Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Easter Oratorio/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 5 July 2025 [1].

---

Easter Oratorio

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the Easter Oratorio, one of three oratorios by J. S. Bach, the famous one being the Christmas Oratorio of 1734 followed by the 1738 Ascension Oratorio. The Easter Oratorio was - in a way - already composed in 1725, in a clever collaboration of Bach with Picander who would write the poetry of the St Matthew Passion. In their first project together (as far as we know), he wrote the text for a pastoral cantata that was probably performed as musical theatre for the birthday of Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels. For Easter 1725, all music except the recitatives was heard in the Nikolaikirche in the Easter service, now among four Biblical characters instead of shepherds, with different text probably also by Picander. - When Bach thought of oratorios in the 1730s, he could just make a new score with a new title. He must have loved the piece, making more changes in the 1740s and performing it again the year before he died. Find out why. - The article received a recent GA review by 750h+ and additional detailed comments by Michael Aurel. --Gerda Arendt

Image review

• File:Nikolaikirche_Leipzg_1749_(Kupferstich)_Foto_H.-P.Haack.JPG: under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for status of the original work rather than the reproduction.

Storye book fixed the licensing. --GA

The tagging is now contradictory - it has one tag saying the author's date of death is unknown and another giving a specific author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Storye book, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Also noticed inconsistencies in citation formatting that should be cleaned up before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll look into that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, have you fixed these? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I did what I could. I am not show I understood, though. Nikkimaria? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Image is fixed; I'll leave it to the source reviewer to address citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• Cantata could be linked at least once.

  I tried Bach cantata, - the general cantata seems very far off. --GA

History

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives,... Could the phrase "only composing" be rephrased with "composing only"?

  yes if you say so --GA

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata, only composing new recitatives, for a church cantata for Easter Sunday. Could the phrase "on Easter Sunday" be used here?

  in this case, it's the occasion rather than the date --GA

• The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, after Bach had led the his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. There's a typo in this sentence.

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Movements

• The music of the arias and the closing chorus, Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11, correspond to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10,... It should be "corresponds" (not "correspond"), since "music" is singular.

  fixed, but perhaps there is a better way, - it's more that movements correspond (regarding the music) --GA

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is well-written. Good luck with your nomination. Support. MSincccc (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I will not insist upon it, but a few minor changes could be made to the lead if you want to-

• "chorus of praise and thanks" → "chorus of praise and thanksgiving"– More standard in British usage.

  taken --GA

• "Recitatives, with the characters talking among each other" → "recitatives, in which the characters talk among themselves"

  interesting, - that sounds to me like talking to self - try "conversation" --GA

• "Jesus has risen" → "Jesus is risen" since "is risen" is the traditional and preferred British liturgical form.MSincccc (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  interesting, it was like that, but during GA review, both 750h+ and Michael Aurel requested a change. ("Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" is a phrase I remember from U.S. services also.) --GAGerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  To chime in here, I wasn't protesting the use of the phrase "is risen", but the use of the phrase "was risen", which doesn't quite work grammatically. (Intransitive verbs don't take objects; we can say that "X rises", but not that "X rises Y". Here the use of the passive voice places "Jesus" as the object. A more obvious example would be that we can say "John sneezed", but not that "John was sneezed".)

  I suggested "has risen" as a replacement, no doubt because the standard, modern phrasing for the verb "risen" came to my mind before the more archaic construction did, but I don't have any issue with using the phrase "is risen". We probably shouldn't start writing "He is come" and "He is fled" about the place, but "is risen" sounds entirely fine to me in a religious context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

History (after a re-read)

• it's first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet (Come, flee and hurry). "it's" → "its" (possessive pronoun, not contraction).
• "well-suited for" → "well suited to" – British usage.

That's all from me. MSincccc (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

taken, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

I think there have been some changes since my recent comments, so I'll hopefully give the page another, more comprehensive read. I probably won't be all that prompt with my review, but marking my place here as I intend to get around to it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

A bit tardy (as per my warning above), but here's an initial set of comments. I do notice that you were editing the article at one point while I was reading over it, so apologies if any of the below suggestions don't quite match the current text:

• (Latin: Oratorium Festo Paschali), (German: Oster-Oratorium), – I'd suggest placing these beside each other, within one bracket (using a semicolon), as we have "(German: Oster-Oratorium)" enclosed between two brackets, which doesn't quite feel right

  done, thank you --GA

• Oster-Oratorium (Kommt, eilet und laufet) – Very much a nitpick, but in this field in the infobox I think the brackets shouldn't be italicised

  done --GA

• for Easter in 1725, when he used most of its music for two compositions, – By "when", are we referring to 1725 or specifically to Easter in 1725? I initially read it as the latter, but if by "used" we mean that he composed these in this time period, then it I think it would have to be the former?

  trying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a (BWV 249.1) – Hmm, it isn't entirely clear what the relation between "BWV 249a" and "BWV 249.1" is. Are these simply different ways or writing the same thing, or do these refer perhaps to different versions of this work (or to something else)?

  they refer to the old style of BWV numbers (with letters, in the NBA) and the more recent style (with secondary numbers, for Bach Digital). The latter is more precise, but the former is better known, and therefore also kept. Wikipedia articles go by the former. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I notice you've removed both "BWV 249a" and "BWV 249.1" when mentioning the Shepherd Cantata. Any reason for this? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you for noticing, - they are now back, also in the infobox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• a congratulatory cantata, – The link is about Bach cantatas in general (not necessarily just "congratulatory" ones), so limiting the link to just the word "cantata" might be better

  not sure, because the link to cantata is way too general, - it would go to Bach cantata, where congratulatory cantatas are mentioned earlier, and the rest is intructive for all who don't know what a Bach cantata is --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, there's no issue with the link itself. But now (with recent changes) the link is on just the word "congratulatory", but the linked article is about all of Bach's cantatas, not just the congratulatory ones. I'd place the link on the word "cantata" later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I used a link for that later one but specifically to the church cantatas (which has the other link in the first sentence --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• and Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), a cantata for Easter Sunday (BWV 249.3) – Per WP:SINGLE, glosses use single quotes. I also think it would be more natural to have "BWV 249.3" next to the title (for example, using commas).

  well, as explained above, I used the new BWV style in brackets, for differentiation --(forgot to sign)Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, is doing so standard practice in sources? If not, I'm not sure we need to do so in cases where we're only using the latter style. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, we will have to stick also with the older style (as Bach Digital does, having it in the first position), because, as I said, Wikipedia artile names rely on that one and most of the sources (Dürr, Wolff ...) rely on that one. The other has more numbers, for different versions. What do you think about a footnote, explaining on the first occurrence? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I changed that now to commas where there is a title and only one BWV number, using single quote marks for translations of titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those changes look good. I would just point out that double quote marks linger at Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"),. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  fixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both works are musical dramas of four characters – "of" isn't wrong, though I think we could be more specific. If there are only four characters in total in each work I would use "involving", and if we mean instead that there are four central characters then I would use "centering around" (or similar).

  "involving" taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Both works are musical dramas of four characters; in the secular cantata shepherds and shepherdesses, ... – I suspect you meant for this to be a colon instead (when using semicolons, the part after the semicolon should be a complete sentence). It also feels as though the "four"-ness isn't necessarily being illustrated for the secular cantata; for example, are there two shepherds and two shepherdesses (or one and three, etc.)?

  see below, in UC, look for "learning" --GA

  Hmm, UC's suggestion is the same as mine, I believe. Whether or not we do use a colon, a semicolon should be followed by a full sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  back to comma, and 2 + 2 for the secular work - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  The comma doesn't quite work; I would use a colon. For example, this would work: [...] characters: in the secular cantata, two shepherds and two shepherdesses; and in the Easter cantata, four Biblical figures from the Easter stories in the Gospel of Luke and other Evangelists.. I also think the "four" in "involving four characters" slipped out. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  tried colon - I don't think we need "four" twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, what you've done works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter stories from the Gospel of Luke and other evangelists. – I think it would be ideal to avoid "from the" being repeated. I think "in the" would work in the latter case.

  taken --GA

• Bach performed the secular work, known as the Shepherd Cantata, – I would suggest referencing this alternative name when the work is first mentioned

  done before I saw this --GA

• Its text was written by Picander, – Not necessarily required, but a brief description of who Picander was might be helpful.

  the lead is already longish, and he is well known as the author of the St Matthew Passion. There's more in the body, and here is a link --GA

  I think just "German poet" would work (this at least avoids the reader thinking he's a fellow composer, for example), but I'll leave the choice to you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  it would promise too much because poetry was only a voluntary free-time occupation for him - who would think of a composer for text-writing? --GA

• in both a morning service at the Nikolaikirche and a vespers service at the Thomaskirche. – I'd link vespers. My inclination would also be to use the English names of these churches, though I seem to remember you have a reason for not doing so.

  most of the sources are in German and mention the German names --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see. But most of our readers speak English, no? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Nikolaikirche is shorter in the image caption, - there is a pic of a church, and where else would the Easter Sunday service be? --GA

  All of that's reasonable, but we generally avoid dipping into non-English words when we don't need to (MOS:NON-ENG: Non-English terms should be used sparingly), and the linked articles seem to use "St. Thomas Church" and "St. Nicholas Church". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that we should be consistent within one article: Thomaskantor, Thomanerchor, Thomaskirche. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I have to say I don't really agree (the titles of our articles would suggest that for those other two the German word is the common name), but it's rather minor in the scheme of things, and there's not much sense in pressing the point when it is arguably partly a matter of personal preference. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd also re-suggest linking vespers. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  done, I overlooked that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach made the composition the Easter Oratorio (BWV 249.4) – Not sure "the composition" adds anything here. Very minor, but "created" sounds slightly better here to me. I would also again raise my query as to "BWV 249.4" being in brackets rather than between commas.

  but he didn't "create" anything here, as explained in the body, - only minor changes, - how would you word that? --GA

  "produced", perhaps? This probably doesn't carry the same implication of creating something original. I would also restate my feelings on "the composition". – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  commas taken - "produced" would still hint at some production, while he only renamed / re-labelled / or what? - If not "the composition" then what? "the Easter cantata"? - We have to be very clear (see the question below) about that the music of the oratorio is the same as for the cantata, besides those very minor changes of a few extra measures, different text layout in the middle section of one aria, and two different instruments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  "made" is fine, but it is essentially synonymous with "created", so it will still carry the same implication if that's your concern. As to "the composition the Easter Oratorio", the problem is that it sounds as though we're saying Bach made the composition into the oratorio. (Unless that is actually the intended meaning, and I've misinterpreted the phrase?) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  not sure my English is good enough for knowing exactly what "made it into" means. He took the composition, and wrote Oratorium on top when writing a beautiful new score. What is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'll give rephrasing a go, see what you think: "In 1738, Bach revised the Easter cantata as the Easter Oratorio, BWV 249.4, making only minor changes and adding a new title." Not sure if this is all exactly correct, but this might set you on the right track. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I adapted that partly and rephrased/reordered the whole paragraph, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that looks good. I've made a few minor copyediting changes (removed "some", added "the", added italics to "Easter Oratorio" for consistency with the rest of the article, removed the link to autograph (manuscript) as it's linked above), let me know if you disagree with any of them. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• when he wrote a new manuscript copy with some minor changes and a new title in 1738. – Hmm, I wonder if we can be a little more specific here: "a new manuscript copy of ..." (I'm assuming it is the music written in 1725, though I think it could help to make this clear).

  but what else would it be? - trying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  What you've done works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Kommt, eilet und laufet ("Come, hasten and run") – Same comment on single quotes

  same reply ;) --GA

  Hmm, I'm not sure you replied on this specific point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  perhaps I misunderstood, - now single quotes for translations of titles --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale. – Possibly this was intentional, but "Evangelist" wasn't capitalised above

  yes, because it's a different meaning (with a different link) --GA

  I had thought so. That said, I do notice that the first instance links to Four Evangelists, where the word is capitalised. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you, taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• In the oratorio, Bach assigned the individual characters of the cantata more generally to four voice parts. – Hmm, I have to say I'm not entire sure what is meant by "more generally" here (can you assign something "more" or "less" generally?)

  I'd be happy with better wording, perhaps you can help: in the cantata, it was same history involving characters who lived 2000 years ago. In the oratorio (without changing anything), they are you and I, general people who react to the situation, - involving the listener, - perhaps read below and then come up with a summary --GA

  now rephrased within the whole para, as mentioned above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, – Hmm, I think when the word "basically" is used it can generally be omitted or replaced. Depending on what is accurate, I'd suggest "largely", "almost identical", or something similar.

  similarly: please read the changes below and then tell me how to summarise best --GA

• The work, basically the same music in cantata and oratorio, is structured in eleven movements. – I'm not sure the phrase beginning in "basically" quite works grammatically. "cantata" and "oratorio" also need articles of some form. How about something like "The music, which is _____ the same between the cantata and the oratorio, is ..."?

  will depend on what you find one question above --GA

  I dropped the thing in brackets completely, was explained in the preceding para --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, looks better. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• are followed by a duet of tenor and bass, illustrating two disciples running to the tomb of Jesus – A "duet for tenor and bass" is better I think. Hmm, I'm also not entirely sure a duet can "illustrate" something; perhaps "representing" is better(?), though I have to say this wording still doesn't seem ideal.

  I'd normally say "for" but here - as just explained, they are the characters (formerly Simon and John), - not sure how to do that --GA

  "for" should still work, and I think it would sound more natural of the context of a musical composition (cf., for instance, "sonata for violin and piano" and "sonata of violin and piano"). As to "illustrating", how about "followed by a duet of tenor and bass, in which two disciples run to the tomb of Jesus ..." (this might some require some rephrasing later in the sentence). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  giving you "for", but the runs in the music are just an image / symbol / what? for the running - we can't say they run in the duet - especially as in the oratorio (by eliminating the characters) it's more we who move, but again not in reality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  We specifically say it's the disciples doing the running, so the readers should understand these are just characters being referenced (not the singers), meaning the "in which" should hopefully be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  tried "assigned", no more illustration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not what I had in mind, but I think it works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• where they meet two women who had followed Jesus. – The first part here is in the present tense, while the latter part is in the past perfect tense, when it only needs to be in the past tense. (Let me know if this if this needs further explaining.)

  past tense taken --GA

• The middle movements are alternating recitatives, with the characters mostly engaged in conversations, – "in which the characters mostly engage in coversation"?

  thank you --GA

• and arias, in which three of them (soprano, tenor and alto) express their emotions facing the empty tomb, – Any reason to not just go for "in which the soprano, tenor and alto express ..."?

  I found a bit unfair that the bass was left out, but taken --GA

  I see, well, maybe you'll have to take that up with Bach. ;) – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• express their emotions facing the empty tomb, and then on the news that Jesus is risen. – Hmm, I'm not sure you can have emotions "on" news. "upon hearing" perhaps?

  changed before I saw this --GA

• The music is scored festively with a Baroque instrumental ensemble of three trumpets, timpani, two oboes, oboe d'amore, bassoon, two recorders, flauto traverso (only in the oratorio version), strings and continuo. – Any reason to not link the instruments?

  yes, sea of blue, they are linked in the music section and all are mentioned in the linked Baroque instrumental ensemble - consistent with other such articles --GA

  Hmm, the featured article of yours which comes to mind is BWV 1 where they seem to be linked in the lead. If you want to avoid too many links, you could just link the ones which are lesser known; for example, while all readers will know what a trumpet is, those without a background in music likely won't know what a "flauto traverso" is. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I looked at three other FAs (4, 23, 56) where they are not linked, - the idea at this point is to give the idea of Baroque instruments and roughly what instruments, but not send readers away to individual instruments, - those interested can find them later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see, if it's been done at other FAs then that's no problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  anyway, as another reviewer also asked, I linked the two instruments with italian names --GA

  Ah, I see. Good, those are the ones I would have recommended linking. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• In the cantata version and the 1738 oratorio version, – Hmm, we have a year for one but not the other; I wonder if this could be made consistent.

  we have only one cantata version but two oratorio versions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• the choir sang only in the final movement. – I think the present tense is more appropriate here, as the work is extant, meaning that choirs today still sing this movement.

  not quite the question, that movement stayed the same anyway, - it's the other one - open for advice --GA

  I'm not sure I'm quite cottoning on to what you mean. Assuming both these works are extant (which I think they are), I would lean towards present tense. For instance, compare "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano plays arpeggios ..." and "In the opening movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, the piano played arpeggios ...". The latter sounds either as though the work isn't extant, or that the piano in question has met an untimely demise. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  trying harder to explain: in the 1740s, after three versions, Bach changed towards more choir participation, and then the former state with only on movement was a past ("sang"), - do you see what I mean? Since the change, the choir sings in two, and that is the version performed and recorded. - Better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I'm understanding correctly, the use of past tense is because these versions aren't (or aren't commonly) performed today? I do have to say that the use of the past tense still sounds to me as though it's suggesting these versions aren't extant. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  As said somewhere, the version typically performed and recorded is the final one (.4) but the others still exist. Perhaps compare Bruckner's symphonies, or Bach's St John Passion where four versions exist, and people often record the first version, thinking that the second was compromise with the city ... - perhaps you can think of some better wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  As said somewhere, the version typically performed and recorded is the final one: Yup. Reading your responses, I think I might be understanding: is it that with the past tense you're trying here to contrast these previous versions with the "new" revision produced in the 1740s? If so, it could work to make this connection a little more explicit. For example, you could start with "In the 1740s, Bach again ...", and then change the next sentence to "He arranged the third movement partly for choir, whereas in the cantata version and the 1738 oratorio version, the choir sang only in the final movement" (or similar). I think this would hopefully make the connection clear and justify the use of the past tense. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  mostly taken, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good. Made a few tweaks myself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach again revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, in the 1740s, – Having "in the 1740s" at the beginning of the sentence feels a little more natural to me. I might also use brackets for "which he seems to have regarded highly", though this is largely personal preference.

  what you want to put in brackets is perhaps the most important information in the whole lead ;) - I'll move the period, but feel that revising again and again is the more important part than when precisely this happened, on top of we know only a timeframe --GA

  What you've done works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• The short description is "Bach music composition", three nouns which I'm not quite sure work together without separation. How about "Musical work by Bach"?

  I didn't write that but will change --GA

  Great, it's much improved. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

– Michael Aurel (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed reading and commenting, Michael. I usually do the lead last in reviews ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all, Gerda. Onto the rest of the article I move. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

A next batch of suggestions:

• In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig, – A nitpick, but I'm not sure "as" adds anything here

  gone --GA

• He took office in the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. – I wonder if it's possible to give any dates from the Gregorian calendar, as some readers mightn't know much (or anything) about the Christian liturgical year.

  added date, but don't know it it's in the source given or if it needs an extra one --GA

• He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724 – "Good Friday in 1724" or "Good Friday of 1724", I think

  "of" then - would I say "Christmas of 2024"? --GA

• the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic sacred oratorio. – Perhaps ignorant to the reasons for drawing out this particular distinction, it seems to me that we could just say "the St John Passion, a dramatic sacred oratorio, for ...".

  The reason is that his first oratorio, that Passion, was completely different from what he had done before, and - as you will read later - the Easter Oratorio can be seen as it's sequel. --GA

  inspired by some question below I tried to expand the Background, by the Holy week, the heavy workload then, the days between Palm Sunday and Good Friday, such things. I'd like to add the exact pages from Wolff, but am in Poland and can't access the book here. I will add that when back home (Saturday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, what you've done works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The following year, Bach pursued to write a second cantata cycle, – I'm not sure "pursued" is the right word here. It typically refers to running after something, and I'm presuming that Bach wasn't writing the cycle while running. ;)

  What would be the right word for expressing his endeavour to do such an unbelievable thing? --GA

  Just "wrote" would work. While the achievement was of course impressive, we (per MOS:PUFFERY) generally avoid implying the impressiveness of certain things with our language, though quoting a scholar for this sort of assessment would of course be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The very source used says so, beginning on page 275, "Bach could begin with a most promosing cantata project of great homogeneity", and concluding three pages later: "It is hard to imagine that this fascinating, unprecedented project of chorale cantatas was initiated by anyone but Bach himself. ... Bach's artistic borders on the incredible. That Bach went about his grand project systematically becomes immediately evident ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, quoting that source would work (eg. "grand project", or similar), if it's something you want to emphasise. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I added to the section, please check, more Easter cantatas, examples not only of the load that season but also reusing music with different text. In the process, I quote Wolff twice, for the characterisation of this cantata cycle and Picander's St Matthew poetry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• It was followed by the second version – Hmm, by "it", do we mean the second cantata cycle or BWV 1?

  BWV 1, on Palm Sunday, followed 5 days later (same year) by the second version of the St. John Passion. --GA

  Understood. I would use "This was followed ..." to avoid ambiguity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased differently, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday. – "..., which was performed on Good Friday". I would also query as to what year (or years) it was performed on Good Friday.

  We talk about the Holy Week of 1724, Palm Sunday (BWV 1), Good Friday (St John), Easter Sunday (our cantata), - a heavy load on the choir (which may explain why it has little to sing in the Easter cantata), - what is unclear? --GA

  Your rewording has resolved both of these points. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach – I would write "approaching his second Easter as Thomaskantor", as otherwise it might sound as though Bach was two years old!

  "in office" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, ... – A change may not be needed here, but the way we use "congratulatory cantata" makes me wonder if this is considered a specific type of cantata in Bach's output. If so, are there specific qualities or characteristics of congratulatory cantatas which set them apart? (Besides, of course, having to do with congratulating someone or something.)

  it is a specific genre in his output, as explained in Bach cantata, but that link is gone. - I guess I'll write more in the background about parody music, when he used it before this work, and later, in the Christmas Oratorio for example, based on congratulatory cantatas such as Tönet, ihr Pauken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  please check if the changes in background are clear enough --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata, – "also known as ...", perhaps?

  it's not known under the longish German name ;) - we also have Coffee Cantata and Hunting Cantata, with these common names, - well, first in German, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Perhaps "more commonly known as", then? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• During Lent, a time without cantatas in Leipzig, – By "without cantatas", do we just mean they weren't performed? It might also be worth briefly describing in brackets when Lent is, for non-religious readers who aren't aware.

  there is a link, and another one for Liturgical year, and from the context should be clear that it is the time in preparation of Easter (like Advent is the time in preparation of Christmas, also silent): no cantatas performed (which meant no cantatas composed, - he composed for the next occasion, after seven weeks without came Palm Sunday, Good Friday and three feast days of Easter, each with a cantata, all within 10 days). --GA

  A paraphrase of "time in preparation of Easter" (in brackets) would work well. I would also be explicit on the point that there weren't performed (or composed) during this time, as "time without cantatas" make it sound a bit as though the cantatas ceased to exist during this period. – Michael Aurel (talk)

  link and explanation of Lent are now in Background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great. You also seem to have gone for a wording with avoids "without cantatas", so no concerns there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• had the time to write an extended festive composition, – Hmm, is this composition BWV 249a, mentioned just before?

  it's any but turned out that one that year, - he normally had no time to compose such a thing --GA

  Ah, understood. I suspect I was misreading the phrase. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• The librettist of the Shepherd Cantata was Picander, – I'd suggest briefly explaining the term "librettist" for the unfamiliar.

  we said in the lead that he wrote the text, for the unfamiliar, - there's a link for those with a short memory --GA

  The link is good, but (per MOS:NOFORCELINK) we generally try to avoid readers needing a link to understand a sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  while correct, I'd assume that 90% of readers who got reading this far will know what a libretto is and thus a librettist, - it would help them not to get held up, and the others have the chance to learn. - In operas, it's so common that we don't even link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and it's of course good for those readers who don't know the term to learn, but readers on mobile, for example (the majority of our readers), won't be able to preview that page, meaning they would need to click away to learn what the word means. For example, something along the lines of "The Shepherd Cantata's librettist (the author of the work's text) was Picander" might work, or you could perhaps rephrase to use "libretto" instead, and define that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm almost tempted to say again "wrote the text", but "libretto" is the standard word for texts of operas, so connects nicely to the character of the piece as dramatic music. "the author of the work's text" seems a lot for the readers who know that already. Would we link to ball in an article about a specific match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ehh ... I don't really know it's the same, but evidently neither of us with be persuaded, and I suppose I can live with just the link. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• was Picander, in their first documented collaboration. – The other person in the collaboration is of course obvious, but, technically, he hasn't been mentioned in this paragraph so he can't be referred to. "in he and Bach's first ..." would work.

  I think it's obvious enough for a simple wording that treats them as equal partners --GA

  The issue is that pronouns should refer back to an antecedent, but here the antecedent ("Bach and Picander", or equivalent) is absent. (Also, as "their" can also be singular, it – at first – sounds a bit as though we might be using "their" because Picander's gender is uncertain.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  "with Bach" was added a while ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I don't know it was, but I've added what I think we've agreed upon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start – I think "had planned" works a little better here, as we're technically going back two "steps" into the past. Another nitpick, but "intended" sounds slightly better here to me, as what we care about here are his intentions (not necessarily some specific "plans").

  thank you, taken --GA

• to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata, – "to reuse", dropping "also", perhaps?

  well, I have my doubts, - doesn't re-use imply that first came one then the other? while it looks like he wrote one music (probably with more thought about Easter), and to it came two layers of text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  probably with more thought about Easter: I see, understood. Using "from the start to use most of the music for an Easter cantata as well" would probably be fine. I also wonder then if "adapted" should potentially be "wrote"? Is Picander going back and changing an initial text, or is it that he wrote it for that purpose from the beginning? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  wording taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Picander would write in 1728 about their collaboration: – Minor, but I'd suggest "In 1728, Picander wrote of their ...", as we presumably care more about what he wrote about it, rather than the fact he wrote about it.

  I thought that we are in 1725, at the beginning of their collaboration, when the other date is in a future, no? --GA

  Ah, if that was the intention, then that's no problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• and several cantatas, both sacred and secular. – "sacred and secular cantatas" might be slightly better, as otherwise it might sound as though the cantatas were both sacred and secular at the same time.

  but how could that be? - changed anyway --GA

• Picander published the libretto, of an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses – I'm not sure "of" works here. Perhaps "in which two shepherds and two shepherdesses interact ..."?

  taken and I also split the sentence --GA

• named after characters in Greek mythology, – You've dipped into my area of interest here, so I'll be extra picky: I generally think "figures" is preferable to "characters" in the context of Greek mythology, in the same way that we maintain a distinction between "mythology" and "fiction", even though mythology is of course fictional.

  taken with thanks --GA

  I found more precision about the names, new ref added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Out of interest more than anything (it may not be worth mentioning), but who are the mythological figures in question?

  no idea, I took that from the source without investigating --GA

• Picander published the libretto [...] in 1727 as Tafel-Music. – The two parts of this statement don't quite flow nicely into each other. I'd suggest splitting the sentence in two, discussing the publication part in the first, and the part about the shepherds separately.

  look above ;) --GA

• as Tafel-Music – I'd link Tafelmusik. It also seems to me that we're using half German ("Tafel") and half English here ("Music").

  the answer is already somewhere on this page, but again: this is the exact spelling in the publication. German was different 300 years ago, and less uniform. --GA

  Hmm, perhaps, but – unless I've misunderstood, and he published it with the literal title "Tafel-Music" – our article is in modern English, so we should use the form commonly used today (which, judging by ngrams, is "Tafelmusik"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I found a better source for the exact wording in the publication, and think we should preserve it, the same way as we don't subject Bach's German to modern orthography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I've read the source you've cited, and it seems that I was indeed misunderstanding what we meant here. To help make this a tad more explicit, we could potentially write "titling it Tafel-Music" or "under the title Tafel-Music". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• at Schloss Neu-Augustusburg on 23 February 1723. – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I think it would be worth mentioning that this is a palace

  after we said it's for a duke? --GA

  Hmm, it's presumably been performed plenty of places that weren't his palace, so I'm not sure this quite follows. If it was his palace in particular, "Christian's palace" (or similar) would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The (new) source points at that we don't know for sure where. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased the sentence adding palace (hesitating because Schloss means palace), and put the possibly thingy at the end. We could add the full title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's better, and it addresses this point (so it's been struck). For the overall passage, yes, adding the full title might be good (or describing what it says), just so that the reader understands how we know the date, etc. – 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• I do notice that years are included in most of the subheadings in the "History" section, but not for "Secular model, BWV 249.1".

  there's only one, - the others are three versions to be distinguished --GA

  Hmm, I see. I would still include it, though it's nothing to worry too much about. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence, – Hmm, this feels as though it's a slightly odd thing to note in particular. Is it surprising that the music is in the same order?

  surprising or not, it should be said somehow - In the Christmas Oratorio, the use of the secular pieces is not strictly following the models, for example. - There is an Easter cantata which Bach also used by just underlaying sacred text, which I think I may mention in the Background section, to prepare this. --GA

• composing only new recitatives, – Did this involve adding new movements? If so, we might write "new recitative movements", to be specific.

  not really, there were recitatives composed for the secular work, but finding words for that music that also made sense would have been difficult, so there were new words and those set to different music, - better wording? - still same order of movements, even: where four characters interacted in the secular work, there are also four in the Easter work, which could probably be said somehow, but I didn't know where and how. --GA

  That's all fine. What might help to clarify this is giving a brief definition for "recitative": something similar to "sections in which the singers use the delivery of ordinary speech" could work, if this is correct?

  see a link to ball above, - recitative and aria are really the two most common terms in Baroque music, and I don't recall any FA explaining either, - the word recitative is even close to "recite". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• its first title was Kommt, gehet und eilet ("Come, go and hurry"), but soon changed to Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). – "but this was soon ..." is better. I would also query as to what we mean by "soon"; for example, could we give a rough (or not rough) idea with any dates?

  "was" taken - the source (Dürr) gives us only this --GA

  That's fine. "but soon changed" is still missing a subject, though ("it" or "this" would work). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  rephrased --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The festive nature of the original material made it well suited – I'd write "The festive nature of the original material was well suited"

  fine --GA

• can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story". – Either "play, and follows ..." or "play which follows ...", depending on the intended meaning

  "which follows" --GA

• It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the cantata. – I'd use "for this cantata", or, better, "for the Easter cantata", to distinguish from the cantata mentioned above that Picander wrote the text for.

  taken (but isn't that what the topic of this section is?) --GA

• This is jumping up to the previous section of the article, but I notice that we say It seems likely [...] that Picander also adapted the text for that purpose, but in the lead we say Picander may also have adapted his text for the Easter cantata.

  we are even encouraged not to use exactly the same wording in lead and body, no? --GA

  They're slightly different claims: "likely" implies that there is a greater chance that Picander wrote it than there is that someone else wrote it, whereas "may" doesn't imply this. If you'd like to vary the wording between the lead and body, you could use "likely" and "probably", or "may" and "possibly" (depending on which is more accurate). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  but who knows what is more accurate? when I wrote the article all sources seemed to agree on likely, but now two of the new ones changed that picture, one even saying "unlikely". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Both share the same metrical pattern – Similarly to above, we need to have explicitly referred to two things just before to use "both". "The Easter cantata and the Shepherd Cantata", or something similar (depending on how you change the preceding sentence), would work.

  "both texts" --GA

  I'll make a general comment here, as this has cropped up a few times in my suggestions. Pronouns rely on the noun they're replacing having been explicitly referred to just before, and this explicit reference is called the antecedent. In some places in the article, the antecedent is absent but you can still tell (or guess without too much trouble) what the pronoun is referring to; the issue is that, from a grammatical perspective, we still shouldn't use pronouns if we haven't clearly and explicitly referred to the relevant noun just prior. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  thank you for your patience, - I tried to be more explicit in the preceding sentence, - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  No problem. And what you've done there works perfectly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Only the recitatives were newly composed. – Hmm, I feel as though we've already stated this above (specifically, when we say composing only new recitatives).

  dropped the second time --GA

• scenes from the Gospels, – I'd suggest a relevant link for "Gospels"

  well, the one for Luke is linked in the same sentence, no? + we had a link for the Evangelists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Those links are good, but some readers mightn't know what "gospels" are in general. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I come from project opera where we don't link to a composer when their work is linked right next. Whoever doesn't know who Verdi is will find it in Aida. Similarly: whoever does't know what Gospel is will find it in Gospel of Luke. Avoiding too much blue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm not particularly convinced, but (similarly to some others above) I suppose it's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, assigned to the four voice parts – I'd use "involving", same as above. And "who were assigned to ..."?

  taken --GA

• the disciples Simon (tenor) and John (bass), – I'd link tenor and bass (voice type) (first mention in body)

  well, it would make a sea of blue, and the terms are rather familiar, linked in the lead - I'd go for an exception, also because we'll link soprano and alto, and readers who missed this corner would wonder why tenor and bass are not linked again --GA

  Hmm, I'm not sure I understand. Some readers will know what "tenor" and "bass" mean here, though many without a musical background won't. As to the lead, my general assumption would be that if something is linked in the lead, it should also be linked in the body (though this perhaps doesn't always need to hold the other way around). In any case, we link alto and soprano in the same sentence, and things should be consistent between all four. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  linked all now - should the links then be removed in the Music section? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  They don't seem to have links in the "Music" section (maybe you've already removed them), but yes, I'd avoid linking them a second time in the body. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• appearing in the first duet hurrying to Jesus's grave and finding it empty, – "who appear in ... grave, finding ... empty, and meeting ..." is preferable I think.

  taken --GA

• and "the other Mary", Mary Jacobe (soprano). – Hmm, is there any particular reason to call her "the other Mary"? In a literal sense, all this seems to be telling us is that her name is also Mary, something which, given her name is "Mary Jacobe", we'd hope the reader would realise. ;)

  dropping it, it's the exact phrase from the Gospel but we can offer a link ;) --GA

• Bach scholar Hans-Joachim Schulze summarised: – Is there anything "summarise"-ish about his statement in particular? If not, I'd use "According to ..., [quote]".

  I reduced it to "wrote", - "On the whole" indicated enough that it summary.

• Hmm, perhaps I'm not understanding things completely, but is there a particular reason we're quoting the scholar here? If possible, I would summarise his opinion in our own words.

  I think it's written well, and high praise for what others have regarded as a mediocre job of adjusting something to match the music; it is also nicely open about who it was. --GA

  I tend to avoid quoting full sentences, but that's all fair enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• the unidentified librettist – This is the first mention of an "unidentified" librettist. Is this who we were talking about above? If so, we should note his "unidentified"-ness there.

  We wrote before (as some sources): "It seems likely that Picander also wrote the text for the Easter cantata." That includes that he is not identified, just likely.

• The cantata, different from the secular model, – By "the secular model", I'm assuming we mean the Shepherd Cantata? It's worth noting that (outside of the heading) we haven't called it this, so it might be worth doing that in the section above.

  We wrote before: "Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence" - now what else is that than using it as the model? --GA

  The use of the definite article in "the secular model" implies that the reader has already been introduced to something called the "secular model", but we haven't actually referred to the Shepherd Cantata as such at this point in the text (except in a heading). This means that the sentence does make sense, but only if the reader recalls the statement you've quoted, from two paragraphs earlier (Bach used the music of the Shepherd Cantata in its exact sequence), and recalls that we used "secular model" in the heading of the section discussing the Shepherd Cantata. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  was changed to "Shepherd Cantata" a while ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• is opened by two instrumental movements that are probably taken – Are these the differences (or some of the differences) between the two works? If so, I think it'd be worth making this explicit; for example, "In contrast to the _____, the cantata is opened ...".

  No, there is no contrast. We wrote before "The cantata, different from the secular model, is opened by two instrumental movements." (The other was opened by one instrumental movement, none of the two here.) --GA

  To put it another way, we are making two statements in this sentence: that the cantata and the secular model are different, and that the cantata opens with two instrumental movements. Presumably these aren't unrelated statements, so one is led to assume that this is a difference between the two, but we don't actually state this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  That the two cantatas are different is no new claim, but I rephrased it. --GA

  That works well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• from a concerto of the Köthen period. – I'd link concerto

  That is a highly ambiguous term, and sending a reader away might confuse more than educate. It means here a piece for solo instruments and orchestra (like the Brandenburg Concertos) which seems to be the most normal meaning, but what exactly it is doesn't change the meaning for this piece. --GA

  The article concerto seems to include Baroque concertos, and the meaning here (a piece for solo instruments and orchestra) seems to match that page's definition, so I think the link would work. It's worth noting that even if the concept isn't important here, some readers will be unfamiliar with the term. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  linked --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• like the Shepherf Cantata, – Typo

  sorry --GA

• The work is, like the Shepherf Cantata, a dramma per musica – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I would give a brief explanation for "dramma per musica".

  I'd say a drama for music, and that is nothing the term doesn't present (and nothing that hasn't been described by the dialogues in both the secular and the sacred piece. --GA

  Hmm, sure, that's the translation of the phrase, though it doesn't really tell us what a dramma per musica is. I'll also note that dramma per musica is mentioned (or is now mentioned) above, so this brief explanation should be included there, with the link dropped in this second instance. I also wonder if the phrase should be italicised, looking at the linked article? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I italicised it on the first instance, but think that the explanation, musical drama, is really close. I used that in the second instance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• The first performances came on Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725, – "It was first performed on ..."? Also, by "performances", do we mean it was performed multiple times on this day?

  twice, and that's why "it was first performed" wouldn't fit. --GA

  "It was first performed" should still work, as it doesn't necessarily imply a certain number of performances taking place on that day. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  if you say so --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• a week after Bach had led Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern – By "led" do we mean "performed"?

  "led" is there to avoid a repetition (performance - performed), - it is also a little indication that the leading was not "conducting" in our sense, but done by playing violin or keyboard. --GA

  If the wording is idiomatic, them then that's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• two days after his St John Passion in its second version on Good Friday. – St John Passion and Good Friday are linked above

  sorry (the above was added later ...) --GA

• Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, – Also linked above

  delinked --GA

• and in a vespers service at the Thomaskirche, with a sermon by Johann Gottlob – I'd specify "the second in a ...", to clearly indicate this isn't the same performance. I'd also link vespers.

  linked, and "the other" --GA

  Link added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Markus Rathey pointed out that this music was Bach's first and only for Easter that matched the dramatic approach of the Passions. – I'm assuming Markus Rathey is a modern scholar, though using the past tense here makes it sound a bit as though he was contemporary with Bach. I'd use "points out" or "has pointed out".

  I have done that, but where is the line? Dürr wrote in 1971, past, Rathey in 2016, - yes, that's more recent, but in 20 years, no more, - who would update? --GA

  I would generally use the present tense for all scholars whose opinions are reflective of modern scholarship. Exactly where the line is drawn will depend on the discipline, but, in general, if the scholar is not so outdated that their opinion is unreliable, I would use the present tense (and I would say this generally accords with MOS:PRESENT). That said, using the present perfect would also be perfectly fine for such scholars, if you'd prefer (but the tense should be consistent for all such modern scholars). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I tried present tense for Gardiner, Rathey and Wolff. Please change if you see one that I overlooked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, – I'm not necessarily sure what he had time for was thinking, specifically, as thinking about "larger musical forms" presumably doesn't take all that long. Maybe something to the effect of "Bach had the time to compose in larger musical forms in 1732"?

  we'll have to search, - there was no large composition in 1732 (yet), and the 1733 Missa was a "composition" in the original sense of "put together": many older pieces with new text, therefore "to compose" might be misleading in both senses, no? --GA

  "plan", perhaps(?), though I suspect that also mightn't work. Or we could say that the added time caused him to gravitate towards longer forms, if this is what the source says. (I would probably need to see the source's claim to think of a more effective rewording.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I see you've used "plan". – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• with no festive music – Where did it go? (I'm being facetious, but the point is that if we mean that it just wasn't performed, we should probably say so explicitly.)

  not sure what you mean, it wasn't only "not performed" but "not composed, because not needed" --GA

  That's fine, but "with no festive music" makes it sound a bit as though previously composed festive music also ceased to exist. If festive music both wasn't performed and wasn't composed, then stating this much would resolve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  expanded using "not permitted" - perhaps you know a better term? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, that's much better. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• In 1733 he composed the – I would place a comma after "1733".

  I understand that it is a US comma. --GA

  I would've still used it, but yes, it's more common in AmE. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• the Missa for the Dresden court, – Should "Missa" be italicised?

  no, its a generic title like Sonata --GA

  It is, though in this case it's also the name of a specific work. I would also note that Bach's Missa of 1733 seems to italicise it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  no, we don't italicise Requiem, Mass, Missa, Symphony, - I changed that article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  No problem. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• intended for use in their church services – "these church services', as the services don't belong to the works. Or, if "their" refers to the aforementioned days (rather than the works), I would write "intended for use in the church services on these days".

  sorry, I rearranged the sentence and it ended wrong, - fixed --GA

• probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738. &ndash "in" or "of", same as above

  "of" --GA

• For Easter Sunday, 6 April 1738, Bach could use the 1725 Easter cantata ... – Hmm, did he use it in the way we're referring to here? If so, would it work to just say "Bach used the ..."?

  well, perhaps you can help to word that it comes as a surprise that he used it as it was, instead of adding more work for the choir, some chorales, such things - It's unlike the later oratorios, therefore (but he sems to have liked it). --GA

  Hmm, I see, I'm not sure "could" is achieving that here, though. I'd just use "used" here, and, then separately state that the lack of meaningful changes before its use was unusual (or something to this effect). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I changed to "used", and "very minor changes (from below), followed immediately by those changes, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great, no problems there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• 1725 Easter cantata basically as it was – A grumble towards "basically". Does "with minor changes" work? Or "largely unchanged", perhaps?

  As the following text shows, the "changes" to the music are so minor that even "minor" seems too much, and "largely unchanged" even more so. The change was to no longer make it a drama involving historic persons, but a drama in which the listener is involved: called to run and to reflect. --GA

  If "minor" seems too strong, then perhaps use "very minor', or something more specific. Despite their minor nature, though, there were changes ("basically" sounds a bit as though there were no changes, but that we're unwilling to make an unqualified statement). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  see above --GA

• He wrote a new autograph score of the music and at this time labelled the work – Not sure "at this time" adds anything

  Did you read the DYK nomination, with all the suggestions to say the Oratorio was performed in 1725, and I replied, yes, but it was not yet named Oratorio. It can't be clear enough, - what would you say? --GA

  Hmm, no, I haven't. I would think it's clear from context that we're talking about 1738, but, if we think it's necessary, we could restate that it's 1738 at the beginning of the sentence. Either way, "at this time" isn't really needed later in the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  dropped, also dropped "new" - there was no score for the cantata --GA

• labelled the work an oratorio, Oratorium Festo Paschali. – "labelled the work an oratorio, titling it Oratorium Festo Paschali"?

  added --GA

• He made several changes; – The points mentioned in the preceding sentences would count as "changes" in my eyes. Do we perhaps mean changes specifically to the music? If so, "He made several changes to the music;" might be better.

  gone in the change above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• the insertion of a measure in the first movement – Do we mean an additional measure of music? If so, I'd add "of music".

  good idea --GA

  Added. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• a different underlay of the text in the middle section of the alto aria – As "underlay" has a specific meaning in a musical context, I'd link underlay#Music, or (probably the much better option, given that link's inadequacy) I'd give give a brief explanation of the term

  I'm no native speaker. I never heard the word "underlay" before, - the German is "unterlegen" (so the same): the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music, - but how could that be clarified? --GA

  Your explanation, "the way the syllables of text are written under the notes of the music", seems quite good, and would work with slightly more encyclopedic wording. (Or, alternatively, you could rephrase the bullet point to avoid the word "underlay".) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  calling Michael Bednarek for help wo knows English, German and Classical music: is there a short term for Textunterlegung, and if not how can we best say it in English? In this case, the text also changed a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  English 'underlay' for German Textunterlegung can be seen as a term of art, similar to 'through composed', 'leitmotiv', 'Urtext', 'Sprechstimme', all – including 'underlay' – used in musicology literature. This paper of 30 pages discusses the problems of translating it in-depth. I can only suggest to keep using it with a parenthetical pointer to the related subject prosody (music), or to describe its meaning as attempted above. I prefer the first. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• a different underlay of ... and five additional measures – Technically, these aren't changes, and don't quite align with the phrasing in the other points. Something along of the lines of "the use of a different ..." and "the addition of five measures" might be better.

  how are additional measures no changes? - how is the different underlay of text, resulting perhaps in different vowels sounding, not a change? like the different sound of another instruement? --GA

  Sorry, my wording was a bit oblique. What I'm pointing out is that the wording in this bullet point isn't consistent with the others: "the insertion of a measure ..." vs "a different underlay ..." (rather than "the use of a different underlay ..."). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  done "use" but unconvinced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Derived from the secular musical theatre, – By "the secular musical theatre", do we mean a specific work? If so – and maybe I'm just losing my way in so many different pieces here – which one? Or do we mean "secular musical theatre" as a genre?

  should we instead say dramma per musica again? - Perhaps we could drop the paragraph, because the same thing was said about the same music as cantata, but it seemed worth saying that this isn't like his other oratorios (now that it was named Oratorio). --GA

  I replaced "theatre" by "drama" as in the lead --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• I notice that in some places we use the serial comma (eg. it features no original Biblical text, no Evangelist narrator, and no chorale), and in others we don't (eg. an Evangelist narrator, Biblical texts and chorales,. I realise that checking for this is a right pain (so sorry for putting you through the ordeal), but they should technically be consistent.

  commas are so different in German, sorry, - can you please just fix when you see it missing? --GA

  I've added the serial comma in the quoted passage, and will do so when I read later parts of the article, but a skim of the article on your part, checking for this, would probably be a good idea. (It's minor, but it's worth noting that another reviewer will probably choose to point this out if they notice it.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• based on a scriptures – Plurality clash: "a" is singular", "scriptures" is plural.

