This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 articles
Can "movement", "librettist", "oboes da caccia", "basso continuo", "secco", "chorale" and "horn" be wikilinked? Feel free to ignore any if they would appear too common to a reader well-versed with such compositions :)
Its melody, in triple time is set for four parts. Is the comma needed or should we add a comma after "time"?
added, good point --GA
Selected recordings
on the Bach-Cantatas website Perhaps add "official" to this, as there could be many others of the same sort but unofficial?
but is it? - it's a great website, but to be used with care, - I rely on it only for the recordings which are documented very well, up to the names of instrumentalists, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would affect many articles, but the headings for the columns in the table of movements could clearer, and some of the categories need to be more parallel. To my mind, the heading "time" is just not clear (without looking at the items in the column). We should replace "time" with "metre". The heading "vocal" should be replaced with "voices" to improve clarity and to make it parallel with the headings "winds" and "strings". The last is less important, but it would be more accurate to use "opening words" or something like that, than "title". --HenryPurcell (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thinking about it. Our article is Time signature, not metre. "Voices" would be fine with me, BUT it's most often just one voice singing in one movement, in some cantatas, only one voice is singing throughout, and "Vocal" and "Instrumental" are the terms used in the infobox. The movements are known by their "opening word", a phrase I never heard so far, or incipit, a phrase our readers may have to look up, so "title" seems fine in a general way. What do you think of one introductory explanation of all these? Word it here and discuss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Here are my responses to various terms. "Time signature", which you mention is the name of the Wikipedia subject article, would be fine. I suggested metre because it is concise and would also accurately convey the intended meaning. "Time" by itself is ambiguous, and would suggest either the historical era (or date) or the duration. "Time" by itself does not convey the meaning of "time signature". I do not think that having the plural "voices" as the designation for a category would be at all problematic for situations where only one voice was in the category. Syntactically using an adjective, i.e. vocal, here lacks parallelism to the other categories and to what is being categorized. Rather, the category should be a noun or noun phrase, such as "voices" or "vocal forces". "Title" is confusing, because hymns often have names (= titles) for the tunes, which are independent of the text. The term "first line" is often used for what is being designated in these tables. "Title" implies that a name has been given, as opposed to simply using he "opening words" or "first line". By the way, "opening words" is not common phrase, but rather a concise, accurate description of what is being shown in the category. I'm not sure whether I understand the question about what I "think of one introductory explanation of all these?" Does this mean an introductory explanation for the terms used at the tops of the tables? Would such an explanation appear before each table? I think it would be preferable to use designations that need as little explanation as possible. --HenryPurcell (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]