Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

Toolbox
Copying check Manual of Style
v t e

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a piece dear to me and I'd like to see it growing to FA quality. Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, and we welcome suggestions to improve it further.

Thanks, Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Francis Schonken
These are some ideas I mentioned a month ago: "... the rather haphazard ref formatting would make little chance to pass FAC unscathed, and that is only one of many things: others I'm thinking of include the Picardy third ending of the third movement (not even mentioned leave alone a source for it); the far from perfect image for the fifth movement; less than perfect overview of performances and recordings history, ..." – I don't have much time for more now, but will return to this as soon as I have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] About the last point I mentioned above, see also Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227#Split discography. In general, Gerda Arendt, were you planning on addressing the issues I already mentioned? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to see this article growing, and I see you as its main author. At this point, I'd like to hear what people think. Whether to even try to go to FAC or not depends on what it means in terms of work. I'd like to avoid the problems we had in BWV 1, with few comments in the peer review, and massive questions in the FAC which clutter the whole page. For the specific case of recordings, I'd like to see most details, such as performers, outside this article, but whether in the motets' recordings or an individual discography I don't care. Please feel like the main author - you are the one who took this to GA, and we'd nominate together - and add what you miss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] ? You initiated this peer review. I commented in it, I'd hardly think that signifies I am the one reacting to the comments. And, for sure, I don't WP:OWN the article: trying to take this to FAC is, according to the OP of this peer review, your initiative, not mine. So either react on the suggestions, or we probably could as well have done with this peer review. I mean, it has been open long enough, and you've made it clear that whatever suggestion that is given, you don't feel invited to adopt it or react to it. Whether I take this to FAC in the future is my decision: if you're not prepared to follow up on suggestions given in a peer review it seems quite inappropriate you'd think you should be the one taking this to FAC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to reply on your talk, because it's not related to the article, but as that is not open: I'd like to hear from people besides you and me. Depending on that, I'll decide if I'll take the extra time it would take. I am perfectly busy without doing so, was just unhappy with a DYK saying nothing about the music of one of the pieces that played a role in my life. I did here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I find your comments on Hammersoft's talk page messy, unclear, rather like an inside-thing, anyways, as far as I can tell, not related to improving the encyclopedia. So indeed, no user talk pages (nor any other Wikipedia pages) seem particularly suitable for this. Also, it does away with the myth that you wouldn't have time to improve the motet article: your time for user talk page comments that are, as far as discernible, not directly related to an improvement of the encyclopedia seems unlimited: maybe use that time for improving articles? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Regarding "the rather haphazard ref formatting" which I mentioned above – suggesting to reorganise along these lines. Gerda Arendt, can you do that, or propose another way of addressing this? I mean, we can beat around the bush with procedural and other comments that don't directly improve the article, I'm suggesting to get started on the improvements instead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] You could do it, I couldn't. Feel free. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Please you do it. If you can't, then do something else to improve the article. Or, as said, propose something you can do to improve the article. Or address any of the other suggestions in my first contribution to this page. If none of that is possible, then maybe it is time to close this peer review, while the intention to address the issues raised in it seems to be lacking (which would rather make this a time sink, not even improving editor relations: please stop asking me to do the things you can do in response to comments posted here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Francis Schonken

