Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:54, 25 November 2014

Classical music

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

Germany Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Copied multi

Related prior talk:

• Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a
• Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See also User talk:Yngvadottir#Magnificat, for currently ongoing discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I propose to merge Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a into Magnificat (Bach): the main reason for that is that there is virtually no content of the first page that isn't also suitable for the second. There is no problem with page length, while the extra content that applies only to the D major version of the Magnificat is limited to a few lines: yes Bach wrote that version ten years later, for the same feast as the very first version (Visitation), but the differences are minimal: the second time it fell on a sunday, and "The feast ended the period of mourning the death of the elector Augustus the Strong." The differences for the music are about two or three movements (e.g. he didn't write "adagio" for the 3rd movement of the first version, only for the second), + the different role for the flutes + "The key of D major was better suited to the trumpets." That's it, for the info on the second version that isn't already included in the current article on the first version. Further,

• Both articles are in need of improvement, that's not really an argument, unless as an argument to keep it together until these issues are sorted (a large amount of the improvement is needed for the same texts in the two versions).
• I oppose giving more detail on what applies to both versions in one version and not in the other (content forking)
• I oppose keeping exactly the same descriptions in two articles (redundant forking), unless by the technique of selective transclusion (which had been installed before, but in the wrong direction)
• I oppose "back and forth", meaning, the info applying to both versions only being in one article, with a link in the other, so that someone who wants to get the complete picture of the composition needs to go back and forth between two pages.
• I oppose three articles (for now): there's no excessive page length that would warrant sectioning of of the "communal" info with the history of the piece being divided among two separate "composition" articles.
• For the difference in key and composition year, there's of course no problem to have two redirect pages with categories.

If any of the concepts I mentioned above (e.g. WP:Content fork, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:Selective transclusion,...) need further clarification I'd be happy to provide that, unless things become clear after you've clicked the links to the guidance first and read it.

Same goes for further clarifying my reasons why I prefer it thus; just ask me, and I'll clarify further. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose, as said in the previous discussions (linked above), but will have no time for this until Tuesday. For other works by Bach, every version has its article. We can argue what should be in article BWV 243a and what in BWV 243a. The works have a distinctly different place in Bach's biography. - There would be no repetition/fork if you, Francis, had not copied from one to the other. You could remove it and take the discussion from there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Then we'll suspend discussions till Tuesday, and avoid redundant forks in the mean time: discussions can be re-opened after that.

Re. "For other works by Bach, every version has its article", no they don't. Give real arguments if you have them please, this isn't one of them.

Re. "distinctly different place in Bach's biography", I can't see an argument there, while the info on the different place in the biography is very limited: there's more info on the different place in the biography of the two versions of 1723 (yet they are kept in one article) than there is on the different place of the very first version and the ultimate version (both for Visitation, the difference being one shortly after his arrival in Leipzig, the other after the mourning period for August the Strong — that's all there is to say about the "different place in the biography"). As said for linking, categorization, etc. there are no problems to distinghuish both versions.

Re. "There would be no repetition/fork if you, Francis, had not copied from one to the other", yeah is that your defense to keep BWV 243 an incomplete article? As I said before: you've proven you don't care about Misplaced Pages's overall quality, only about the articles where you can put a distinctive mark. Now you're adding to that: making a reproach to those who do care for the overall qualtiy of Misplaced Pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like redundancy but was asked to move this from below:

We differentiate versions for the other works by Bach without such attributes, please look at {{Bach cantatas}} and The Missa of 1733. I see no reason to treat this work differently, therefore oppose a merge. I am not against the name Magnificat (Bach) for the D major version, as we have Ave Maria (Bruckner) for the best-known version although he composed others such as Ave Maria, WAB 5, but I vote for the details for BWV 243a (the keys, composition history, Christmas movements, publishing, recordings) to stay in BWV 243a, perhaps summarized in the other.

Adding: I would prefer two articles. You put a lot of effort in the combined table, Francis, but the result looks overwhelming to me as a reader. I believe that it would be much clearer if separate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

For Bach: we don't have a separate article for Sanctus for six vocal parts (1724) (BWV 232 III Bärenreiter), not less noteworthy than what Bach composed exactly a year earlier (the second version of 243a). Nor do we have a separate article for the G major version of "Credo in umum Deum", BWV 232 II (mentioned here). - nor would I think such separated articles a good idea. That's about versions of some of Bach's most famous music, for which there is at least an interesting prior version.

