Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#WP:PRIMARY concerns

This article was begun in memory of Erhard Egidi, who died on 8 September 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should the first Rilling recording by "hybrid" - a combination of D major and Christmas. On the sleeve given as reference, I see no indication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:Back of the sleeve, orchestration, which is given by movement. It is the BWV 243 orchestration (flutes in orchestral movements, oboes in Suscepit, etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:: Can we agree that the reference doesn't show it, but I believe you AGF?

:: Can we further agree that the title of the recording is Christmas Magnificats?

:: Can we agrre that it should not be changed?

:: Can we agree that the duration is of no relevance in a column saying "Title"? (Of what relevance is it anyway?)

:: Can we agree that the explanation could go in a footnote?

:: Can we agree that "interpolations inserted" is an unneeded duplication?

:: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Re.

1. The reference shows it. OK, one has to click on the image, and than click a second time for magnification, but it's the images as shown on the reference page.
2. no, that's a later CD re-edition. And not the only one, another CD re-edition (2014) is called Compare [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bach-Magnificat-Helmuth-Rilling-Versions/dp/B00JLGE6FO]
3. no, when referring to the 1967 recording, it should be the name of the 1967 recording (besides a little less possesiveness about this Wikipedia article would be welcome. WP:OWN etc... -"it should not be changed" is not what Wikipedia is about)
4. no, the duration is of relevance as a reference for duration times given like for most compositions
5. Prefer not, I don't see why it should. It's all standard info on a recording. Another option would be to expand the table with a column.
6. Not really: it is the D major version with the interpolations inserted, "BACH: MAGNIFICAT in D Major (with 4 Christmas Interpolations)" is how the recorded version is titled on the sleeve. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hope this all works out. Best not to raise WP:OWN here, particularly given previous experiences. Just a side comment. Suggest that while improvements and precision are always desirable, when it comes to style and formatting in particular, deference be given to creator and lead editor. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How come a Church choir is qualified as "chamber"? Such qualifications need a ref imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

:E.g., does anyone have access to this source:

:* {{cite book | last =Fabian| first = Dorottya| title = Bach performance practice, 1945-1975: a comprehensive review of sound recordings and literature|publisher =Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|year = 2003| page = | isbn =0-7546-0549-3}}

:... which may provide such information? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

: The German term {{lang|de|Figuralchor}} suggest a smaller ensemble, as Motettenchor would. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

::WP:OR – "...der Gedächtniskirche..." which is part of the same name of that choir suggests it is a church choir. which is not a "chamber" choir. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

::: There is no research in Figuralchor being a name for an ensemble for delicate figurative music. A church may have several choirs and orchestras, dedicated to different types of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

::::"Figural" probably rather refers to {{Interlanguage link multi|Figural music|de|3=Figuralmusik|lt=figural music}}, not "figurative music", and that type of music is, delicate or not, afaik rather linked to churches than chambers. Please stop filling tables with OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

::::: That article says "kontrapunktisch mehrstimmig ausgestaltete Musik" - music in counterpoint. I will eventually translate the article, just returned from vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

::::::None of those qualifications say anything about the choir being "chamber"

::::::* Kontrapunkt → Counterpoint

::::::* mehrstimmig → several voices or parts (which is self-evident when performing counterpoint)

::::::* ausgestaltet → the way the music is organized/realized

::::::Writing/translating the article on figural music is not by close a solution for covering up OR. Counterpoint does not by far indicate it is sung by a chamber choir. Would be nice if you write the article, but doesn't help on this issue.

::::::Besides the German article on the choir has in the first sentence of the lead that it is a "church and concert choir" – nowhere in the whole article indicated that it would be a chamber choir.

::::::And really, why would you want to keep losing time with this. There's no source for qualifying that choir as "chamber". No source, as in: not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, not with any amount of OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting over: what are the characteristics of a chamber choir for you? Our article is vague, and the German one is not much better. I had no intention to translate Figuralmusik, but the choir, - started. - The background colours are intended to show a tendency, rather than something clearcut. Rilling's groups are smaller and more flexible than the choruses of early recordings (not of this piece but others). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

:Really why on earth would we discuss this? For Wikipedia Figuralchor der Gedächtniskirche Stuttgart is a chamber choir only when a reliable source says so. Not in any other circumstance. When no reliable source ever says it is a chamber choir, it is not worth mentioning it is (even if by someones definition it would be one), per WP:UNDUE. We can safely say it is a church choir (a church not being a chamber), this is what the reliable sources tend to say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)