![]() | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Matthäus-Passion (J. S. Bach) from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
![]() | A fact from St Matthew Passion structure appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 April 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with St Matthew Passion on July 2015. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
The main author of the FA (de equivalent) is Wikiwal who did an outstanding job, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia follow the tradition of purely decorative images in articles? At the beginning of the article there's a photograph of a painting by Cranach the Elder. A decorative purpose seems to be the only purpose for the presence of that photograph in the article. What do Cranach the Elder or his painting (of more then two hundred years before Bach's St Matthew Passion) really, specifically, have to do with the structure of Bach's work? The German version gives a justification of sorts ("Lucas Cranach d. Ä. deutet in seinem Bild Christus als Schmerzensmann (1515) das Leiden Jesu ebenso wie Bach realistisch und zugleich mystisch"). But seriously! This sort of speculation about vague connections between works of art, without any positive evidence that Bach ever even saw or knew of that painting, let alone that it had anything to do with the creative process that led to the St Matthew Passion (a fortiori its structure!) belongs in an essay, not in a factual source of information such as an encyclopedia. You might as well put a picture of Martin Luther with the "justification" that Bach's Lutheran faith "informed his life and music" or that Martin Luther must be "connected" to the St Matthew Passion because after all Bach used the text of his translation of the Gospel. Consider that a textual digression about Cranach the Elder's painting (or on Martin Luther) in the body of the article would never be considered justified. Images are documents and data just as much as the text. They should therefore be directly connected with and relevant to the subject matter of the article. When they're there just to prettify they're just clutter. The fact that almost all dictionaries and encyclopedias do it is not a good reason to also do it in Wikipedia. Basemetal ( talk) 12:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
One annoying problem with images (or other non-text documents: video, audio) throughout Wikipedia is: they don't carry fig numbers. Why don't they? Is this a Wikipedia bug or a "feature"? Was this done on purpose or was it just overlooked? It certainly makes referencing an image more awkward than it ought to be ("the photograph of blah blah blah in the third section of the article blah blah blah to the left, below the table of blah blah blah"). Is there no way to fix that? Basemetal ( talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As discussed on Classical music (when the template was designed and again now), each individual instrument is important, for example no trumpets here, but oboe d'amore, speaking of love. "Instruments" appear at the very end of the box. Clicking on Scoring opens a table of the abbreviations, which are standard for publishing, well known, each with a link to what it stands for. Why should knowledge be limited to the level of those who wouldn't bother to look up what an abbr means? Please consider restoring the information. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I come to a different conclusion: the experienced reader can win specific information, I feel only mildly sorry for a mild irritation of the other. Please see the related discussion to explain the abbreviations better, and the documentation of the template, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Is the erroneous "asabthani" (for "sabachthani") in the German Bible or is it peculiar to Bach's score? Contact Basemetal here 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Shout out to whoever did this table. It is excellent work! B0cean ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The new paragraph adds little - the older one already said "can be divided", meaning that none of it is by Bach, different scholars will arrive at different schemes - but presents detail ("Wahrlich") before general. Please rethink the placement. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The part of the structure for "Jesus in Gethsemane" should include all of "The Agony in the Garden". Dgljr5121973 ( talk) 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Matthäus-Passion (J. S. Bach) from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
![]() | A fact from St Matthew Passion structure appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 April 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with St Matthew Passion on July 2015. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
The main author of the FA (de equivalent) is Wikiwal who did an outstanding job, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia follow the tradition of purely decorative images in articles? At the beginning of the article there's a photograph of a painting by Cranach the Elder. A decorative purpose seems to be the only purpose for the presence of that photograph in the article. What do Cranach the Elder or his painting (of more then two hundred years before Bach's St Matthew Passion) really, specifically, have to do with the structure of Bach's work? The German version gives a justification of sorts ("Lucas Cranach d. Ä. deutet in seinem Bild Christus als Schmerzensmann (1515) das Leiden Jesu ebenso wie Bach realistisch und zugleich mystisch"). But seriously! This sort of speculation about vague connections between works of art, without any positive evidence that Bach ever even saw or knew of that painting, let alone that it had anything to do with the creative process that led to the St Matthew Passion (a fortiori its structure!) belongs in an essay, not in a factual source of information such as an encyclopedia. You might as well put a picture of Martin Luther with the "justification" that Bach's Lutheran faith "informed his life and music" or that Martin Luther must be "connected" to the St Matthew Passion because after all Bach used the text of his translation of the Gospel. Consider that a textual digression about Cranach the Elder's painting (or on Martin Luther) in the body of the article would never be considered justified. Images are documents and data just as much as the text. They should therefore be directly connected with and relevant to the subject matter of the article. When they're there just to prettify they're just clutter. The fact that almost all dictionaries and encyclopedias do it is not a good reason to also do it in Wikipedia. Basemetal ( talk) 12:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
One annoying problem with images (or other non-text documents: video, audio) throughout Wikipedia is: they don't carry fig numbers. Why don't they? Is this a Wikipedia bug or a "feature"? Was this done on purpose or was it just overlooked? It certainly makes referencing an image more awkward than it ought to be ("the photograph of blah blah blah in the third section of the article blah blah blah to the left, below the table of blah blah blah"). Is there no way to fix that? Basemetal ( talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As discussed on Classical music (when the template was designed and again now), each individual instrument is important, for example no trumpets here, but oboe d'amore, speaking of love. "Instruments" appear at the very end of the box. Clicking on Scoring opens a table of the abbreviations, which are standard for publishing, well known, each with a link to what it stands for. Why should knowledge be limited to the level of those who wouldn't bother to look up what an abbr means? Please consider restoring the information. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I come to a different conclusion: the experienced reader can win specific information, I feel only mildly sorry for a mild irritation of the other. Please see the related discussion to explain the abbreviations better, and the documentation of the template, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Is the erroneous "asabthani" (for "sabachthani") in the German Bible or is it peculiar to Bach's score? Contact Basemetal here 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Shout out to whoever did this table. It is excellent work! B0cean ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The new paragraph adds little - the older one already said "can be divided", meaning that none of it is by Bach, different scholars will arrive at different schemes - but presents detail ("Wahrlich") before general. Please rethink the placement. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The part of the structure for "Jesus in Gethsemane" should include all of "The Agony in the Garden". Dgljr5121973 ( talk) 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)