Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) |
Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) m →Name |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:: Recognizability made me choose the present title because it associates with the Mass in B minor more than the alternatives. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
:: Recognizability made me choose the present title because it associates with the Mass in B minor more than the alternatives. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::"Missa" is the Latin word for "Mass" (who knows Missa may have a special meaning in this context? - which is all in all unproven too, the Mass in B minor is a "Missa" too). So lacks recognizability. Or te be more precise, fails [[WP:SMALLDETAILS]]. |
:::"Missa" is the Latin word for "Mass" (who knows Missa may have a special meaning in this context? - which is all in all unproven too, the Mass in B minor is a "Missa" too). So lacks recognizability. Or te be more precise, fails [[WP:SMALLDETAILS]]. |
||
:::Is a fast agreement on this possible? If not, I'd go to [[WP:RM]] without much further |
:::Is a fast agreement on this possible? If not, I'd go to [[WP:RM]] without much further ado. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 08:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Smith? == |
== Smith? == |
Revision as of 08:38, 31 October 2014
Classical music | ||||
|
History
The article contains text from Sophienkirche.
When I added that in 2013 I didn't know how to properly attribute that, and didn't sign. Today, that passage will be expanded, no more copy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Blanking
Whoever blanked and redirected this article did so inappropriately and without discussion or consensus. This should not have happened and I have restored the work. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion is now at Talk:Bach's church music in Latin#Content of article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- That discussion is still there, but I have restored this talk page, having restored the article to the pre-redirect state. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Name
What about renaming this to Mass for the court at Dresden (Bach), seems the most consistent name across the sources I've read on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good for a redirect, but very long, and very English. Missa of 1733 (Bach)? Butt has (unfortunately on page 7 which is not shown online, but it's in the TOC): The Missa of 1733. I think Missa is better than Mass, which suggests a complete mass, while several readers may understand Missa = Kyrie and Gloria, see Missa brevis (this ambiguous term). Our concert poster for 1 February will say Missa 1733, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rules for article titling see WP:AT, in particular the summary in WP:CRITERIA on that policy page. In what follows I use "recognizability", "naturalness" and "conciseness" in their meaning as "criteria" per the policy.
- "Missa of 1733" (even when the (Bach) disambiguator is added) misses basic recognisability, only one source apparently. "for the court at Dresden" is consistent throughout almost any source (I mean those I know, but I would be surprised this is not mentioned elsewhere too when this composition is discussed).
- Missa/Mass: also, would prefer the more recognisable English word, but might be persuaded if it can be shown "Missa" is used more often in reliable sources.
- Re. conciseness: I'd prefer the recognisability and naturalness of "for the court at Dresden" over the conciseness of "of 1733" in this case. Could live with Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), a little bit more concise. Note that "Mass" is also one letter more concise than "Missa". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Recognizability made me choose the present title because it associates with the Mass in B minor more than the alternatives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Missa" is the Latin word for "Mass" (who knows Missa may have a special meaning in this context? - which is all in all unproven too, the Mass in B minor is a "Missa" too). So lacks recognizability. Or te be more precise, fails WP:SMALLDETAILS.
- Is a fast agreement on this possible? If not, I'd go to WP:RM without much further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Recognizability made me choose the present title because it associates with the Mass in B minor more than the alternatives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Smith?
Smith, Tim. "Assembly of the Mass" (PDF). London Bach Society. Retrieved 29 October 2014.
I have my doubts about this ref:
- How is Tim Smith and/or the "Assembly of the Mass" pdf related to the London Bach Society? All indicators seem to point to a US-based source (digitalbach.com, oregonbachfestival.com, bach.nau.edu — apparently some of these are even blacklisted, can't make them show up as clickable links?)
- At first glance I don't see a Wikipedia:Reliable source, more like an essay that would maybe pass at school, I'm not too sure about its scholarly level (even when picked from a university website):
- "The first hint of what we now call the "Mass in B Minor" came in 1733." What about the 1724 Sanctus, mentioned in almost all sources?
- "The KYRIE may have been written to lament the King's death, and the GLORIA to celebrate the accession of his son." seems like an exceptional claim needing a stronger source in Wikipedia context, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
- Is there any additional info on the author and/or on peer review of this source?