  I thought I had moved the sentence to later, - my bad. --GA

• In a later version from the 1740s, between 1743 and 1746, Bach revised the oratorio once more – Hmm, I'm not sure this is quite right. It sounds a bit as though we're saying the same thing twice. Would dropping "In a later version from the 1740s" work?

  dropped "a later version from" --GA

  In the 1740s, between 1743 and 1746 – I'd remove "In the 1740s", as "between 1743 and 1746" already tells us the decade. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  dropped --GA

• he expanded the third movement from a duet into a four-part chorus, at least in the outer section, – Do we perhaps mean "outer sections" (that is, the sections at the beginning and end of the movement)?

  yes --GA

• in the middle section of the soprano aria (movement 5) – I'd write "in the 5th movement"

  we said "alto aria" in the previous section, - also there's only one (of both) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I now linked all thees movements to their descriptions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nice! That looks very helpful. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections. – Hmm, well, they technically need to decide whether or not to use the final version at all (even if it's common practice). A more appropriate statement might be that conductors commonly choose one or the other.

  no, not the same thing. Provided they use that last version (and we are in the section about that version), they still have to decide, because it's marked tenor bass but not indicating solo tenor ore choir tenor (same for bass) --GA

  I might protest that context doesn't change the literal statement we're making, but I can see your point that readers are unlikely to misinterpret our meaning given the preceding content. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• for the last time on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, the year before his death, right after his last performance of the St John Passion. – "and right after his last ...", as otherwise it might sound as though the year before his death came right after the last performance of the St John Passion. I would also query as to what we mean by "right after" (hours later, days later, months later?).

  It seems significant that in 1749 he coupled again the St John Passion (on Good Friday) and the Easter Oratorio (two days later on Easter Sunday, as explained in Background), similar to the first (cantata) performance. Rathey calls the Oratorio a sequel to the Passion. - rephrased, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, that makes sense. I'd rephrase it to: Bach performed the Easter Oratorio for the last time in 1749, the year before his death; this performance, which took place on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1749, again followed a performance of the St John Passion on Good Friday. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  taken with the exception of "on Easter Sunday" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Open as of 26 May

• Bach decided to compose new music for almost all liturgical events, which became his first cantata cycle. – Technically this reads as saying that all of the liturgical events themselves became his first cantata cycle.

  so how do say in English that it's the new music which ...? --GA

  "liturgical events, and this music became" would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  how about "these cantatas", - or begin with "new cantatas"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Specifying "new cantatas" in there might be good (eg. "decided to compose new cantatas ..."). Then, maybe ending it with "resulting in his first cantata cycle" could work? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  saying now "composed cantatas", - something freshly composed is always new ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, not sure if this was your intention (or if you just forgot to make the change), but it seems we still have the original wording (decided to compose cantatas for almost all liturgical events, which became his first cantata cycle). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I rephrased it, please check --GA

  That works fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Their collaboration led to the 1727 St Matthew Passion and several cantatas, – "They also collaborated on the ...", maybe?

  yes, but the St Matthew Passion is not an "also" but a pinnacle --GA

  That makes sense, but I'm not sure that comes through, as we're also including "several sacred and secular cantatas" in that "pinnacle". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I might try something that their most prominent (best-known, or what?) collaboration was the St Matthew Passion (almost 70 movements) but would probably need a ref, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I would think so, yes. I would probably just go for something like "They later collaborated on the 1727 St Matthew Passion, as well as several sacred and secular cantatas." if you want to avoid "also", though I'll leave the choice to you. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  expanded --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  That looks good. I'd only point out that "Their collaboration led to the ..." can probably now be changed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  yes, done --GA

• The title suggests that it was performed as musical theatre in costumes during a meal – I'm a bit confused by "title" here. Do we mean the title "Shepherd Cantata"? Because if so, I'm not sure how we can infer all this from it.

  we talk about Tafel-Music, - how would you call that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see, so perhaps I have misinterpreted things in my above comment? Specifically, did he publish[...] it with the literal title "Tafel-Music"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  yes, see just above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, looking at the source, this comes from the full title (Tafel-Music bei Ihro Hochfürstlichen Durchlaucht zu Weissenfels Geburts-Tage den 23. Februar 1725). This might be a result of the newly added source, but I think a bit of rephrasing might be needed in the last sentence; we can probably say that the date is "stated" (or similar) rather than "suggested", and that it's just the location of the performance which is "possible". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  I thought that was clarified by moving the "possible" to the end. --GA

  I think you suggested it above, but we should probably include the full title here. Or, if you like, we could state that the title began with "Tafel-Music", and then describe the other information it included. I would then put the "possibly" part into a separate sentence (to give a clear division between what we know from the title itself, and what is conjecture on the part of modern scholars). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  I tried to quote the full title, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's an improvement. Just three points: I'd include an English translation of the title (the one in the source would work), I'd keep the "under the title" wording, and I'd probably think of switching up the word "suggests" (the source uses "confirming"; maybe "which refers to", "which indicates", or similar?). I also wonder whether the part about "performed as musical theatre in costumes during a meal" is referring specifically to the 23 February 1725 performance (or just to performances of the work in general)? If it's the latter, I would probably move this bit to the end of the paragraph and elevate the part about the palace. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Will try rewording. The performance was meant to be the only one ever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, that's better, though I think the two parts might be getting a bit mixed up: I think my "indicates" wording is probably appropriate for the claim that it was performed for the Duke's birthday, but your "suggests" wording is probably appropriate for the claim about the costumes, etc. We probably also don't need to repeat "The performance on 23 February 1725" if we're only talking about one performance. The source for the full title is Schulze (whereas Funk and Grychtolik don't include it), so I would probably try to rearrange things such that Schulze is used for the sentence with the full title (and you might as well include the "possibly took place" part there), and then you can add the part about the costumes and so on afterwards. I'd also ask about the "during a meal" part, as I'm not sure that's explicitly mentioned by Funk or Grychtolik? – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Grychtolik: "Als „Tafel-Music“, wie Picander sie in seinem 1727 veröffentlichten Textdruck nennt, wurde die Schäferkantate den damaligen Gepflogenheiten nach szenisch aufgeführt, also als barockes Musiktheater mit einer der Schäferthematik entsprechenden Kostümierung der vier Vokalsolisten. Hierauf weist auch die dialogische Struktur der Rezitative hin. Das Werk kann dem heutigen Sprachgebrauch entsprechend als einaktige Festoper bezeichnet werden. [...]." - this doesn't explicitly say "during a meal", but "Tafel" means a banquet table. I'll try dropping "during a meal". I also closed the sentence after the translation of the title, with the Schulze ref only. - That the performance was on 23 February is not deduced from the title, but confirmed by several other sources, - that leads to a certain duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I replaced the former "during a meal" by "at a banquet", having found "banquet table" in another source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  On its face, that looks improved. Without re-checking all of the sources, here are a few points on reading the passage over again:

  • to celebrate the birthday of the Duke, – I'd use "in celebration of the Duke's birthday"
  • took possibly place – "possibly" before "took"
  • was performed at a banquet to celebrate the birthday of the Duke [...] The performance on 23 February 1725 – Seeing as these are the same performance, I'm not sure I understand the repetition of the date. From what you've said, I gather it is because we have other evidence that confirms the performance did in fact occur on this date? Though we cite Schulze for the date, who gives the title and states that it "confirm[s] the date and occasion for the performance". In particular, my concern is that the beginning of the "The performance on 23 February 1725 ..." sentence sounds as though it is introducing a new, second performance of the work (ie., one not on the Duke's birthday), at least until the reader sees the date is the same as that from the title. Providing I'm not misunderstanding the situation, you could use "on this date" or something similar to smooth this over and avoid the repetition.

  – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I adopted the first two. About the date: if we drop it, it appears only in that later title of Picander's publication. I'd like to say (more) factually that it happened on that date (which is not the day he was born, as our article tells us), with at least Bach Digital for a source, but that source has neither the title nor a possible location. What do you suggest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  If I'm not mistaken, that article was wrong (the dates were different to those in the source cited there; I've fixed that). I would probably continue the sentence in which we give the title, adding on a rewriting of Schulze's statement, "thus confirming the date and occasion for the performance", in our own words. I'd then add the part about "possibly took place ..." to the same sentence, behind that. You can cite Bach Digital if you like, though all of the information is in Schulze, so citing just him would be fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  thank you, I tried what I understood, - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  "occasing" definitely isn't a word. ;) I would try to differentiate the wording from the source a bit more: "confirming the occasi[on] and the date of the performance" is close to "confirming the date and occasion for the performance". Something along the lines of "which records the circumstances of its performance" would work. I would throw in the word "only" in front of "performance" if it can be sourced, but that isn't strictly necessary. I'd also point out that Maul only sources the claim "it was performed at a banquet", but not the claim that "The designation as Tafelmusik indicates that it was performed at a banquet". I understand this seems obvious to those familiar with the term, but it still needs explicit sourcing. If you can't find a source for this particular point, you could just state that it was performed at a banquet, or you define Tafelmusik in a similar manner to our article on the term (ie., including the word "banquet). – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry about the typo (and not seeing it). I tried your wording, followed by the details, please check. I didn't say "only". The idea that such music is too good for only one congratulatory event and therefore from the start was meant to serve elsewhere came here as before in the Easter cantatas (see background) and later in the Christmas Oratorio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  The first part looks better. To me, the part about the banquet still sounds as though it's deducing this information from the title (which, as I said, is almost certainly true, but isn't explicitly sourced here). Maybe end the sentence after "of its performance", listing these other details about the performance in the next sentence? – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  tried, a bit repetitious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Those changes are good. I'm still not entirely convinced (or sure I'm understanding) the situation around it only having been performed once (and so, by extension, the statements about the banquet and costumes applying specifically to the 23 February performance), but – notwithstanding that point – I think the sentence is pretty much clear and all grammatically sound. Though I do also notice you've altered the language to "suggest that it was performed at a banquet" (ie., rather than "that this performance took place during")? I'd otherwise just suggest adding an "and" in front of "possibly". – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure I understand, I tried to turn the sentence around, with the possible place first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien in which Johannes Bugenhagen had integrated scenes from the Gospels, including Luke 24:1–13. – I have to say that this sentence has rather confused me. Sorry to hit you with a flurry of questions, but these are the points I think might cause confusion for the reader. By "The librettist", do we mean Picander (or librettists in general)? If we mean Picandar, I'd use his name. What's a "Harmonie aller Evangelien"? Who is Johannes Bugenhagen?

  We don't know for sure if it was Picander, so can't use his name. - One of the sources I found recently mentioned this work, and what it is is said: he "integrated scenes from the Gospels" (There isn't one Easter story - like there is one Christmas story - but are different episodes dispersed in four Gospels, and this Mr. Bugenhagen made it all one, - making it easy to build on.) It doesn't matter too much who did this, or does it? --GA

  I've been avoiding this one, but here are some initial suggestions:

  • The librettist could base his work on a – Did the librettist base the text on this work? If so, I'd drop "could" and just say "based his work". If not, I'm somewhat confused by the meaning of "could" here.
  • on a Harmonie aller Evangelien – I'd try to explain what this is. Is it a kind of compilation of gospels? Or just the title of Bugenhagen's work, maybe?
  • in which Johannes Bugenhagen had integrated – I'd add "theologian" or something to make clear that Bugenhagen isn't a composer or a librettist.
  • from the Gospels, including Luke 24:1–13. – Is there any reason we mention these verses in particular?

  – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  I adopted "theologian" and called the result "Easter story". The Luke chapter excerpt contains both the women trying to oint the corps and the men running, the key aspects I'd say. The whole Bugenhagen thing came up with a ref found later, which explains elegantly how other aspects (such as the Mary Magdalen view, from the Gospel of John) also came in. I don't know yet how to word that better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  If possible, I'd still try to include some explanation for Harmonie aller Evangelien, as most readers won't know what that is. Or, if I've understood what it is correctly (ie., "scenes from the different Gospels [in] one Easter story"), then removing that term might be the best idea to reduce confusion. I'd also tighten "in one Easter story" to "into one narrative". It's a bit hard to tell where page 2 is in the Google Books preview (as it doesn't have page numbers marked), but at least on the page where the link sends you I can't see any mention of Bugenhagen? As to the verses from Luke, I'd probably try to explain their relevance or remove them. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I tried by turning the order of things around, first describing what Bugenhagen achieved, then giving the title. I called the thing "one Easter narrative", and changed the lead also to "narrative" (where we had "story" before). I have no more time right now, will look at the exact referencing later, and possible somehow mention that the Luke chapter has both the two women wanting to anoint and the two men running, but no meeting - don't know for sure if that was a thing Bugenhagen added, "harmonizing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I now looked at the source again (Klek). Only "Harmonie" is from the Bugenhagen title. - I took the Klek page as Google gave it to me. I see the complete chapter about BWV 249, beginning with the text, then a description, next para plot of BWV 249a, next para mentioning Easter and Bugenhagen. This theologian had also written a similar "Harmonie" for the Passions narrative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, that's much better than the previous wording. I think we may have discussed it above, but, seeing as the link to Gospel of Luke is now absent, I would link Gospel (this is also the first mention of the term in the body). I'd probably also cut "named a Harmonie (harmony)"; it isn't wrong, though I think the content of the work (ie., that it's an Easter narrative compiled from the Gospels) is the main point here, and this would probably need rephrasing, as in its current form it sounds as though it's saying the Gospels were named Harmonie (or something to this effect). – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I linked to Gospel and dropped Harmonie. There may be some mentioning of Luke eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, the passage is all good for now, though. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• He created text for dialogues and arias of four Biblical characters, – By "he", do we mean Pincander or Bugenhagen?

  "he" was the librettist, and still is the librettist, and we don't know if he was Picander. --GA

  Understood. I'd suggest replacing "He" with "The librettist", as we do refer to two other male individuals (Bugenhagen and Picander) in the prior sentences. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I did it, but unconvinced, because now two sentences in a row start with "The librettist". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't ideal, but I would probably take the repetition over ambiguity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• He also thought of oratorios – Hmm, what do we mean by "thought of". "planned", maybe? Or did he start writing them but not finish, perhaps?

  How do we know? --GA

  Well, I'm assuming "thought of" isn't the exact wording in the source. Depending on what the source says, I would make the statement more concrete, as "thinking" of a composition doesn't seem that noteworthy (and presumably he ended up doing more than just "thinking" about writing them). – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  the (new) source (I can't see the offline one) uses "designate", so did I now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  The current text is: He designated also oratorios for two other feasts of a celebratory nature, Easter and Ascension Day, intended for use in the church services on these days. This doesn't quite work grammatically. Maybe try starting with "He designated two other works as oratorios, the Easter Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio, intended for use ..."? – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps you can reword better what I would like to say: that Bach thought that two other events of the liturgical year should also be graced with oratorios because of their festive nature. The oratorios were only the result of this idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's a bit rough, but maybe this is closer? "The two other works he designated as oratorios, the Easter Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio, were similarly composed for feasts of a celebratory nature, Easter and Ascension Day, and intended for use in the church services on these days." – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the suggestion, - what I miss is that he first thought the occasions worthy of an oratorio, and then composed one and named the other. Perhaps you can manage that also, otherwise I can live with it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  I see, "composed" probably isn't the right word there. Maybe "The two other works he designated as oratorios, the Easter Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio, were similarly intended for use on days marking feasts of a celebratory nature, Easter and Ascension Day."? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  I rephrased, using the idea, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nice, that works, and it seems to capture what you were going for. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Bach took great care with expression marking in this score. – The immediate relevance of this statement isn't entirely clear to me. If possible, see if you can explain why this is significant to what's being said.

  Usually, he omitted all such markings, so it's relevant, - the source meantions it, why would we not? --GA

  There's no problem with us mentioning it, it's just that its relevance isn't evident. Your response, "Usually, he omitted all such markings", answers the question of its relevance, so stating this in the article would solve this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  This just is so, - I wouldn't know source for it, therefore I'd prefer to just say it like the source. --GA

  I do notice that the cited source says the work is "unusually rich" in its use of expression markings. Stating something to this effect would probably do the trick. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  good idea, trying --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  well, we say already "unusually detailed", - not sure what else I could say --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's true, but we say that three sections down from this part, so the reader won't know about that yet. Hmm, reading the source, I'm not entirely sure which part we're citing for "Bach took great care with expression marking in this score." Is it "This score is unusually rich in expression marks; the only items that Bach did not enter in his autograph are, as customary, the thoroughbass figures."? As to saying something about "unusually", I probably wouldn't worry too much if we end up repeating ourselves in a different section later on. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  taken, - I forgot the other is a few sections down --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

New suggestions, starting 19 June

• Bach structured the work in eleven movements, – Maybe specify Easter Oratorio here, as we've referred to quite a few different works and versions above?

  It was vague on purpose: he structured the cantata, and didn't change when he called it the Oratorio. --GA

  You could perhaps specify that we're talking about both the cantata and the oratorio, then. I'd be cautious about staying ambiguous, though, as there are technically four different works (or versions) which we've mentioned in the previous section, and the reader could be confused as to whether we're referring to all four here or just one (or several, which is actually the case). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  We'd need a different sentence then, because he structured only the cantata, - keeping it the same when giving it a different name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• eleven movements, with two instrumental movements at the beginning. – I think this could sound as though these were two additional movements (ie., that there were thirteen in total). Maybe "the first two of which are instrumental"?

  I split the sentence. --GA

  That solves the issue. I'd ask whether "unusual" refers here to the movements themselves (which the current phrasing suggests), or whether we mean that the work starting with two instrumental movements is unusual (which we say in an earlier section). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  We can drop it if we said it before. (I didn't remember.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Actually, just on the word "instrumental", it's worth considering that it can also mean something like "important" or "influential". Maybe clarify with "feature only instruments" or "contain no vocal parts"?

  I think that it's the default meaning talking about music. --GA

• The third movement is a duet, originally of ... – I assume by "originally" we're referring to a certain revision of the work? If so, I'd try to be more explicit as to which version this is.

  We know from the history that it's a duet in all versions except the last change, and that it's for characters in the cantata, - this would be repetitious and clumsy to say again. --GA

• The third movement is a duet, originally of two disciples moving towards the grave of Jesus. – Not sure "of" is the right preposition here. Maybe "in which"?

  I don't think so, duet of two disciples (not of two lovers, of two friends, as often in operas). I don't think we'd put anything "in" a duet. --GA

  I think the issue is that "duet of two disciples" sounds as though two disciples are singing the duet (cf., for instance, how "duet of two violins" sounds). We can talk about things "in" a duet, such as the musical content of such a work, or (in this case) the narrative playing out in the work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Only it isn't (in the oratorio). In the cantata ("originally") it was a duet of two disciples, in the oratorio it's just a duet (even a chorus in a later version). How would you say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• The following movements 4 to 10 alternate recitatives, – A bit of a nitpick, but I notice elsewhere we use words for small numbers (eg. there are instances of "two", "three", "four"). I'd suggest making this consistent.

  I don't think so, these are the numerals printed in the score and used as headers (to follow). --GA

  I do see your logic, but we aren't using these as part of titles here (whereas, for example, if we referred to something like "3. Allegro" that would probably be fine). To put it another way, we're just using them as regular words: for example, "movements 4 to 10" and "movements four to ten" are no different. I can see a case for consistency with the section headings, and if you like you could do this by changing the numbers mentioned in the text to numerals (that is, using "4" and "1st" and "3rd" throughout) or by changing the section headings to words (eg., "First and second", "Third", etc.). Either way, though, the main text should be consistent with itself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Making the section headers words is not consistent with c. 200 other articles including FAs. I believe that the consistency within this section "Movements" is important here. --GA

• The following movements 4 to 10 alternate recitatives, – I'm not entirely sure what we mean by this: perhaps that the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th movements are recitatives but that the 5th, 7th, and 9th movements aren't? I think it could also sound as though every one of these movements contains recitatives which alternate with other musical content.

  It should say "alternate recitatives and arias", with each expanded by explaining their function. --GA

  Yes. The trouble is that saying "the movements alternate recitatives and arias" can sound as though it's saying something like "each movement alternates between playing recitative music and playing aria music". – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  What do you suggest? I don't know how someone looking at the table would think that. --GA

• in which the characters interact, – Hmm, I'd question whether this is crucial content in a section on "Structure and scoring", under "Music". It seems to be more about the narrative of the text, and it's worth considering that characters interacting probably isn't all that surprising or noteworthy in a narrative, though maybe the statement could also be reworked if there's something more specific you want to say here?

  the interaction in the recitatives is contrasted by the expression of a single person's emotion in the arias, - should we drop it as the typical difference between recitatives and arias? (... but usually I'm told that I should expect readers to know such things) --GA

• movements 4 to 10 alternate recitatives, [...] with arias – Alright, looking at the table, what I think we mean is that the even movements from 4 to 10 are recitatives and the odd movements in this range are arias. Maybe try reworking the sentence to be closer to how I've expressed it in this comment (this is very rough, but something like "In movements four through ten, even movements are recitatives and odd ones are arias" could work), as I think "alternate" might lead some readers to think the alternation between recitatives and arias happens within each movement.

  Perhaps try again after reading the responses above, - the alternating of action and stand-still emotions - typical for baroque operas as well - should come out. --GA

  Ok, understood. I'd still try to rephrase the part where we explain the order of the movements in the manner I've suggested above (to avoid ambiguity), but, to try and maintain (as you've put it) "the alternating of action and stand-still emotions", you could perhaps split this out into a separate sentence, where you make clear the character of the recitatives and the arias, and how this leads to the music alternating back and forth between these two modes? – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I explained it to you, but it's really the basic difference between recitative and aria. I don't recall explaining that in one of the other FAs (but may be wrong). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but I notice we link aria in the lead, but not on its first mention (in the "Easter cantata, BWV 249.3 (1725)" section).

  done --GA

• in which they express emotional reaction. – "express emotions", maybe? Otherwise it might be worth clarifying what they're reacting to here.

  I thought it goes without saying that each aria depict how a character reacts to the action in the preceding recitative, - what would you say? --GA

  Ah, ok. It wasn't obvious to me, but that makes a lot of sense. I've above suggested splitting this part into a separate sentence; maybe adding a phrase similar to "express their emotions in reaction to the events of the preceding recitative" could work? – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• The music is festively scored with a – I imagine this makes sense to someone acquainted with Baroque instrumentation, but I'd query what it means for a work to be "festively" scored (and what about this set of instruments is more festive than another set of Baroque instruments).

  trumpets and timpani are festive, while oboes and strings are standard, - that is part of the linked article Baroque instruments, but also no surprise, or is it. --GA

  That does make sense (and will probably be obvious to those familiar with Baroque instrumentation). It's probably the sort of thing which technically (and perhaps annoyingly) needs to be sourced, though, which (maybe?) it isn't: it doesn't appear to be stated in Dürr, but the Bach Digital website seems to be crashing for me at the moment (so I'm unable to see if it's mentioned there). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  It will not be sourced there, "trumpets = festive" is true for all Baroque and even later music. (In Baroque, they are often a symbols of God's or a ruler's presence and power, - fanfares when a king arrives, for example.) Calling trumpeters for help: we search for a source that says this, Trumpetrep, DBAK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  There is a liturgical admonition against the usage of trumpets during Lent, which is why us trumpeters are so busy on Easter Sunday. I think trumpets being festive instruments is unlikely to be challenged, even if it isn't quite common knowledge.

  • "The opening and closing numbers of the Easter Oratorio provide a festive frame for the work as a whole. The three trumpets and timpani in the introductory sinfonia, in the duet and chorus that follow, and in the final chorus contribute much to the festive impression."

  Smither, Howard E. A History of the Oratorio: The oratoria in the baroque era: Protestant Germany and England. University of North Carolina Press, 1977. 157.

  • "...Bach's Easter Oratorio begins with a festive opening."

  Rathey, Markus. Bach's Major Vocal Works: Music, Drama, Liturgy. Yale University Press, 2016. 146.

  • "...some of the cantatas include a festive orchestra with three trumpets (sometimes two or four) and timpani..."

  Koehler, Elisa. Fanfares and Finesse: A Performer's Guide to Trumpet History and Literature. Indiana University Press, 2014. 111.

  Trumpetrep (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• The music is festively scored with a Baroque instrumental ensemble of – Not sure "with" is the right word here; "for"?

  yes, and I forgot the voices ... --GA

  Great, that works. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• two violins (Vn), viola (Va) and continuo (Bc). – The abbreviation for the violin seems to be "Vn" here, but "Vl" in the table.

  good catch --GA

• and continuo (Bc). – Not essential, and I realise that referring to it simply as "continuo" is common in English writing, but I'd consider using the full name, "basso continuo", so readers aren't confused by the presence of a "B" in the abbreviation.

  changed --GA

• I haven't looked over the citations as a whole, but I notice that at the end of this sentence the Durr & Jones citation has the page range "pp. 271–230".

  another good catch, 273 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• In the following table of the movements, in the revised 1740s version, – Not sure the two phrases starting with "in" quite work here. Perhaps "The following table lists the movements of the revised 1740s version of the oratorio", and then start a new sentence from there?

  I tried, please check --GA

• using the symbol for common time (4/4) – I'd include the symbol itself: . I'd also format the "4/4" as "⁴
  ₄".

  I avoided that because it has a larger font and "disturbs" the text layout. I linked common time, though, dropping the 4/4. --GA

• The timpani only play when the trumpets do – By this, do we mean that in each movement they only play at the same time as the trumpets, or just that they only feature in movements which also contain trumpets?

  We mean the former but for the table, it doesn't matter. --GA

• It's worth noting that the "Rec." in the "Type" column is the same as the "Rec" abbreviation we use for the recorders. I'd use the full word, "Recitative".

  done (as in other Bach works, - I was blind for the fact that it was different here) - thank you! --GA

• In some places the vocal parts have spaces between them ("S A T B") and in some places they don't ("SATB").

  intentionally so, to mark where they sing individually (duet, recitative) and where together (chorus). --GA

• Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the omission of the key signatures from some movements. Judging by Dürr, these movements modulate, ending in a different key, but I would think they could still be included.

  Recitatives modulate, which means have not one key. In similar articles, there's no key in the table, but sometimes detail in the following prose. I checked and found that the keys for #3 and #4 where sort of mixed up, - thank you again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• The music of the arias and the closing chorus, Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 in cantata and oratorio – I'd suggest using the word "movements" here instead of "Nos.", which just means "numbers". I'd also change "in" to "of", and add "the" in front of "cantata". I'd also point out the use of numeric forms of numbers (3, 5, 7, 9 and 11), but this might depend on what we decide above.

  Reading "3, 5, ..." gives me at a glance that it's the uneven numbers, - no way I'd see that when spelled out. Using "movements". --GA

• corresponds to movements 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Shepherd Cantata, – I'd try to be a bit more specific than "corresponds". Would "derives from" be appropriate, perhaps?

  Yes, we could say that once more. --GA

• while new recitatives were composed for Easter. – It's worth considering that, upon reading this, I assumed that the original work didn't have any recitatives. The sentence does make still make sense, but one way you could avoid this ambiguity is by specifying that the newly composed recitatives replaced (or took the place of) those of the Shepherd Cantata. I also generally try to avoid "while" unless there's a genuine contrast or contradiction being highlighted; here "with", "and", or starting a new sentence would probably work fine.

  I'll think about clarification in the cantata section, perhaps also the better place for the recitative-aria thingy. Not now though. --GA

• Conductor John Eliot Gardiner and program annotator Yvonne Frindle point out that the sequence of arias resembles a dance suite. – I'm assuming we mean specifically a Baroque dance suite, which had a more definite structure than what's stated in the general definition at suite (music) (an ordered set of instrumental or orchestral/concert band pieces). If so, I'd specify this and link Suite (music)#Baroque era.

  You are right, and of course, because at the time, there were no others, and later ones played with that model. - I changed the link, but then noticed that readers not starting at the beginning will miss the important sentence from the introduction about the Baroque suites. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

New suggestions, starting 23 June

• While Bach dropped the assignment of Biblical figures to voice parts in the oratorio version, they are retained in the description of the music, for clarity of the narration. – Hmm, by "the description of the music", do we mean the score? I'd also remove the "the" in front of "narration".

  No, I mean that what follows will often talk about the men and women, even with names (as easier reference than tenor and bass ...), although they were erased in the oratorio version. --GA

• Schulze noted that the listener becomes – If I'm remembering correctly, I think we decided somewhere above to use present tense for current scholars, so this might have been a missed case?

  it is --GA

• the listener becomes immediately included in the action and reflection, called by the initial "Kommt, eilet und laufet". – I have to say I'm not really sure what we mean by this. Would you perhaps be able to point out which passage from Schulze this is sourced to? A very minor point, but "Kommt, eilet und laufet" is italicised above, though perhaps this is because here we're referring to these specific words rather than the movement as a whole?

  Schulze says that "we" (listeners) are called, vs. just historic people in a past. "Thus the first vocal movement takes up the race between Peter and John to the grave of Jesus from the book of John; but with its text beginning “Kommt eilet und laufet” (Come, make haste and run) it also functions as an appeal to meditatio," --GA

• The oratorio opens with two contrasting instrumental movements, a Sinfonia [...], and an Adagio, – I think this could sound as though the oratorio starts with two instrumental movements, which are then followed by a sinfonia, and then by an Adagio. That is, I'd use a colon after "movements".

  I don't see how anybody would understand Sinfonia as not an instrumental movement. (We had it before that I'm not use to colons for anything but separating "sentences" that are connected, excuse me.) GA

• I'd also query as to whether "sinfonia" should be capitalised; as it's being used as a common noun here, my feeling is that it shouldn't. I'd also ask about "Allegro" and "Adagio" here. As "allegro" is being used as an adjective here (rather than the title of a movement), I think lowercase would be appropriate?

  straight now, but capital as generic titles of movements, and no more allegro --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• a Sinfonia, an Allegro concerto grosso of the full orchestra, and an Adagio, featuring a solo instrument and strings. – I'd use "for" in place of "of". You could also use "for" in place of "featuring a", for brevity.

  "for" taken, - I don't know any other introduction with a solo instrument, - wanted to point more than some "for" would. --GA

• Frindle signified that the Allegro with trumpets and timpani – "writes"? Not sure a scholar would have "signified" something. I'd also use "for" in place of "with".

  the wording came in response to reviewers wish (and I thought she was the conductor until the source review) --GA

• meant the return of festive music after the "quiet time" of Lent. – Hmm, perhaps, this was the intended location of the word "signified"? "meant" sounds a little too literal here. I'd also query as to whether the words "quiet time" appear in Frindle 2021, as I assume we're quoting her here.

  quotation dropped --GA

• Lent is linked in previous sections.

  no more here --GA

• It is dominated by the natural trumpets – No "the" in front of "natural trumpets"

  why? - it's "a violin" --GA

• with solo roles for a violin and a trio of violin, oboes and cello. – I think "oboes" should be singular here. I'd also ask whether or not this "trio" is included among the "solo roles"?

  fixed, no violin in trio - --GA

• The Adagio – Italics.

  didn't we say straight? --GA

• The Adagio is reminiscent of a Venetian slow movement, according to Gardiner – I'd recommend removing the comma here.
• with sigh motifs (Seufzermotive) in the strings. – I'd include single quotes around "sigh motifs" to indicate that it is a translation of Leisinger's term. Also, "strings" is linked above.

  rephrased --GA

• Still on the above sentence, I'd consider changing "with" to "and has" (or similar), so that the reader doesn't think this information is being included as part of the "according to Gardiner" phrase (ie., that "sigh motifs" is Gardiner's term).

  that happened with the rephrasing --GA

• The lament of the music – Not sure this really makes sense. Maybe "lamenting mood" or "lamenting character"?

  taken character --GA

• may illustrate the mood at the burial of Jesus, connecting to the end of the St John Passion. – If I recall what I read above, I think this might have to do with the idea that the work is a sequel to the St John Passion?

  Rathey saw it like that, but rather because there are these similarities. --GA

• The two movements may come from a lost concerto from Bach's Köthen period; the first movement is similar to the Brandenburg Concertos from that period. – Minor, but I'd try to avoid repeating "from" and "period": I'd swap one or two of the "from"s for "of"s, and I'd exchange the second "period" for "this time".

  well, I'd expect everybody would know where Bach composed these concertos (not in Brandenburg ;) ) - but I often expect too much - dropped the repetition --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Entirely optional, but you could also include the dates for the Köthen period if you'd like.

  not in the music section, - perhaps Background? He just came from Köthen to Leipzig. --GA

• It had been suggested that Bach derived the third movement – I think this should be "has"? With "had been", it sounds to me as though this suggestion was made in Bach's time. Worth noting that this will also impact but this was rejected later in the sentence.

  problem is that "has been" implies it's still, but this is a former but rejected idea. How about "was"? or a different wording? --GA

• It did make sense to me on re-reading, but I'd specify "third movement of the Easter Oratorio"; I initially wasn't quite sure which "third movement" we were talking about, as we are in the section on the first and second movements.

  not sure, - in a section titled Movements, I'd assume the default is the movements in it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This is down to the end of the "History" section. It's an interesting article (so far, at least), and it's always a pleasure to read about Bach. More soon on the way! – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I made a new header for the open questions which can be removed when we are done. I think some look a bit out of context ;) Please clarify the last two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Michael Aurel. Will there be more to come from you on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping: yes, I'll make sure to finish off the review. I let Gerda know I wouldn't be very active around this time, and I noticed UC recommencing their review, but things don't appear to be rolling along at any great pace at the present moment, so I can hopefully put out the last part of the review in the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

UC

Interesting stuff throughout. Most of the points below are nitpicks on grammar, sense and style, particularly around getting the flow of natural English. In a couple of places, I found the musical terminology tricky to follow: I think we need to make sure that a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation can still pick up what's going on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Lengthy series of comments, all either resolved or moot

He wrote an autograph score in Leipzig in 1738 using this name, matching his Christmas Oratorio and Ascension Oratorio.: using this name makes it sound like we're talking about the name Bach used for himself -- "under this title"? taken --GA He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725, when most of it served both a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, and: not sure about the idiom of most of it served -- what's the meaning here? Secondly, I'd use dashes to bracket off the title for extra clarity. I tried to clarify an admittedly complex situation further, in different order of title and description. --GA Kommt, gehet und eilet (Come, go and hurry: "Come, Go and Hurry" is a title, so needs to be in title case: depending on how we're reading it under MOS:MINORWORKS, either in quote marks or in italics (probably the latter). Ditto Kommt, eilet und laufet (Come, hasten and run).. no, "Come, go and hurry" is simply a translation of a title, not a title itself. --GA Translations of titles are formatted as titles -- see e.g. the Homeric Hymns, Poet in New York, and The Marriage of Figaro. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC) My understanding is that they are formatted as titles when they used as titles, such as The Marriage of Figaro. "Come, go and hurry" will never be used as a title, just help understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC) I'm not sure I've seen this distinction made anywhere: translations of X generally follow the formatting rules for X in the target language. The rule you outline would imply that translations of proper nouns don't need to be capitalised, because they're not being used as proper nouns, which is clearly not correct. Have you got a statement of this principle in print that you could refer me to? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC) I saw it that way (copy-cat that I am), take example BWV 4, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC) That one puts double-quotes around all the translated titles, as far as I can see? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC) I don't see that but added those to the translations in the lead, trying to please ;) - In the BWV 4, we have two translations that need to be distinguished, but not a title, which would be italic and title case. I don't understand quotation mark for something clearly separated by brackets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC) Brackets and quotation marks do different jobs -- brackets separate things from the main sentence, quotation marks (here) indicate that the terms should be read as the title of a work rather than through their "natural" meaning: so, they differentiate the Charge of the Light Brigade, which was gruesome and traumatic, from "The Charge of the Light Brigade", which is only traumatic if you're a Victorian schoolboy forced to memorise it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC) Back to the beginning: some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations. In music, larger works have titles italic in title case, smaller ones (songs, arias, short piano pieces) in quotation marks and sentence case. This is a large work, while its movements are regarded as smaller works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC) No objection to treating major and minor works differently (per MOS:MINORWORKS), but I really don't understand the distinction made with some translations of German titles are titles, others just translations: a title is formatted as a title whatever language it's in, per the examples I've given above. I'm happy to be corrected if you're following a specific style guide: could you show me it if so? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC) I gave you the quotation marks, didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC) They only seem to be in the lead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC) sorry, I guess I was tired --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Both works have the character of a play of four characters, in the secular cantata shepherds and sherherdesses, and in the Easter cantata four Biblical figures from the Easter story in the Gospel of Luke, 24:1–13.: typo for shepherdesses. I'd go for a colon after characters, and remove the chapter and verse from the text: it's either "Luke 24:1" or "The Gospel of Luke", but chapter/verse numbers are only used with "short" titles (e.g. Ephesians, 2 Kings, Matthew). taken, dropping the verses numbers in the lead, but I don't think that a colon is wanted when what follows is not a sentence. --GA Another major use for colons is to introduce a list, which is precisely what we have following four characters. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC) thank you, learning --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC) Easter Sunday, 1 April 1725: there's an extra space here. please feel free to repair such minor things that take longer to explain ;) --GA with the characters mostly in conversations: idiom: in conversation or engaged in conversations. thank you, took the latter --GA In the cantata version and still in the 1738 oratorio version: cut still in: doesn't read right in English. removed - is there a short way to express astonishment that even in the oratorio, their isn't more choir singing? --GA I'm not sure that we're really in the business of expressing astonishment in Wikipedia's voice. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC) the typical oratorio is a feast for the choir: Messiah, Israel in Egypt, Elijah, Le Roi David, - besides the Christmas Oratorio and the Ascension Oratorio which has a huge chorus to begin and another to end, and several chorales. This is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC) Right: if a reliable source has expressed their astonishment, we can quote them, but we can't be the first to do so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC) You have a habit of putting the adverb immediately after the verbal phrase, as it would be in German (He had composed the music for Easter already in 1725; Bach revised the work, which he seems to have regarded highly, again in the 1740s; . He thought of oratorios also for two other feasts) -- in English, it's usually better before the verb -- so "He had already composed...", "Bach again revised the work...", "He also thought of oratorios..." thank you, once more --GA Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1: comma needed after this. yes In 1725, approaching his second Easter, Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata, to be performed for the 43rd birthday of his patron, Christian, Duke of Saxe-Weissenfels.: again, this would be more readable with the title bracketed by dashes rather than commas, to give a sense of the hierarchy of the sentence. I split the sentence --GA The author of the Shepherd Cantata was Picander: as a non-musician, I need it to be a bit clearer as to what the difference between the composer and the author of the cantata is. I replaced it by librettist (but had thought that was the unfamiliar term) --GA our incomparable Kapellmeister Bach: why do we translate everything else, but not Kapellmeister? no, - we could link Kapellmeister but shouldn't in a quote, right? --GA an interaction between two shepherds and two shepherdesses and termed a Tafelmusik,: can we explain what that means -- and attribute inline to avoid the charge of ? I took the wording from the other article: it was the title/genre when published in 1727. - we could get the longish German title in a Main header, - what do you think? --GA The work can be considered an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story": likewise, attribute inline. Dürr. --GA The Easter cantata does not include chorales, which is rare in his liturgical music: from the paragraph, his should be Picander, but I think we mean Bach's. said so now - it's open though, generally, who picked the chorales, the librettist, Bach, a pastor, or a book of chorales for occasions --GA 1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music: mourning for whom? the details are in the linked article, and are far away from this music: do we need to name the Elector of Saxony? --GA Missa for the Court of Dresden: is this a title? If so, it should be italicised or in double quotes; if just a description, "court" should be lowercase. no, this is not a title, court - my memory was wrong --GA Would Parody mass be a better link than parody music -- the latter seems to suggest that it was meant to be funny? A Parody mass is something different (Renaissance). Parody music#Baroque is what Bach did here and often: use music for one occasion also for other purposes. --GA The Ascension Oratorio, was probably first performed on Ascension Day 1738: no comma here. yes --GA Oratorium Festo Paschali: lang tags here. yes --GA He made several changes, of which editor Ulrich Leisinger who prepared a critical edition for Carus, mentioned four in his preface: this is not quite grammatical. Suggest He made several changes: Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface. Given that he made an edition, we don't need to say that he was an editor. taken with thanks --GA the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument: what's one of those? linked that flute, but think that solo instrument is known (violin in a violin concerto) --GA the alto aria (movement 9): should "Movement" be capitalised here? I dropped it - there's only one, and which number doesn't change the meaning: that all these changes were minor. (I added the details only today, because of questions in the DYK nomination: what is the difference between cantata and oratorio? And the answer is "not much". What Bach called oratorio in 1938 was already heard in 1725, so it's in a way his earliest oratorio, just was not yet named so.) --GA the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria: this is a bit technical for me as a layman. I notice we link two of these Baroque instruments a bit later. gave them links --GA Derived from the secular dramatic action: I'm not sure what this means: it clearly wasn't a secular story? used now "musical theatre" as further up --GA Its early performance history suggests that Bach enjoyed the work: Can you explain what about the performance history leads us to this conclusion? I have no idea. CurryTime7-24 added that, and the source (Wolff) is offline. I added the earlier book by Wolff, Bach - The Learned Musician, but didn't find it there (not in the parts offered by Google that is). --GA Perhaps a job for WP:RX? I would have reservations about bringing an article to FAC if I couldn't vouch that the material actually is supported by the citations. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC) This is an old article by many, - no, I can't vouch for all of it. I'll look into sourcing that bit or drop it, but first wanted to give CurryTime a chance. I'd be willing to rewrite it on sources that I see, but integrating Klek and Schulze has higher priority. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC) By now, I added from both Klek and Schulze, and I began a Reception section where the Wolff Trilogy stuff went. I left the sentence about Bach's enjoyment in place for now. It seems positive and harmless. - There could be more detail from both valuable sources but might be too much theology.? I also introduced the latest BWV numbers for clarification. I wonder if BWV 249.2 - a lost 1726 other congratulatory cantata with the same music and text by Picander should also be included, for completeness, or if it would rather cause irritation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC) This final version is usually performed and recorded: not quite idiomatic: suggest "is the one most usually..." taken --GA Conductors have to decide if the duet in the middle section of the third movement is sung by two soloists or the choir sections.: why is this any more true here than for any other part -- surely you could make a similar choice with any duet, or indeed any part at all? no, but perhaps I should place it to the recordings section. - It would just be easier here, where it was described that Bach rewrote the movement "for choir", but left the middle section for tenor and bass, without indicating if solo tenor and bass or choir tenor and bass. --GA Unlike Bach's later Christmas Oratorio, the music for Easter has no Evangelist narrator providing Biblical text: we seem to have said this at least three times by the "Music" section. Does it need so much repetition? no, I forgot to remove when repositioning --GA Alfred Dürr's standard work: this is cited to Dürr himself, who clearly has a vested interest here -- we need an independent source for the esteem in which this work is held. removed --GA The timpani always play with the trumpets: can this be put into more layman-friendly terms? timpani - drums? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC) Yes, but what does "play with the trumpets" mean? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC) I don't know what to say besides "play with the trumpets": the timpani only play when the trumpets also play, - the table is there to visually show the sound a bit, large forces in the outer movements, intimate sounds in the inner ones. There's no extra information in adding the timpani because they are always together with the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC) It sounds like your answer is there: "the timpani only play when the trumpets also play" is much clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC) might "play together with the trumpets" also work? ('cause the other is so long) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC) The issue is the idiom of "play with", which is WP:JARGON -- it makes sense if you know about music, but those who haven't read a specialised work of musical scholarship (or attended a classical concert with a nicely detailed programme) are unlikely to have come across it. We could shorten very slightly: "the timpani only play when the trumpets do" is 8 words and 42 characters; "the timpani play together with the trumpets" is 7 words and 43. I'm not sure I see a material difference there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC) taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC) What's the difference in the table between "SATB" (no spaces) and "S A T B" (spaces)? SATB is for the choir (all singing at the same time), the other for the 4 characters (who usually sing one after the other, in conversation) --GA to movements of the Shepherd Cantata, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10: idiom: movements 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Shepherd Cantata thank you, - the link looks strange though --GA a Sinfonia, an Allegro concerto grosso: not sure about the capitals here. they are movement titles here --GA were also used in the Actus tragicus funeral music: I would clarify that this is a Bach composition, and perhaps give a date for context. Bach clarified, but the date is not certain, 1708 could be - listen if you don't know it, the recorders come right at the beginning, Sonatina --GA based on words from the Song of Songs.: might be a nice touch to quote these in a footnote? I would not know exactly from where - it's more the attitude of love here and there --GA If we can't point to specific words, "based on words from..." is a bit too strong: "inspired by" or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC) let's see: the source says "(an allusion to the Song of Songs)" - we can't say the same, so perhaps "inspired" is good. Song of Songs 3 1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth; I sought him, but I found him not. 2 I will rise now, and go about the city, in the streets and in the broad ways, I will seek him whom my soul loveth. I sought him, but I found him not. 5 8: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, what will ye tell him? that I am love-sick. Aria Tell me, tell me quickly, say where I can find Jesus, whom my soul loves! What would you say? ... about searching for the beloved, who is described by "whom my soul loveth" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you're proposing based on words from the Song of Songs about searching for the beloved, who is described by as "him whom my soul loveth"? (see minor tweaks there for grammar). I think the idea here is sound but I might be tempted to stretch it out a bit: something like "...her desire to find Jesus. Mary calls Jesus "whom my soul loves", quoting the Song of Songs, in which the same phrase is used of the female speaker's beloved?" In an ideal world, we'd have a secondary source making that point, but it strikes me as one that would surely have attracted comment, given the strongly erotic context of the original text? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC) no, I proposed nothing ;) - I propose now to say that the situation and phrasing allude to Song of Songs, 3:1–2. I'd hesitate to say "inspired", because the librettist could probably rely on the audience knowing their Bible enough to understand the allusion. I found this discussion, reading with interest (especially the Johannine aspect), but can probably not use it as a reference. About the aria, it says, very similarly to Leisinger: "Mary Magdalene’s aria (no. 9), as a Johannine love song, refers to “Jesus, “Welchen meine Seele liebt!” (whom my soul loves!), which is a reference to the biblical “Song of Songs” (3:1)". Perhaps I can give it as a second, supporting ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC) I don't see that the Bach Cantatas website would meet WP:HQRS: I did Google around for William (L.) Hoffman, but can find no trace of him outside the website itself. The allusion is discussed in this ebook: the Google Books version isn't paginated, but I found it by searching "Welchen meine Seele liebt Bach Hoheslied" UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Thank you. (Why do you think I said "but can probably not use it as a reference"?) - I found Schulze, which I will try to use for other details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) I added the Klek source that you found, and used for that one bit. There could be more but not now (close to midnight. I don't know how to handle page numbering, - why is the linked page 2. I'll think about Schulze tomorrow, can't find a year for that, - some of it reads a bit dated, but the BWV numbers are the latest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Update: i added more from Klek, including the music section. There could be a section on reception (Spitta ...), and should be clarification of the trumpet part thingy (principale): I reads Klek as that the a part for a third trumpet was in the 1738 score, but the only part for it (for the player) dates to 1749. Which sounds reasonable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC) I now added more from Klek (see above), including that trumpet part. Schulze supports the Song of Song connection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC) the bass (John) summarises joy that Jesus lives again: not the right word: expresses? taken --GA added a new principale part in 1749: what's one of those? part is is the sheet for players, only what they have to play, principal means the principal trumpet, added --GA A few sources throwing Harvard errors as uncited: the two Bach digital sources and Funk 2025. used now --GA What's the thinking behind Rathey in the Further Reading? My usual view on FAs is that if there's something in that work that you can't get from the article, it should be brought into the article (and so the work moved to the bibliography): if there isn't anything in it you can't learn from our article, then why are we asking our readers to go read it afterwards? That was in the article since 2018, and I can't read it. I have read other things by the author and found them useful. --GA I found it (or something else by the same) and used it as ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Thank you for good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC) Second read below: Bach composed a congratulatory cantata, Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a, known as the Shepherd Cantata: given all the commas in the title, I would bracket off titles like this with endashes -- so Bach composed a congratulatory cantata – Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen, BWV 249a – known as the Shepherd Cantata I tried it differently, thinking that in the first approach, we don't need that precise German title which would cry for a translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC) reconnecting to the court where the music director had just died on 6 February 1725: I'm not quite sure what this means: suggest it might be better as an independent sentence, but it definitely needs a rephrase for clarity. dropping it for the moment, - the source hints at Bach wanting to bring his name into play at that court, potentially as successor, but this would be more important for the bio and the other cantata than this piece of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC) It seems likely that Bach planned from the start to use most of the music also for an Easter cantata: another slightly Germanic idiom with also in that position: to re-use most of the music for an Easter cantata? teach me English: to me "re-use" sounds as if first came one, than the other, but the thought expressed is that Bach planned both together, the secular work almost a by-product of the Easter work, earlier performed just because of the calendar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC) two shepherds and two shepherdesses named after Greek mythology: we seem to be missing characters in Greek mythology or similar. fine, why not --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Tafel-Music.: is this a title? Seems odd to have the German Tafel and not Musik. this is the exact title in the collection, - German spelling was different, including less standardised, 300 years ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC) The work can be seen as an Easter play, following a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story".: quotes need attribution inline. the quote is from Dürr, - it's only quoted to be not accused of copyvio ;) - I moved the two other refs to earlier in the sentence, and left only Dürr for the quote, how is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC) The librettist could base his work on a Harmonie aller Evangelien: lang tags missing here: I haven't systematically checked for others. you probably read that before I added it earlier today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC) MOS:': Jesus's. complied --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC) I wonder if it would help to put an explanatory footnote on the first use of "BWV X" to explain what that system means? added, with pleasure (BWV is linked from the infobox, but we shouldn't link from a bold item) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC) More to come. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

UC ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been waiting for Michael to conclude above, as it looks like a lot of movement has been happening. I think it's looking like things are coming down there, so I'll resume soonish. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Second read

• Early Bach scholars, beginning with his biographer Philipp Spitta, were critical of the Easter Oratorio because of its libretto and its character as a musical drama, discovered in 1940 as related to the Shepherd Cantata, which added criticism of the parody music. : this needs a look for prose and clarity, particularly the underlined part. I wonder if it would be better split into two sentences and reworked?

  tried to split --GA

• Hans-Joachim Schulze notes that the oratorio supports the inclusion of the listener: likewise; I'm not sure what this means.

  perhaps read the paragraph and suggest how to summarise it, - until then we can comment it out --GA

• For Easter that year, he performed on Sunday Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, which he had composed much earlier in his career, and on the following two days Easter cantatas that he could derive from congratulatory cantatas for the court of Köthen by just underlaying the music with new text, Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, BWV 66, from the serenata Der Himmel dacht auf Anhalts Ruhm und Glück and Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134, from Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a, a cantata to celebrate the New Year's Day of 1719 in Köthen: this is an extremely long sentence, and it does get tricky to follow.

  I agree, and the reason are the long names, and then in German, - should we drop that part? (But listen to BWV 66, one of the most exuberant choruses Bach wrote.) --GA

• which fell on the feast of the Annunciation: cap Feast.

  done --GA

• They also collaborated on the 1727 St Matthew Passion, described by Wolff as "his finest piece of sacred poetry",: as whose finest piece?

  do you think that, talking about the collaboration of a poet and a composer, it could mean any other than the poet if poetry is mentioned? - If we say "Picander" it has to go outside the quote. --GA

  I would see a lot of improvement in described by Wolff as Picander's "finest piece of sacred poetry". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• The names of the men, Menalcas and Damoetas, appear in Virgil's Eclogues and the Idylls of Theocritus: link Theocritus? Perhaps by the by here, but the reason they appear in Virgil is because they appear in Theocritus, whose work is much earlier.

  learning, thank you, - should we mention them both with Theocritus first? I think we shouldn't omit Virgil as probably better known. --GA

  I'd certainly name them both; yes, you might want to put them in chronological order. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• (': rogue pipe in here. I'm not sure I understand the logic as to when we're translating and when we aren't.

  I can't/shouldn't link from Picander's title, so if we want to link from Tafelmusik (the translation of "table music"), it would get repetitive, no? --GA

• The work can be seen as an Easter play which follows a custom of "scenic representation of the Easter story": attribute quotation.

  how would I do that? - the "custom of scenic representation ..." is a fact, and the part that this piece can be seen as in the tradition seems also obvious, I think. Dürr wrote it, but I see no personal opinion in it. --GA

  It might be obvious, but it's still a personal perspective. Dürr's work is also in copyright, so needs to be attributed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I tried, naming Dürr for the quote, - please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Bach scholar Hans-Joachim Schulze wrote: a false title, acceptable if suboptimal in formal AmerE and discouraged in BrE. "The Bach scholar..." is better.

  done --GA

• In 1733, Augustus II, the Elector of Saxony, died, followed by an official year of mourning in the electorate: this isn't quite idiomatic: suggest a split after died, and "His death was followed...".
• Easter and the feast of the Ascension: cap Feast.

  trying something --GA

• The Ascension Oratorio, composed in a way similar to the Christmas Oratorio, was probably first performed on Ascension Day of 1738: similar in what way? We didn't really go into detail as to how the Christmas Oratorio was composed.

  Not detail, but that most of it was based on earlier secular works, and that is similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  If we mean that, like the Christmas Oratorio, it was mostly based on earlier secular works -- why not say that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  that seems rather repetitive, and when I wrote it, I think I meant rather that for the other two oratorios - Christmas and Ascension - there was some activity of "composing": putting together older pieces, from different sources, and connecting by new parts (chorales for example), while for the Easter Oratorio, he just took what was there in 1725. - Perhaps I just drop the similarity? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  If it's important enough to say it, I think it's important enough to make sure readers can understand: conversely, if we don't think it's important enough to explain, I'd question whether it's important enough to include at all. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know. This is just background. Perhaps read the rest of history and then come back to this point. I tried to write history to be clear about Bach changing almost nothing from 1725 to 1738, but there are enough sources mentioning some form of expansion, something that happened for the two other oratorios, but not for this one, which makes this one so different. In the end, however, it's probably enough to say it's different from the Christmas Oratorio, and not worth extra explanation at this early point that the same is true for the Ascension Oratorio (which people won't known anyway, although it's a gorgeous piece, - we sang it last year). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure this is addressing the point: at the moment, we have a sentence whose meaning is not clear to a reader who doesn't already know all of the facts in play. Whether it's true is beside the point -- it either needs to be understandable or it needs to go. If I understand your comment above correctly, it may not be true (or at least not the whole truth) anyway, which raises further question-marks for me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I dropped the thing (for now). Anybody curious enough to click will read in the lead of that article the relation to the Christmas Oratorio. It's more than I feel is justified in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi UC, are you still intending to review further? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (support)

I'll take a shot at this. I more or less meet UndercoverClassicist's description of "a reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation". I know a little about music, but I'm far from an expert and totally clueless about Baroque.

Thank you for reviewing! --GA

• Wikilink to Liturgical year

  done --GA

• He wrote the St John Passion, an extended dramatic Passion, for Good Friday 1724.[5] I'd leave out "an extended dramatic Passion" to avoid the repetition. Or maybe "He wrote the extended dramatic St John Passion for Good Friday 1724"?

  I'd like to point out that the Passion was an extended piece and a dramatic piece, both in contrary to the cantatas. A Passion is a special kind of oratorio, so I wonder if we could say "an extended dramatic oratorio"? --GA

  How about "He wrote the St John Passion for Good Friday 1724; unlike the cantatas, this was a dramatic piece, and of extended length"?

  I tried something similar, - "piece" seems a bit too little ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bach continued to write new cantatas, now composing chorale cantatas again, I'd avoid the repetition with something like "Bach continued to compose new chorale cantatas ..."

  Well, yes, but the chorale cantatas are so exceptional that it would sound too harmless, rephrased differently --GA

• a format that he kept until Palm Sunday of 1725, when Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, was first performed on Palm Sunday.[6] Likewise, I'd leave off the trailing "on Palm Sunday".

  good catch, that was unintended --GA

• It was followed by the second version of the St John Passion performed on Good Friday.[1][7] In addition to being clueless about Baroque music, I'm clueless about Catholic holidays, so I was confused about Good Friday coming after Palm Sunday. I had to go look up Palm Sunday to discover that it's the week before Easter Sunday. Would it work to say "... was first performed on Palm Sunday (a week before Easter). It was followed by ... five days later, on Good Friday"?

  I would be possible, but most readers who get this far into the article, will know - Holy Week being the highest holidays in all Christianity. (Bach was Lutheran, btw.) There are links, and with the link to Liturgical year, there's now one more ;) --GA

• It seems likely that Bach planned from the start ... whose opinion is this? I'm assuming that's from one of the sources, so "Leisinger/Frindle/Veen considered it likely that ..."

  I haven't read any source that did not think so. Not all of them would agree that Picander was the librettist, but nobody had doubts about the plan to use the music for both occasions. I just try to not add more than 3 refs to one fact. --GA

• composing only new recitatives Give the reader a hint, "composing only new recitatives (spoken sections) ..."

  I'd hesitate. (It's not spoken but sung.) recitative and aria are very common in classical music, - perhaps compare some FA about Bach works. --GA

• It seems likely that Picander, again, attribute that opinion to whoever said it.

  I thought that it becomes clear by what follows: it must have been someone who knew both the other text and the music very well, and there are not many candidates. - Today however, two new sources didn't think it was him, one thinking that Bach did it himself. I'll think about it. (The same situation, btw, is in the very famous Christmas Oratorio, - practically everybody thinks that he wrote its text but he didn't publish it.) --GA

• arias of four Biblical character characters (plural)? I was also going to say that Biblical should be lower case, but hunting around I see that it's sometimes considered correct to capitalize it, so whatever.

  typo, thank you for the catch, - you are welcome to make obvious fixes yourself! --GA

• Simon (tenor) (and likewise for the others) WP:SEAOFBLUE

  the brackets are not blue - what would you suggest? --GA

  It takes a careful reading (and younger eyes than mine) to notice that the brackets are a different color. I've played with this a bit and can't come up with anything that really works better. Maybe one of the other reviewers might have some ideas?

  the others so far had no problem - we could delink tenor and bass (linked in the lead and in Music) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The cantata, different from the secular model, is now opened by ... I'm not sure what you mean by "now". Are you referring to modern performances in contrast to how it would have been performed in the 18th century?

  I added that "now" only today, but will drop it if it causes misunderstanding. Perhaps "in contrast" is clear enough about that - while the major five movements have the same music in both cantatas - the unusual opening by two contrasting movements is only there in the Easter cantata. --GA

• Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles,[11] twice, in the morning service ... this seems kind of complicated. I suggest breaking it up: "Bach performed it with the Thomanerchor, with boys singing the women's roles.[11] They gave two performances; one in the morning service ..."

  taken, thank you --GA

• The Bach scholar Markus Rathey I think people can assume his area of scholarship is Bach.

  I'll try that. I tend to describe a bit when people don't have an article. --GA

• For Easter Sunday 1738, 6 April 1738 don't repeat the year.

  yes --GA

• the assignment of a flauto traverso I'd add "(transverse flute")

  it was only that until I noticed that it doesn't mean the same thing, flauto traverso being specifically Baroque, the other any flute blown sideways --GA

• He made several changes; Ulrich Leisinger, who prepared a critical edition for the publisher Carus, mentioned four of them in his preface, the insertion of a measure in the first movement, the assignment of a flauto traverso as the solo instrument in the second movement, in the alto aria a different underlay of the text in the middle section and five additional measures at the end for better proportion, and the assignment of an oboe d'amore as the obbligato instrument in this aria.[1][33] This is an overly-complex sentence and should be broken up.

  I'll try a list then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

(I'll pick up with "Movements" next time)

• My major concern about the Movements section is that it's broken up into a large number of small subsections, which in turn have lots of short paragraphs (some just a single sentence). I think this would work better if you got rid of the level-4 headings and turned it into running prose, mostly one (substantially longer) paragraph for each movement.

  I am not sure I understand because the level-4-headers are for the movements. I could, of course, throw everything under one of those headers into one paragraph, but tried to visually brake when one para deals with the secular cantata but another with the Easter work, or 1 and 2 are handled together because they belong together but then comes info about only 1, then only 2, then again common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I tried an example in my sandbox.

  Thank you for trying but for me, the level-4-headers are almost a must to get oriented. (I like for example that visibly the recitative sections are shorter, providing weight at a glance.) The headers relate to the links in the table, and are consistent with most other GA cantata articles and all other FA cantata articles. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• You use a few different styles for translating phrases. Early on you have the German in italics followed by the English inside parentheses and qoutes, i.e. Kommt, fliehet und eilet ("Come, flee and hurry"). Later on I see both in roman and quoted "Kommt, eilet und laufet" ("Come, hasten and run") and both in roman and just the German quoted "Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares). Looking at the source, I don't see any difference in the markup, and I'm at a loss to explain why different examples render differently, but this should be tracked down.
  • Oh, I see. The three versions are:
  • {{lang|de|Kommt, fliehet und eilet}} ("Come, flee and hurry")
  • "{{langr|de|Kommt, eilet und laufet}}" ("Come, hasten and run"))
  • "{{langr|de|Entfliehet, verschwindet, entweichet, ihr Sorgen}}" (Flee, dissolve, fade away, you cares))

  The roman vs italic is the use of {{lang}} vs {{langr}} and the quotes are right there in the markup. Pick one style and stick with it.

  sorry, no: we have to distinguish two things, titles and text. I don't have German phrases italic, or half the article would be italic, but titles: yes italic (lang). Their translations, however, are no titles, therefore not italic and sentence case. Reviewer UC talked me into giving the translations quotation marks (see that review). Text, however, is just in quotation marks (langr), and its translations just in brackets. It may seem confusing that the same words are sometimes a title, and at other times the beginning of text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• and its character as a musical drama The word "character" has (at least) two different meanings. In most places in the article, you're using it in the sense of "a biblical character", but in this place you're using it as "style", which I think it a little confusing, so perhaps find a different word here.

  would you know one? - "style" is not it, and English not my first language - I rephrased it. --GA

  Consulting the keeper of all English knowledge, maybe " distinctive nature" or "expressive quality"?

  thanks for searching, but they read more like explanations, - not quite to the point here. I rephrased it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are "manuscript" and "autograph" synonyms? You use them both and it's not clear if there's a distinction being drawn.

  they are not, manuscript is anything written by hand, and autograph (manuscript) is an author's manuscript - I used "manuscript" in the sentence "when he wrote a new manuscript copy" when it's clear that the author wrote, and about the manuscript parts for which it's not clear who wrote them, - usually scribes would perform that job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• historically informed performances are shown with a green background This causes accessibility problems, per MOS:COLOR.

  without mentioning it, they are also distinguished by the words "Period" and "OVPP". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, that does it for me. For the most part, this is very nice and made for an enjoyable read for somebody (i.e. me) with very little famiarity of the subject. Most of the above are minor issues. The biggest thing in my mind is the layout of the Movements section. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for diligent reading and good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• The trumpets play a broken chord, you wikilink chord, but it would be better to link broken chord. Unfortunately, that just redirects to Chord (music) which doesn't actually say anything about broken chords. Arpeggio talks about broken chords but only to the extent of saying that arpeggios are one type. So this could all use some clarification. Perhaps add a short explanation in-line of what you mean by "broken chord"? Does it mean arpeggio here, or something else? Or at least, add something to Chord (music) which explains what a broken chord is (I can't think of anybody more qualified to do that) and then link broken chord directly to that section.

Finally, I return, Roy. I am not sure. It's not an arpeggio, when the notes of a chord are not played at the exactly same time, which is possible on a piano, but in fast succession, like on a harp, but still sounding together. Here, the notes of a major chord form the melody one after the other, like steps or jumps, and I don't know how to say that. I actually thought that it is a familiar phrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a familiar phrase to music experts, but WP:TECHNICAL. You're the expert on this stuff; if you can't figure out how to explain it, nobody else will. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I know it in German, but not in English. Aza24, DBAK, could you perhaps look into the wording? It's the final movement (11) and sounds like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Any progress here? RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody answered. I changed it to just "fanfare". None of the sources is specific, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow reply. I think it's quite nicely resolved now. Tbh I am not sure I was listening to the right place – is it the trumpets at the very start of no. 11, "Preis und Dank"? If so I think fanfare works better than something involving chords, but I am happy to discuss further. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

PS In celebration of this enquiry I got my natural trumpet out to have a look at the Oratorio. I can confirm I'm still a terrible nat player! DBaK (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm still not a fan of how the Movements section is laid out, and I still think there could be more explaining of some music terms (such as "recitatives") per WP:TECHNICAL, but overall this reads well and taught me some things about a topic I previously knew almost nothing about, so I'll support on that basis, and with the expectation that music SMEs will be digging deeper into the those aspects of the article. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sailing moose

The trumpets are not playing a broken chord. They are playing simultaneously, which is a regular chord.Sailing moose (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We are talking about the melody formed by the three first notes sung, text: "Preis und Dank", which are played first by the first trumpet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying; but if you are going to be this specific about musical ideas, measure numbers would be helpful. Sailing moose (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, the source says that the first measure belongs to the trumpets alone, and when the voices enter (and the instruments repeat), the voices sing a "Devise" (motto) - the text "Preis und Dank" - to music taken from the trumpets. How can we say that without saying exactly the same (because it would by copyvio)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

EFG EFG G___? That bit? DBaK (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see above: replaced by "fanfare", and that's all the sources say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep I commented above too! :) DBaK (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Seen now, will reply only here: I looked now at the score, for some original research. Movement 11, p. 54 in the Leisinger pdf source, no measure numbers. I can see that the trumpets are not written in D major (but C major) which is confusing to me ;) - The bass voices sing "Preis und Dank" on the next page, measures 9 to 10, D A F-sharp, three notes of the D major chord downwards. The trumpets have one measure of triplets in preparation in measure 1, but then the same intervals in measures 2 to 3, just with a dotted rhythm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

750h

Don't have much to say since i was the GA reviewer, but i think the lead has too many paragraphs. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 4 or less, but i think 5 is fine. 750h+ 06:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! I moved this in chronology after I couldn't find it. The typical FA doesn't have 4 versions, I guess, which should be distinguished for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping you after more changes, - it already changed a lot since you reviewed for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Parsecboy - support

Chalk me up as another "reader without a good knowledge of musical terminology or of Baroque instrumentation"!

• Should we link less common instruments like oboe d'amore in the lead? (I have a "was in high school band many years ago" level of familiarity with types of instruments, so that and the flauto traverso were new to me). I see they're linked further down in the body, but links in the lead are probably worth repeating.

  We can but some may not know violin, and then we get many links, to instruments all featured in Baroque ensemble. --GA

• Can we work in a direct link to cantata somewhere in the lead? I had to go down a bit of a rabbit hole (from Church cantata (Bach) to Bach cantata before I got to Cantata).

  We could but it would feel like a link to ball when talking about an individual game. Also: cantata has so many meanings that it may confuse rather than enlighten. --GA

• "It seems likely that Picander who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata also wrote..." - the "who wrote the libretto for the Shepherd Cantata" clause should be offset by commas.

  done --GA

• "Bach had the time to think of larger musical forms in 1732, an official year of mourning with no festive music." - presumably this should be 1733, not 1732? And can we work in a reference to the death of Augustus II the Strong? Readers will probably question why there was a year of mourning.

  1733, thank you. (I shouldn't write from memory). - There seem to be so many things (not mentioned) more relevant to the music than who exactly died eight years after it was written. But if it would help you, we could. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I was thinking of something as simple as "an official year of mourning with no festive music, following the death of Augustus II, the Elector of Saxony". I think an obvious question readers could have is "whose death was so important that they couldn't celebrate for a whole year?" It would probably also be a good idea to situate Leipzig in the Electorate of Saxony earlier in the article, which would make clear the connection between the death of Augustus and the year of mourning.

  rephrased, Parsecboy, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good to me - happy to support now. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• "In the third recitative, a dialogue of a man and a woman in the secular work, the two women express their burning desire to see Jesus again, "Indessen seufzen wir" (Meanwhile we sigh)," - there are some issues with this sentence, which I think has probably been rewritten one time too many. We're missing a verb in the clause about the secular work, and there's a missing transition to the sacred version in the next clause. It also ends with a comma, not a period.

  Splitting. Sometimes I still write English like German. --GA

  I struggle with this sometimes when I'm translating German sources ;)

• "Dürr's 1971 analysis still showed a critical view,[12] but acknowledged the work as in the tradition of Easter plays." - I assume the footnote should be moved to the end of the sentence? Or do we need an additional reference for the second half of the sentence?

  I don't know. A reference for the critical view seems more important that for something said earlier, with a reference to Dürr. --GA

That's all from me for now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for a helpful look! Please check, Parsecboy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Why do some sources with multiple pages not have page numbers? Leisinger 2003 for example seems to have 104 pages. Some pagenumbers are also linked and others not. Some websites are marked as website and others with an URL in the "website" parameters. What make Musik an sich, Rondo, funk-stiftung, musica-dei-donum.org and Bach Cantatas website a reliable source? Is the Michael Maul de:Michael Maul? Uwe Wolf seems to be a false link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it.

• pagenumbers: I try to link Wolff 2002 and Dürr/Jones
• tried to unify websites
• source quality:
  1. Musik an sich: ref only supporting, could be dropped
  2. Rondo: magazine for classical music and jazz, review only used to support existence of recordings and different ways to interpret Bach's change to movement 3
  3. funk-stiftung: private non-profit foundation to support different field including culture, ref only supporting
  4. musica-dei-donum.org a review by an author used often for classical music, ref only supporting, could be dropped
  5. Bach Cantatas: for the longest time Wikipedia's only source for Bach's cantatas, the most detailed information about their recordings. In this article, it's used only for the recordings. In one recent GA review, the reviewer accepted it as cited in other cases. I forgot where exactly, sadly. If we don't want to do that, options are to split the discography off, as for BWV 1, or to support each recording by a supporting source.
• The only page of interest in the Leisinger (Carus edition) is the foreword, pp VI–VII, which are given.
• Michael Maul seems to be the one.
• linked now to Uwe Wolf (musicologist) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

adding: I linked now the listing of the recordings by Muziekweb as support they exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Afternoon Jo-Jo. How is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

On Bach Cantatas, I see some citations of this website. Is that platform commonly cited? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Repeating: it's only used for the recordings, and Muziekweb is also referenced to support that they exist, but the detail and depth of information available is much higher for Bach Cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I guess then we can keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Jo-Jo: GTG? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Aza24

Nice work so far Gerda. I think the lead might be too unwieldy; MOS:LEADLENGTH says "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words"—right now, you're sitting at ~525. I don't think this article is long enough to warrent the extra 120 or so. The revision paragraphs (2nd, 3rd, 5th) can be streamlined. – Aza24 (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! - It's not length but that we have to cover 3 and more variants. I will try, and you are welcome to do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I shortened the lead, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.