These are some ideas I mentioned a month ago: "... the rather haphazard ref formatting would make little chance to pass FAC unscathed, and that is only one of many things: others I'm thinking of include the Picardy third ending of the third movement (not even mentioned leave alone a source for it); the far from perfect image for the fifth movement; less than perfect overview of performances and recordings history, ..." – I don't have much time for more now, but will return to this as soon as I have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the last point I mentioned above, see also Talk:Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227#Split discography. In general, Gerda Arendt, were you planning on addressing the issues I already mentioned? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this article growing, and I see you as its main author. At this point, I'd like to hear what people think. Whether to even try to go to FAC or not depends on what it means in terms of work. I'd like to avoid the problems we had in BWV 1, with few comments in the peer review, and massive questions in the FAC which clutter the whole page. For the specific case of recordings, I'd like to see most details, such as performers, outside this article, but whether in the motets' recordings or an individual discography I don't care. Please feel like the main author - you are the one who took this to GA, and we'd nominate together - and add what you miss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? You initiated this peer review. I commented in it, I'd hardly think that signifies I am the one reacting to the comments. And, for sure, I don't WP:OWN the article: trying to take this to FAC is, according to the OP of this peer review, your initiative, not mine. So either react on the suggestions, or we probably could as well have done with this peer review. I mean, it has been open long enough, and you've made it clear that whatever suggestion that is given, you don't feel invited to adopt it or react to it. Whether I take this to FAC in the future is my decision: if you're not prepared to follow up on suggestions given in a peer review it seems quite inappropriate you'd think you should be the one taking this to FAC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reply on your talk, because it's not related to the article, but as that is not open: I'd like to hear from people besides you and me. Depending on that, I'll decide if I'll take the extra time it would take. I am perfectly busy without doing so, was just unhappy with a DYK saying nothing about the music of one of the pieces that played a role in my life. I did here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comments on Hammersoft's talk page messy, unclear, rather like an inside-thing, anyways, as far as I can tell, not related to improving the encyclopedia. So indeed, no user talk pages (nor any other Wikipedia pages) seem particularly suitable for this. Also, it does away with the myth that you wouldn't have time to improve the motet article: your time for user talk page comments that are, as far as discernible, not directly related to an improvement of the encyclopedia seems unlimited: maybe use that time for improving articles? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "the rather haphazard ref formatting" which I mentioned above – suggesting to reorganise along these lines. Gerda Arendt, can you do that, or propose another way of addressing this? I mean, we can beat around the bush with procedural and other comments that don't directly improve the article, I'm suggesting to get started on the improvements instead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could do it, I couldn't. Feel free. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please you do it. If you can't, then do something else to improve the article. Or, as said, propose something you can do to improve the article. Or address any of the other suggestions in my first contribution to this page. If none of that is possible, then maybe it is time to close this peer review, while the intention to address the issues raised in it seems to be lacking (which would rather make this a time sink, not even improving editor relations: please stop asking me to do the things you can do in response to comments posted here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Amitchell125

Lead section / infobox

Who was Johann Franck? Who is Christoph Wolff?
I'll explain that in the body, but for the lead it's too much, especially for Wolff who wasn't among the creators. The lead - as usual - will be the last to look at, for me. --GA

I beg to differ, most readers only look at the lead (MOS:LEAD: "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read.") If Franck and Wolff are important enough to include in the lead, it should be clear to readers who they are. AM

E minor - I would amend this to ‘ in the key in E minor’.
never did that, not in any FA about compositions, - for those who don't know already what major-minor means in music, the fact of E will not add. --GA

Understood. AM

only paraphrases the tune – why only?
because all other stanzas have it fully, albeit two different versions, - paraphrase is a euphemism, because until RandomCanadian made the graphic, I had not noticed any relation, - decades into knowing the piece that is --GA

Understood, but readers may not know what you have explained to me (I didn't), so it might be worth amending the text. AM

Link paraphrase; theological.
I thought these are common words. No? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't assume they are; I would link them. AM

1 History

Link Johann Sebastian (include surname); motets.
yes --GA
Amend Several of these motets to ‘Several’.
you did that, thanks --GA
Put a comma after tenor and bass.
yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and/or based – and/or doesn’t really work here.
fixed, I hope --GA
I am confused by what is being referred to in In the latter case.
fixed, I hope --GA
Link or explain SSATB.
done --GA
only very few works for a five-part choir; most of his other motets are for double SATB choir – doesn’t this say the same thing twice?
the sentence goes on, no? --GA
to be performed with – ‘for’?
don't think so, rather "by" if "with" doesn't work - "for" the audience, I'd say --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1.1 Epistle text and chorale

The image is 1.1, and should be reduced to 1.
I rather used a smaller image of the same, - a smaller size would render details too small. --GA
Who were Johann Franck and Catherine Winkworth?
a) I'd prefer not to enlarge on Franck in a sentence pointing at the two sources for the text.

b) I placed the whole Winkworth later, - she was a translator, - how would you say "the translator CW translated"? please check what I tried --GA
I’m unclear what framing the poetry means.
How would you say in English what was just described before: that the very first line is identical with the very last line? --GA
published for the first time – ‘first published’?
I believe you, and it's what I see --GA
, after which could be replaced by a colon.
done --GA
Whilst not losing the link, I would replace bar form with ‘the form AAB’, to help readers understand the text more easily.
I added it in brackets, because after we just had SSATB, it might come as too much of a surprise not to land on "alto alto bass". --GA
Link Leipzig where it occurs the first time.
Almost a decade ago, I suggested to have an article Leipzig at Bach's time, because the link to the present city is quite useless, but as you wish ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1.2 Time of origin

Who were Bernhard Friedrich Richter and Friedrich Smend?
I gave the former an ill-link, and added "church musician in Leipzig" - he was for a year JSB's interim successor - And I added musicologist (with link) to the other. --GA
The sentence beginning In 1912 feels too long, and could do with being split.
tried --GA
Link musicologist.
done for the other, - for this one, we'd have a sea of blue --GA
nor even the chorale – why even?
well, Richter had concluded that the motet (Bach's composition) was performed for that funeral, but not even the chorale by Franck and Crüger was mentioned in the order of the service --GA
which led Smend to suggest – what did?
as mentioned: the symmetry in all these three pieces - I linked to the structure articles which are perhaps more useful for the purpose --GA
Put Cantus firmus in italics and link it.
link it yes, but it became a word of English --GA
rather than for a funeral – seems over repetitive.
can't be repeated enough, because for all these centuries (!) it ("funeral") was believed, and still is believed by many, - perhaps the key fact in this article --GA
According to Bach scholar... is another rather indigestibly long sentence imo.
offering another semi-colon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 Structure and scoring

Remove duplicated links (bass, soprano, tenor, alto).
borderline: people might come directly from the TOC, and here is where scoring is discussed --GA
Is the middle voice in the motet's SSATB setting needed?
We would have to ask Francis and can't. Is the sentence needed? --GA
The second paragraph is complex, and I’m not sure the first sentence (The music is arranged…) is needed.
I believe that sentence is a great summary (again not by me) of the complexity, and a warning that it will be complex. --GA
The table seems to have some unneeded brackets. I’m not sure it helps explain the text that well, which on its own should be able to explain the symmetrical nature of the work.
Several layers would be hard to draw from the table alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2.1 Movements

The sentence introducing the table is imo redundant.
Yes, but it's a way to avoid links from the bolded headers. --GA
Link incipit.
that would also be a bolded link - to be avoided. "Incipit" is only used here because it's shorter then "beginning of" in the explanation. Any better idea? --GA
Are the individual time signatures for each movement noteworthy enough to include here in the article (possibly not imo)?
Only here can you see at a glance the variety even in the chorale stanza settings. --GA
The table seems to replicate information in the paragraphs that follow. Because of this, I wouldn’t include it.
"at a glance" and in easy comparison is a different quality, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 Reception

has been regarded – by who?
There are two. I dropped the first, - we can simply say "it is unique ..." in Bach's work, because there's nothing comparable. The second is based on the source saying "Considered by many judges to be one of Bach’s greatest Motets". How could that come out better? - I tried combining the two, please check. --GA
I would amend It has been regarded as to ‘It is regarded as’.
fixed by combination --GA
I’m not sure that ‘Reception’ is the right title for the section. It seems to start of discussing the ways in which the work has been performed, before moving on to a description of more recent published editions.
Yes, and Francis again. I think publication deserves a separated section, before. --GA

Hope this helps. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amitchell125, yes, very helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza

Lead

Hmm four paragraph leads seems unwarranted, and both the end of the 1st and most of the second discuss the text anyways, perhaps combine these?
done --GA
"which contains key Lutheran teaching"—this makes it sound exclusively Lutheran, but surely this text is used by other denominations
Not sure if I get what you mean. The Biblical text is used by many, but the Lutherans based their teaching especially on this passage. Which to say would be too much for this lead. --GA
"1912 dating"—perhaps "traditional dating"? "1912 dating" without context could be a bit confusing to lay readers
understand, and will need help rephrasing, perhaps after you get to that part in the article and then can help better to say what should be pointed out. I grew up with being sure it was written for a funeral, and doubts came only with researching for this article. Many readers will come with the same premise/bias. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe say who made the first recording if you're going to give the year?
no, too much detail for a part that isn't even in this article but the discography --GA
more later.. Aza24 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt, it's been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Usually PRs that are open for more than a month without additional comments are closed. Are you still interested in receiving comments, or can we close this? Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can close it, - comments can we informally on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]