Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a is a
featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the
Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
please do so.
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
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are a couple of unsourced ends of paragraphs, I've tagged these.
"where he worked for the court of Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, in 1718 as a congratulatory cantata for New Year's Day of 1719" - this sentence doesn't seem to make sense; it implies that Bach worked as a congratulatory antata. Maybe it should be split into two sentences?
The article is at a strange state, was developed by several users, and is supposed to be FA soon, for its 300th anniversary. Sorry for being late. Referencing is tricky, because I tried to avoid the so far mostly used ref, Julian Mincham (now external links), because I know it will not pass the critical look of the FA-people. Will do what I can to please ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
14:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
"The music remained in manuscript form" - what other form would it be in? I'm confused.
I've fixed up the other issues I spotted during the review directly; I think they're all pretty minor things. I don't see an issue with passing this, unless Jmar67 has any other comments.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I am happy with most things but not the revert ("weirdness") of first saying that it's a work by Bach, before a load of German, a longish translation and two catalogue numbers, and their refs. Compare
Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, a FA which was TFA this year. The BWV numbers got more complicated this year, sadly. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, only the examples don't begin with something long in German, followed by a long translation, and some abbreviated things BWV (one - with a link - sending you to one of the longest articles we have, instead of just explaining the abbr) before we FINALLY get to know it's by Bach. - Sure, in 95% of composition aricles I follow the normal pattern. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
16:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for asking! I lean toward having the page name first, but it is not that critical. See my other changes for things I thought were important for flow.
Jmar67 (
talk)
19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copy edit
(contemporary opera) That sounds like modern-day opera but is linked to Baroque. I think you mean opera of that period. Do not see it mentioned in reference.
Jmar67 (
talk)
10:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Should we say - and how - that it was Cöthen at Bach's time? See image of Leopold. We could render the complete inscription of that image, for example. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
20:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Have updated footnotes. In the inscription it looks like "Cothen". The article for Köthen refers to the original name "Cothene".
Jmar67 (
talk)
21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
At some point I understood that this was written for his birthday but not performed until the new year. Now it seems another one was his birthday present. Hope I was wrong.
Jmar67 (
talk)
18:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Have to look at older version. When I first started editing, that was my impression. May just have been a false assumption due to the fact that 10 Dec and the new year are close together.
Jmar67 (
talk)
18:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Not for Bach ;) - In Leipzig, he would have composed a cantata for each 25 Dec, 26 Dec, 27 Dec and possible a Sunday between that and the New Year, and that New Year. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
19:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I apparently also inferred that the congratulations were for his birthday. Wishes for the new year would not strike me as being congratulatory in the same sense of "Congratulations, Leopold, on being a year older". Interesting point. Let's not spend too much time discussing it.
Jmar67 (
talk)
19:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
In the cantata for his birthday (just put expanding it on my to-do-list), it says that Heaven considered Anhalt's glory and fortune by Leopold being born, no less.
[1] --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
19:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply