1/3.   Contraproductivity is a consequence of the fact, that if I have to learn at my age of 52 from the WikiPolytics, that if we enjoy a musical master piece, then we enjoy some sort of ANTISEMITIC trash, then the only consequence of this WikiPolytics can be, that the category or warning "antisemitic" is not reliable for us any longer, and one can not trust on it's use, one must be suspicious in the future if this category or warning is applied for somethig.
In other terms: not the lyrics itself does matter, not the "professional" interpretation does matter, but the what really does matter, WHAT I THINK ABOUT, WHEN I LISTEN TO THE LYRICS.  But none of the professionals asked me and the members of my church, what we believe in, what we think about during the performance of this master piece.  This polytical 1/3 reflects the polytical professional's mind, but not the mind of the Christian audience.  The polytical professionals in this 1/3 ignores the fact, that the Hungarian lutherans has quite considerable amount of jewis members, who declares themselves of jewis origin, and the Hungarian lutherans educated in their schools some wordl wide famous scientist of again jewis origin, and Bach was lutheran, Bach is often called the FIFTH EVANGELIST AFTER MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN.  So this polytical 1/3 is not in well synchron with the fact that the Hungarian lutherans have a deep personal community and labyrinthine family connections with the Hungarian jews.
If the polytical 1/3 wanted to be polytically correct, then it must describe that the Christians, or in general the listeners of this master piece are not antisemitic in general.  Similar disclaimers shuld be applied to the Luther and Wagner pages.
It is not well balanced, if the 2/3 does not yield any useful knowledge concerning the lyrics, but the remaining 1/3 explains that the lyrics, what we still do not know, the lyrics is antisemitic.  There is no quotations of the lyrics at all, only professional opinions.  It would be more scientific, to count the total number of words, then represent an antisemitic quotations, tell length of this quotation in words and whether this quotations is out of the Holy Script or from a writer, or from Bach himself, and whether this quotations is the central message of the master pice or not.
Yet an other good question, the interpretation of a quotation.  Say I say to my wife, thet "I am hungry.".  This can be quoted, and professionals can interpret what I really wanted to eat.  Or even vorse, the word "hungry" covers something more agressive activity.  So, the same way, it does matter, how the Christians interpret the Holy Script today (2008), and hence the lyrics of the master piece in question.  THEREFORE IT IS SIMPLY SHOCKING THAT THIS 1/3 KIND OF OFFENSIVE ATTACK CAN BE MADE AGINST THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPT.
I simply protest against the attack of my and of my friends and of many other peoples believe and OBVIOUS GOODWILL.
Everywhere in the WikiPedia, if it wants to remain encyclopedic, it must be put there, that the Christians interpretation of the Holy Script today is far from being antisemitic.
As you can see, my English is modest, hence I ask someone goodwilling person to carry over the necessary modifications.
Or if none of us has enough time and knowledge together, the even the temporary removal of that polytical 1/3 is better than nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohlep (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely needs more information on the music.  The part about anti-semitism violates our undue weight guideline, in my opinion -- not in its content or wording, but just because there isn't enough else.  The best thing to do would be to add information about the actual piece of music. Antandrus  (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki-Polytics 

message: I've cut half the "ZOMG Bach is antisemitic!!" crap. Obviously some people care, but that's not what the majority of the scholarship surrounding this work has been done on. Ergo, said material does not get to take up half the article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you.  I was just coming over to do exactly the same thing!  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meh 

message: I just added "Popular sections" to the article.  I am not professional in music, I enjoy it only, hence my selection and interpretation is not necessarily professional enough.  Similar applies for my English.  So anybody is welcome to improve this portion of the article, including to give a better subtitle instead of Popular sections.
It was nice to find explicit references to contemporary music, where the theme of the alto aria after the death of Jesus is used.
prohlep (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular sections

message: Apart from the very first words of the lede, the title is the only occurrence of "Johannes Passion".  It's otherwise called by its English title, "St. John Passion".   But St. John Passion redirects to the disambiguation page St John Passion, and St. John Passion (Bach) is a redirect to this article.  We need an admin to change this to St. John Passion (Bach), and make Johannes Passion a redirect.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and that would be consistent with St Matthew Passion (Bach). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The German short name would be Johannespassion or Johannes-Passion. Johannes Passion is no name at all - unless a graphic on a CD-cover. Bach's original title would be not ideal as an article name: Passio Secundum Johannem. - Now that Bach's cantatas were moved to "Title, BWV #" we might also consider "St. John Passion, BWV 245" and "St. Matthew Passion, BWV 244". Also: "St. Nicholas Church, Leipzig" (instead of "St. Nicholas' Church, Leipzig" - to match "St. Thomas Church, Leipzig". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to add the BWV number to every Bach composition.  They are useful if Bach wrote more than one piece with that title (e.g. Toccata and Fugue in D minor). They are also useful for cantatas because the names of those are just the first line of the text which at first glance often looks like just a random German phrase... and since there are so many cantatas its unlikely that all of the titles would common knowledge to readers (as they might be with an opera like Cosi Fan Tutte or Die Fledermaus).  With the Passions, the title also clarifies exactly what the piece is (a passion setting).  I think it should be called St. John Passion (Bach). I would also move the disambig page to St. John Passion (disambiguation) and redirect St. John Passion to the Bach page (since the other passion settings for St. John's gospel appear to be much less popular).  My two cents.DavidRF (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. St. Matthew Passion the same, then. (Cosi fan tutte, please) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: No no no, if you're going to consider Bach's as the 'main' topic for the name, then it should be at the main page, without the '(Bach)' disambig. There should never be a reason to redirect name to name (disambig). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand what's precisely meant by "no" and "never" here. Can we please refer the discussion to a hopefully broader forum? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Title: Johannes Passion

message: I removed the description of the tenor evangelist part as being "extremely high". It's difficult to sing for several reasons, but it isn't unusually high for a tenor part.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.175.221 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelist 

message: in the latin title on the autograph score there are signs that need to be interpreted. the title does not read 'secudu joane', the signs above the letters are notations of latin endings. it's secundum joannem (i'm not sure about the 'h').Anapazapa (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleography

message: I find it worth mentioning in the article that unlike any of the other surviving Bach Passions, there is no Resurrection in the SJP. Was there some reason for this?  Was there originally one which did not survive?  Does anyone else think this important?  I personally find it very moving that we are left bidding the corpse of Jesus to "rest well" and then meditate on our own deaths -- asking God to send angels to bear our bodies to their "narrow rooms" to "softly rest from pain and gloom" in the arms of Abraham (please note, you people concerned about the "antisemitism," which I think might better be assigned to the St. John Gospel text). In the meantime, we are to "await the day prepared us," when we will be awakened from death, have our eyes unbound, and see "in boundless joy" the holy face of Jesus.  Did Bach intend for it to end where it does?  LotsaInfoStuff (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the omission of the resurrection is unusual in passions, quite the opposite. Could you be more specific which other Bach Passion, or any of the works in :Category:Passion settings, mentions it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Is Omitted From The Text 

message: From the introduction: "The work is most often heard today in the 1724 version", whereas in the 'Versions' section it says "The original version from 1724 is not the one most familiar to us today, but rather the Version of 1739-1749.". At least one of those statements must be wrong.210.126.48.227 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-contradiction about modern version

message: In 1724, Good Friday was on April 14th, not the 7th (see here or here). So, either the date or the Good Friday reference are wrong.--Joutbis (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1724 (and in 1744), the dates for Easter were observed differently in the Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany; see here, and a longer explanation in this pamphlet from 1724, dedicated to exactly this issue (both in German). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, thanks --Joutbis (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date? 

message: According to the Bach-Jahrbuch 2010, the third version of the St John Passion was first performed in 1730, not 1732, which was instead the year of the first performance of the St Luke Passion. These claims are supported by Bach Digital. Anonymous7002 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version III from 1730?