![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 11, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of the fifth part of the cantata is currently listed on this page as “So stehe denn bei Christi blutgefärbter Fahne.” (This is also the way it is printed on the CD that I own, manufactured by PolyGram Classics & Jazz.) However, the title is alternatively given as “So stehe dann bei Christi blutgefärbter Fahne” in various places. (A Web search seems to yield both variants in approximately equal measure.) Unfortunately, I don’t speak German, and so cannot ascertain whether one or the other is obviously wrong. Can someone give a definitive answer as to which variant is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Walton ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The image of Luther's chorale would be a good illustration of the chorale, but is not so well suited for Bach's work of two centuries later. Bach will probably not have seen in this notation style. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
For as long as the article had the navbox {{ Bach cantatas}}, it was open, making all BWV numbers accessible without a further click, and - almost more important now - the many related articles that appear in its footer. When a new navbox was added, that possibility was lost. I tried to solve the unwanted situation by keeping the simpler navbox open. Some readers have problems to find the label "show", and some have problems to click on it even if they find it. Why make it hard for such readers? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The image can be placed above the infobox when broad landscape is required. The present image (discussed in 2013, see above) is slender and could even in the largest desirable size upright=1.3 fit nicely in the box, imo. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
See suggestions at (now archived) Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Images. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
...and revived below at #Lead image. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The peer review was archived. Below are some of the open questions: -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#History & words section. Please discuss there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) seems somewhat anecdotal – not too sure how usable it is (also, over a century old, possibly not completely "up-to-date" scholarship). Doesn't really answer the question to what extent in Bach's days the "feste Burg" hymn was experienced as specifically tied to the feast of Reformation Day. Connotations of such hymns can be fickle, and extremely dependent on context. For comparison: I wrote much of the anecdotal content at
Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her#Reception history. As it happens, that hymn (also by Luther) has an extremely Lutheran connotation for instance in Sweden and Finland, but when it is sung
for instance by Sting, nobody seems to even make a Lutheran connection (the text is in that case marked as "traditional" without making a link to its actual origin). Another example:
Jacob Handl's
Ecce quomodo moritur justus was intended as part of the Catholic Counter-Reformation by its composer, but a century later it was
experienced as a Protestant motet. As for the status of "feste Burg" as "banner" of Protestantism, it is my impression that much (most?) of that connotation actually originated in the early 19th century – a century after Bach wrote the cantata. Lightwood says something in that sense
p. 8: the name "Luther's hymn" only originated in the early 19th century. If that is so, the early publication of Bach's cantata (1821), Mendelssohn's use of the chorale in his
Reformation Symphony (1830), etc, may as well have been part of the foundation of that strong connotation for this hymn, as its consequence. I have seen no reliable source yet which is explicit on this point in either direction.See current discussions on Peer review page, particularly:
Please keep the discussions, for the time being, on the Peer review page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Quoted from the peer review (where there was some discussion, as last year, see above) but open for new views:
Compare Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79 for my idea how to illustrate the Reformation ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Images I made three suggestions:
The first of these seems out of the door (recycling the same or similar arguments continues, underlining the "time sink" aspect of this never-ending story ...); The second is not what I would prefer, but unless either of the other options is chosen I'll initiate one nonetheless; The third is what I would suggest most strongly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the peer review while it was going on. Here are some comments and suggestions. These tend to be specific rather than general, in large part because I know next to nothing about the subject area.
Cheers, -- Usernameunique ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Responded to a few of Gerda Arendt's points above. Since they're already interleaved I figured I'd stick with that to avoid either a mishmash or a complicated restructuring, but Francis Schonken, I will follow your advice in the future. Can see arguments for and against both ways. All comments are signed, so searching the page by the time stamp should make it easy to find them. I see this has now a GAN; good luck! I'd suggest making sure the {{ citation needed}} and {{ clarification needed}} tags, and the banner under "Reception," are dealt with, as—even if they're unwarranted—they provide a cosmetic blemish that is easy for a reviewer to pick on. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 11, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of the fifth part of the cantata is currently listed on this page as “So stehe denn bei Christi blutgefärbter Fahne.” (This is also the way it is printed on the CD that I own, manufactured by PolyGram Classics & Jazz.) However, the title is alternatively given as “So stehe dann bei Christi blutgefärbter Fahne” in various places. (A Web search seems to yield both variants in approximately equal measure.) Unfortunately, I don’t speak German, and so cannot ascertain whether one or the other is obviously wrong. Can someone give a definitive answer as to which variant is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Walton ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The image of Luther's chorale would be a good illustration of the chorale, but is not so well suited for Bach's work of two centuries later. Bach will probably not have seen in this notation style. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
For as long as the article had the navbox {{ Bach cantatas}}, it was open, making all BWV numbers accessible without a further click, and - almost more important now - the many related articles that appear in its footer. When a new navbox was added, that possibility was lost. I tried to solve the unwanted situation by keeping the simpler navbox open. Some readers have problems to find the label "show", and some have problems to click on it even if they find it. Why make it hard for such readers? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The image can be placed above the infobox when broad landscape is required. The present image (discussed in 2013, see above) is slender and could even in the largest desirable size upright=1.3 fit nicely in the box, imo. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
See suggestions at (now archived) Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Images. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
...and revived below at #Lead image. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The peer review was archived. Below are some of the open questions: -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#History & words section. Please discuss there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) seems somewhat anecdotal – not too sure how usable it is (also, over a century old, possibly not completely "up-to-date" scholarship). Doesn't really answer the question to what extent in Bach's days the "feste Burg" hymn was experienced as specifically tied to the feast of Reformation Day. Connotations of such hymns can be fickle, and extremely dependent on context. For comparison: I wrote much of the anecdotal content at
Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her#Reception history. As it happens, that hymn (also by Luther) has an extremely Lutheran connotation for instance in Sweden and Finland, but when it is sung
for instance by Sting, nobody seems to even make a Lutheran connection (the text is in that case marked as "traditional" without making a link to its actual origin). Another example:
Jacob Handl's
Ecce quomodo moritur justus was intended as part of the Catholic Counter-Reformation by its composer, but a century later it was
experienced as a Protestant motet. As for the status of "feste Burg" as "banner" of Protestantism, it is my impression that much (most?) of that connotation actually originated in the early 19th century – a century after Bach wrote the cantata. Lightwood says something in that sense
p. 8: the name "Luther's hymn" only originated in the early 19th century. If that is so, the early publication of Bach's cantata (1821), Mendelssohn's use of the chorale in his
Reformation Symphony (1830), etc, may as well have been part of the foundation of that strong connotation for this hymn, as its consequence. I have seen no reliable source yet which is explicit on this point in either direction.See current discussions on Peer review page, particularly:
Please keep the discussions, for the time being, on the Peer review page. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Quoted from the peer review (where there was some discussion, as last year, see above) but open for new views:
Compare Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79 for my idea how to illustrate the Reformation ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Peer review/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80/archive1#Images I made three suggestions:
The first of these seems out of the door (recycling the same or similar arguments continues, underlining the "time sink" aspect of this never-ending story ...); The second is not what I would prefer, but unless either of the other options is chosen I'll initiate one nonetheless; The third is what I would suggest most strongly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the peer review while it was going on. Here are some comments and suggestions. These tend to be specific rather than general, in large part because I know next to nothing about the subject area.
Cheers, -- Usernameunique ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Responded to a few of Gerda Arendt's points above. Since they're already interleaved I figured I'd stick with that to avoid either a mishmash or a complicated restructuring, but Francis Schonken, I will follow your advice in the future. Can see arguments for and against both ways. All comments are signed, so searching the page by the time stamp should make it easy to find them. I see this has now a GAN; good luck! I'd suggest making sure the {{ citation needed}} and {{ clarification needed}} tags, and the banner under "Reception," are dealt with, as—even if they're unwarranted—they provide a cosmetic blemish that is easy for a reviewer to pick on. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)