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am in the process to find sources for things I didn't bring in myself, the "lament" thing was copied from the church where a long sentence comes with two offline sources. I found this Smith. Thanks for pointing out that I missed changing the publisher when I copied from another source, sorry about that. The publishing site is linked to from the Oregon Bach Festival [1]. - One approach is to drop the "possible lament" thing, another to find a better source. - I disagree that the Sanctus of 1724 would be a "hint" of a mass, - I think it was a piece for Christmas, not meant for a larger context. - I will look for at least one more source for the unneeded claim, and drop it if I don't find one fast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- dropped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am in the process to find sources for things I didn't bring in myself, the "lament" thing was copied from the church where a long sentence comes with two offline sources. I found this Smith. Thanks for pointing out that I missed changing the publisher when I copied from another source, sorry about that. The publishing site is linked to from the Oregon Bach Festival [1]. - One approach is to drop the "possible lament" thing, another to find a better source. - I disagree that the Sanctus of 1724 would be a "hint" of a mass, - I think it was a piece for Christmas, not meant for a larger context. - I will look for at least one more source for the unneeded claim, and drop it if I don't find one fast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Cuius regio, eius religio
Maybe somewhat of the Cuius regio, eius religio should be explained to clarify why in this case Bach wrote a Mass that formally was as well a Lutheran Missa in the region where he lived (and that was non-compromising on Catholics) as a Catholic Missa brevis for the ruler he sent the composition to. This is also the background of why the dimensions of the mass were far beyond what a usual Missa brevis would be in those days. I've read that explanation somewhere (including the cuius regio, eius religio quote), and will see whether I can find it again to bolster up the article.
A general consideration regarding the raison d'être of the Mass for the Dresden court being a topic that deserves separate treatment in Wikipedia: it's all about the specifics for this composition. The key to that, as far as I can see, is the dedication to the ruler at Dresden, well documented (e.g. in the letter Bach wrote in 1733). The other info is rather "tangent" to the core of this article (e.g. how it got incorporated in BWV 232, how it was "maybe" performed in the Sophienkirche, etc...). These "tangent" topics have their own articles. The dedication to August had lost its value by the time Bach incorporated the piece in the larger Mass composition at the end of its life, so a "tangent" topic for that article, but "specific" for the 1733 Missa. I see the current excellent updates by Gerda going in that direction, just trying to clarify what for me is the criterion on why we should have a separate article on this composition (that otherwise was fully absorbed in the Mass in B minor). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Religio: go ahead, use it, add it, perhaps in the "Latin" article because it is relevant to many of those pieces, used in Leipzig liturgy. Butt has something on Catholic Dresden also concentrating on Kyrie and Gloria, which is about the opposite. He has may details on usage of Latin in Leipzig (p 4 and around), explaining for example why Sanctus was separated from Osanna. Those details would also make sense in the general article, putting the pieces more in perspective. I believe that the Missa and the Mass are different crucial points in Bach's history, as the settings of Magnificat. Bach's reach for Dresden (away from Leipzig) is worth mentioning in an article related to him, not only on a church or elector. - I will get more details from Butt and the Carus publishing, but it will take time that I don't have today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the details are of course also tangent to this article, but central to the Johann Sebastian Bach biographical article, e.g. that Bach eventually, several years later, received the recognition from the Dresden court he was petitioning with his 1733 letter and composition: part and parcel of the biography, tangential to the composition (while it isn't even very clear whether the composition was instrumental to that recognition), however best to mention in this article too I think.
- As far as I know the cuius regio, eius religio played most demonstrably for the Mass for the Dresden court. If I remember well, whether or not it played for other compositions like the BWV 233-236 Missa's and the eventual BWV 232 Mass (or even the Magnificat versions) is more a matter of speculation. At least some of that speculation can be traced back to some sort of posthumous Catholic zeal to incorporate protestant Bach('s music) in the Catholic canon without scruples. Oecumenism can only be attributed to Bach retro-actively, the concept had no traction (at least not for what we understand by it post-Vatican II) at the time, while the only apparent rule then was the cuius regio, eius religio, which composers generally abided to without voicing their opinion on the matter openly (that's why so much on that is speculation for Bach). If I remember well the 1733 dedication letter he sent to Dresden is the most remarkable of the less covert exceptions to that, so yes, quite specific to this article, more tangential to the others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good thoughts, will consider, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)