I'm not so familiar with the Bach cantatas at Misplaced Pages, so I won't say anything about them.

Addition: and then for Bach there are the instances of non-vocal music: BWV 1060R doesn't get a separate article, not even a separate section in the article where BWV 1060 is treated: nonetheless BWV 1060R is far more often performed than BWV 1060. BWV 1062 doesn't get a separate page, notwithstanding it is an "other version" in another key and with a different instrumentation and with a time gap of over 15 years between both versions, of one of Bach's most popular works, BWV 1043. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For other composers we have, for instance, Schubert's last sonatas: the most important common ground for having the three of them in one article is their comparable structure, much less as the common ground for the Bach Magnificat versions.

Addition: much of this resumes to a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale: sometimes it is good to have a look around what happened in other similar cases, nonetheless I think for Bach's Magnificat some comparisons go one way, others go another way, depending on who wants to find them... On the whole I think we have to proceed with what would work best here for the article(s) we are discussing here, within the limits of guidance like WP:Content fork etc, and not fix too much on similarities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. combined table: can be improved, waiting for the article content to stabilize at Magnificat (Bach). And again, as such is not an obstacle for the merge: I think the instrumentation differences can better be compared in a single table. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a (November 2014)

The most important problem with the current content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a is imho WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

This issue should be dealt with, or the page should be made a redirect to the page where the content is featured. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

BWV 243a, Gerda's view

As promised, I set out to explain why I believe that two articles on Bach's Magnificat - his two versions of more or less the same music - would serve our readers better, and why I therefore started BWV 243a, expanded it and plan to expand it further. Francis Schonken expressed that he believes one article would be better. I confess that I had to time to study all that, just add my point of view.

Background and creation

In 2010, project classical music started expanding the coverage of Bach's cantatas. Back then, we agreed to cover alternative versions of a BWV number in one article, example BWV 120. In 2013, Nikkimaria started to create separate articles for the alternatives, such as BWV 120a (13 July 2013) and BWV 120b, which had been redirects.) There are many more of the kind, simple look at {{Bach cantatas}} and click on those with a letter behind the number. I thought that it was a good idea. In that spirit, I created an article on BWV 243a. A disambiguation was needed besides the number, therefore I chose the key, as perhaps the fact in which the versions differ most.

Differences

The two works differ:

• different composition history (243a in 1723 at the very beginning of Bach's tenure in Leipzig as a bold statement, 243 in 1733 as the first piece performed after the silent months of mourning Augustus the Strong)
• different key (which means different keys in all movements)
• different dedication (243a Purification and Christmas, 243 only Purification)
• different number movements (16 vs. 12, at least at Bach's time, - I don't think that later transpositions of the Christmas insertions in 243 are a strong argument, - that can be mentioned in one sentence)
• different publishing
• different scores
• different recordings
• different sources
• therefore different categories

I think we serve our readers better if we keep two separate articles. Readers can easily open two windows to compare, while in one article containing both versions, they would have to check the headers carefully to know if a paragraph speaks about one version or the other or both.

Instead of discussing, Francis copied material from the "new" article to the "old", and expanded there. Today's BWV 243 is already a version merged by him, without waiting for a discussion. If we talk about a merge, we should look at a version before that, such as this. Repeating, I don't vote for a merge. The combined table of movements looks overwhelming to me. There was a better one for ust BWV 243 in this version.

Name

The "old" article name was Magnificat (Bach), and I suggest to use it for BWV 243, because it is the version performed most often, and people looking for Bach's Magnificat should arrive at an article without knowing the key. We can still have the other on Bach's bold first composition.

Movements

I agree that to maintain the same information in two articles is undesirable. We can summarise the composition history of BWV 243a in BWV 243, and the other way round. We will need to decide where a detailed description of the movements should go, in the first composition, in the work performed most often, or a third article such as Magnificat (Bach) movements. I don't see the slightest problem to link from the movement numbers in one article to a description in another. The reader has to do the same going back if it happens within the same article. Wherever the movements are described, they can be linked to from both Magnificat articles, and from other articles mentioning particular details. I thought of BWV 243a when I wrote Magnificat (Rutter), wanted to compare to Bach's composition and found nothing to compare to. I actually wrote BWV 243a when the conductor died who taught me to love Bach's music, to honour him. RIP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "This article was begun in memory of Erhard Egidi, who died on 8 September 2014" — Is there an argument that affects this discussion, directly or indirectly? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Just my personal COI. I wrote that article as an epitaphium, from the start, see my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem to collapse this then, so we don't get side-tracked by it in this discussion. If someone objects, remove collapse templates again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I actually wrote BWV 243a when the conductor died who taught me to love Bach's music, to honour him. RIP." — Gerda, please decide: are you going to use this as an argument in the discussion or not? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an argument, just information under Gerda's view, explaining why I have personal attachment to the article which others may not understand and don't have to share. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In sum, using it as an argument - "...others may not understand and don't have to share" is true about every argument used in a debate (or were you implying that all your other arguments necessarily must be understood and necessarily must be shared by anyone seeing them?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To be discussed

1. It is common for Bach's works to have different versions covered in different articles.
2. The versions in this particular case are so different in so many respects, that it seems particularly desirable to have clearly different articles on the versions which should not overlap in content.
3. The general former name could be given to one of them, the D major version.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

1. #Problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a (November 2014) is to be discussed too.
2. #1 is already discussed above, and is, as shown by my examples, incorrect.
3. Please remove everything that is not to be discussed from #BWV 243a, Gerda's view and its subsections: it is divisive to make allegations, and then to say they shouldn't be discussed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Position of main article content

Re. "There is no consensus to have this content here, contra last reversion; only Francis is arguing for that position" :

• I'm arguing for that position, for reasons like this one: — imho it makes no sense to link to one version of Bach's Magnificat from the Mary (mother of Jesus) article, and not to an article that treats both versions. We should have an article that is neutral on the versions, and that should be linked from such articles, and the article title for that is Magnificat (Bach), until Gerda Arendt changed it without reason or prior discussion with a deceptive edit summary. Similar for Magnificat, etc... see more examples here
• I'm not on my own here, : "I am not against a move to Magnificat (Bach),..."

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You use the term "Main article", I don't agree with that interpretation. Who defines what's "Main", when we look at two versions of a compositions, one earlier in time, the other more practical to perform. Which one is Main? I would say that the term is not helpful in the context, We differentiate versions for the other works by Bach without such attributes, please look at {{Bach cantatas}} and The Missa of 1733. I see no reason to treat this work differently, therefore oppose a merge. I am not against the name Magnificat (Bach) for the D major version, as we have Ave Maria (Bruckner) for the best-known version although he composed others such as Ave Maria, WAB 5, but I vote for the details for BWV 243a (the keys, composition history, Christmas movements, publishing, recordings) to stay in BWV 243a, perhaps summarized in the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am not against the name Magnificat (Bach) for the D major version", that's what I meant. Sorry for using the expression "main article content" to explain that, "main" might indeed have multiple meanings.

The rest is merge discussion, and should be kept in #Merge discussion, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit redundant, but for clarity, I see a consensus for undoing this and this edit. Can these edits be undone, this discussion section closed, so that we can continue in good order with the actual discussion above in #Merge discussion? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

...one of few extended settings...

Regarding "...one of few extended settings..." (bolding added). On what is this based? Johann David Heinichen composed more than a few Magnificats (see List of compositions by Johann David Heinichen#Canticles) of which at least one seems a very extended setting, see scores:Magnificat in F major, S.91 (Heinichen, Johann David) (164 score pages, for soloists, choir, orchestra). I think the "...one of few extended settings..." sentence needs to be sourced or it should go. At least I think it is not lede material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to replace

While the canticle Magnificat was often set to music, being a regular part of Catholic vespers and Anglican evensong, Bach's work is one of few extended settings, along with the one composed by his son Carl Philipp Emanuel, and the 1990 work by John Rutter. Also Vivaldi had an extended setting of the Magnificat

, by

The canticle Magnificat was often set to music, being a regular part of liturgy in many Christian denominations, for example in Catholic vespers and Anglican evensong. Most of these settings are however not in the Neapolitan style, like Bach's. Contemporary settings in that style include examples by Heinichen and by Vivaldi.

and move the later examples (C. P. E. Bach; Rutter) to a reception-related section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably too trivial for article...

This weekend Bach's Magnificat reached 62nd place in the annual "Top 100" of Radio Klara

The audio fragment broadcast was: 1. "Magnificat anima" from Magnificat in D, BWV 243 performed by Collegium Vocale, Philippe Herreweghe (conductor) - Harmonia mundi 2951326 --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Classical music articles
• Start-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles