Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:46, 22 November 2014

Classical music: Compositions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Template:Germany

This article was begun in memory of Erhard Egidi, who died on 8 September 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY concerns

For the description of the work a lot is referenced to the (Bärenreiter) score, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, except for possible interpretations explained in text by the (unnamed?) editor of that score. E.g. "special function" (etc) can not be sourced to the music score (notes on music paper) exclusively, while in that case an interpretation of a primary source. I think most of it is OK, but interpretations need to be sourced outside the primary source material, see WP:PRIMARY. That being said, the description of the movements is a fantastic job, like it a lot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying with an example: - named author (editor of a score published by Bärenreiter), referenced to a page of the text introduction to the score, this is not a primary source interpretation by a Misplaced Pages editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We had articles like that before, such as Mass in B minor structure, - I don't think there is any "interpretation" (and if you find it remove it). Saying that voices enter in a succession is like saying the dress of a woman on a painting is red, - we don't need a secondary source to confirm that. The message that Bach was an unbelievable creator should come across, without being mentioned. - In a next step (getting ready for GA) I will look for more sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you name the editor (Alfred Dürr) as author, rather than Bach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Example:

• "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders" can be sourced to a score
• "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders which are assigned to a special function" (emphasis added) contains an interpretation which can not be sourced to a (primary source) score. Unless the editor of that score inserted a text note to that effect (or Bach wrote such note in his manuscript which I don't think is the case here). In that case the name of the editor needs to be given (the editor is the source, not the music Bach wrote down and which was transferred to a printed score), preferably also date of publication, etc.

I'd recommend to change all "score" references to a publicly available score (if possible). Then the interpretations that aren't directly clear from the music notes and accidentals on the page, get different references with named authors.

Anyhow, what is interpretation and what is non-interpretative deduction I can't check, while the references are made to a publication I currently have no access to.

More important is to understand what WP:PRIMARY is about, when writing an article. The answer above didn't put me at ease... so yes the dozens of references to the (Bärenreiter) "score" source need to be checked. I don't feel like putting the {{Original research}} template on top of the page while probably most of these are in order, but that's in fact what I should do until it is all checked. Now anyone can familiarize themselves with WP:PRIMARY and do the checking, but failing time and means and/or other candidates to do the checks, I'd have to put up {{Original research}} until it is done. (sorry I'm a bit uncompromising on this: DYK is mainpage exposure, WP:NOR is a fundamental policy and we can't have wide exposure to something blatantly going contrary to it.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the listing of general score and other sources e.g. Piano Sonata in C major, D 279 (Schubert)#Sources can be taken as an example, e.g. indicating Urtext editions, autographs, names of editors that wrote an introduction, what the official catalogue says on the subject, publication dates, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Related issues with the Bärenreiter score reference (used several times): it is the D-dur version (so not 243a) while the intro to the Movements section says "The instruments are those for BWV 243a, slightly different in the later work" you can't source that content to the score of the later work, which puts some doubts around "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders" sourced to the score of the later version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which open access score would you suggest to use for that? Probably not the digital manuscript? CPDL is easy to read, compared to IMSLP manuscript and IMSLP BA, but can't offer a prominent editor name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would happily use an E -flat score, but didn't find one, IMSPL offers only the added movements under that name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not possible to say "in what follows we discuss the orchestration of the Eb version", then "the orchestration from the Eb version differs from the D version" and than say something about the orchestration of the Eb version referenced to the D version. I have no solution (yet), but will keep looking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In this version, the D score is ref 13, used only after the table for details of the movements. The orchestration (above) is listed for E-flat. I tried to avoid keys and instrumentation in the movements, but mistakes may still be there. - I see two possibilities to proceed: merge the articles to Magnificat (Bach), or separate the movements to a third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another somewhat obvious solution would be: move all what is description of the D major version to the BWV 243 article; remove the "See BWV 243a Movements" there, and put a similar one up in the other direction (from 243a to 243); limit the description in the BWV 243a article to what we know about the differences (for example differences in orchestration can be found in some external sources I suppose; and the canticles description, only belonging in the 243a article, can be elaborated here too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

On personal grounds, I am not happy with that idea, because I would like to get this article to GA status, not the other which until recently described the work as a motet (blushing, thinking of that. I never looked it up until I wanted to compare Rutter's treatment of the text and found that there was nothing to compare to.) Less personal: it makes more sense to have the original covered in detail, not the derived work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, GA status is far away (DYK even debatable imho, as you know) and none of my concern. A good article is my concern, not GA status. If you can get it to GA status with a bunch of minor inacurracies I'm not going to stop you, I just say I'm not interested in the operation (and obviously would oppose it when chancing upon a GA request page when according to my insights it isn't good, leave alone Good). Anyway, a content fork was not the ideal solution to solve the problems of the other article. It still has (for example) "...twelve movements which can be grouped into three sections, each beginning with an aria" (well, obviously, the first section doesn't start with an aria) and other such inacurracies. A content fork doesn't make these problems "go away".

BWV 243 is the better known of the two, with near to a 100% of the perfomances, so it's logical that version gets the full description, not a "see (whatever)" link. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

With some apologies too you know, I know I'm too harsh on the formidable job you did on the 243a article. In comparison the problems are minor, I want to help solve them, that's all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And sorry I got irritated over the let's compromise a little bit on quality so that it is easier to get it labeled as Good reasoning. The reasoning is lost on me, but I shouldn't have got irritated over it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations

Disclaimer: just writing down what I remember having read, or heard on the radio, maybe 20 years ago, I'd be willing to see whether hard references are available for this, but for the moment, lacking more time, I just jot it down in order not to forget

• The very first version of 243a was presented by Bach just a few weeks after he got appointed in Leipzig - he had already presented a few cantatas in the city's churches, but Visitation was the first (somewhat major) feast, calling for festive music. Bach "showing off" on a somewhat more extended scale what he can do as a composer for the first time for his new audience, with a work the dimensions and complexity of which were unseen for the Thomaskirche.
• The attending parishioners were not impressed,...
  • The complexity went over their heads, was just experienced as overcharged (that the execution of the difficult piece rehearsed in a very short timespan was probably all but flawless probably didn't help either);
  • Bach was hired to teach choristers, not even music being the first thing he had to teach them — He shouldn't get too presumptuous as a composer;
  • He chose a Latin text for his showcase, experienced as un-Lutheran
  • Looked as if he was taking a hard turn on tradition.
• For these reasons, the second time he presented the piece, in the Christmas period, he made a deliberate attempt to pick up on tradition, inserting the canticles (partly in German) his predecessor Kuhnau had used in the very Christmas cantate his public was most used to, in a lean (not "overcharged") setting of these canticles.
• the composer vs. teacher tension soon left Bach desillusioned, withdrawing from his teacher job as much as possible (barely appointing assistants to get that job done), composing in his back-room more for himself than for his parish, ultimately the somehow "oecumenical" (and Latin) BWV 232.

(at least some of this in the Eidam biography of Bach, although I didn't think that a very scholarly work). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Classical music compositions task force articles
• WikiProject Classical music articles