Talk:St Matthew Passion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Classical music / Compositions 
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.


Parts of the current article seem rather opinionated, and I'm not sure why the Gibson movie needs to be mentioned (especially multiple times). As for no mention of the Ressurection, that may be for the simple reason that it was composed to fill a liturgical role as the Good Friday service -- Easter's not for another few days. Just as the Easter service wouldn't have random references to Pentecost, Good Friday would tend to confine its texts to the crucifixion, since that's what happened on that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Kern (talkcontribs) 13:54, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to remove the Gibson references; that material came from program notes written when the Gibson movie was current. The importance of the Crucifixion in Lutheran theology of the time is supported by contemporary writings, although perhaps that means it isn't a distinctive feature of this particular composition. —Wahoofive | Talk 20:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps inadvertently, the section "Background of the Passion" has been blanked by Wahoofive. Not in the reader's interest. Has this text been transferred to another article? Or just suppressed? --Wetman 15:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That text was a duplication of the text in Passion#Musical settings of Gospel narratives and seemed unnecessarily detailed for this particular article. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Quite right. Could you work some brief reference with a wikilink into the text? For people like me, who need all the help they can get. --Wetman 22:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's already a link from the word "Passion" in the first sentence of "Structure of the work." Do you want more than that? —Wahoofive | Talk 01:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to the wiki there's no mention of the coming resurrection (see section "Interpolated texts") but that's not true — in Movement 14, Jesus recites "Wenn ich aber auferstehe.../But after I am risen...", in Movement 63a, the evangelist mentions "nach seiner Auferstehung/after his resurrection", and finally the Chorus quotes Jesus as having said "Ich will nach dreien Tagen wieder auferstehen/After three days I will rise again" in Movement 66b — so any discussion about it seems almost moot. It would probably be best to rewrite this part to read that the Passion doesn't end with the resurrection of Jesus like most Passion stories do if that's what the original author meant to say but since I'm neither theologian nor music historian I'm not sure about that. --Shirk 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be simpler to say that the narrative concludes with the interment of Jesus, in keeping with liturgical readings on Good Friday. Moioci 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


This article contains a lot of statements which do not represent a neutral point of view, are unencyclopedic or at least require citations. Some of the most obvious are noted below. -- MarkBuckles 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • "It is no accident that the chorus alternates between participating in the narrative (in the turba parts) and commenting on it as modern believers; there is an identification between the two."
  • "Bach’s music is as deep as the text."
  • "For Bach, following in the footsteps of Anselm of Canterbury, the crucifixion itself is the endpoint, the source of redemption. The emphasis is on the suffering of Jesus in the place of the sinners, and it is the resurrection which is secondary, only important to show God’s power and to give an example of what redemption from sin might consist of."
  • "The “mourning” referred to in the opening movement is not mourning for the dead Jesus, but rather for our own sinfulness"
  • "While these details are more of an effort to hear for modern audiences than they were for people in Bach’s time who heard recitative all the time, the effort is well worth it. Think of it as exceptionally dramatic reading, rather than music, and these details will be easier to hear."
  • "some of Bach’s most beautiful writing ever is in these movements."
  • "In addition to his excellent melodies and counterpoint, but could always find a way to match the details of his compositions with the texts."
Surely it would be fair to say in a NPOV kind of way, this is widely regarded as one of Bach's masterpieces. Moioci 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


This section could be expanded, with more reference to the role this piece played in bringing the music of Bach into the mind of the general public. I believe this peice was one of three that was sent into space as the an advanced example of human culture, along with Beethovan's 5th and Rites Of Spring . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Hearing no response for a month, I've rewritten a lot of the article, removing all of the subjective statements referenced above. This article still needs a lot of work, particularly in the "compositional style" section, which really tells me nothing about the style of this piece. I'm out of town for a month and I don't have the resources with me right now to add much more right now, but it's a step in the right direction. -- MarkBuckles 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark! Great job on the rewrite! I'll start a "references" section now and would be glad if you could also add some secondary literature. Cheers! Matthias Röder 10:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exact Instrumentation[edit]

Does anyone know the exact instrumentation of the Matthäuspassion? The article only mentions double choir and double orchestra. I recall seing the score once, and it jumped to my attention that it has double basso cotinuo also. Is there any evidence that the double choir has any relation to the cori spezzati of Giovanni Gabrielli? Is there any information about the exact ammount of instruments used for example in the violin section? -- 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Two orchestras each with 2 flutes, 2 oboes (in Coro I doubling oboe d'amore and oboe di caccia), two violins, viola, cello and bass -- probably also doubled by bassoon. Danielhathaway 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
When Bach performed this work the second time, he used organ for continuo in one orchestra and harpsichord in the other. Historians cannot agree whether this was an artistic choice or whether his second organ was just out for repairs. Double-choir works were regularly performed throughout the Baroque. Bach started each service at the Thomaskirche with a Latin double-choir motet (usually written by someone else), and his own motets are mostly double-choir. The tradition was a continuous one from Gabrieli's time to Bach's, but generally via German channels. Heinrich Schütz, for example, wrote a number of double-choir works after studying with Gabrieli in Venice.
There are a few more details that Daniel didn't provide. The flute players double on recorder, the second orch requires a viola da gamba, the first orchestra calls for recorders at one point (nowadays played by the flute players, but at the time possibly by two violinists). All four oboe players must double on oboe d'amore. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oboes also double oboe da caccia. That's a lot of doubling fees if you have to hire union musicans. :) MarkBuckles (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Having just performed the work on Good Friday, I can assure you that the viola da gamba, oboe d'amore and oboe da caccia parts are all in the first orchestra. 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Danielhathaway

There's a section on how many singers per part that needs a clean up and some citations. I found a review of this book "Andrew Parrott. The Essential Bach Choir (Woodbridge, Rochester: Boydell Press, 2000). xvi + 223 pp." that might provide verification to some of the opinions. scroll down to 'book review' Experts please weigh in Woz2 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with editing this article[edit]

Whenever I try to edit this article, the diting window does not have all of the content in it. Does anyone else have the sam problem? Thanks! Matthias Röder 11:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was MatthäuspassionSt Matthew Passion (Bach) — This work has an accepted English name, and so as per WP:ENGLISH that name should be used for the title of the article. —Strad 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - more Google hits for the English name. Reginmund 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Simply because it is what this is called in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support just to pile on. — AjaxSmack 07:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
An obvious move, but you might want to consider whether it's St or St. or Saint. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not above talk contributions in main entry?[edit]

All the information provided above under Exact Instrumentation should be added, (all can be wikified)? Shlishke (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie section is too early[edit]

I feel that the section about the Passion in movies is somewhat tangential. It's not really about the work that Bach wrote, just about its later exploitation, and like all these lists may appeal to some readers while others may find it close to trivia. (Yeah, I'm in the latter camp.) On the other hand, the section on recordings is much more central to an article about the work, because it is listing the most direct means of access to it for many people. I am in no doubt that it is more relevant and valuable information. I am not going to be so cruel as to suggest the film section should go but I do think the recordings should come before the films. What do you think? Nomorenonotnever (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern and period - language[edit]

As evidenced above I like the section on Notable Recordings! :) I also like it being split into modern and period. I just wondered, though, whether the descriptive language is correct - is it JUST the instruments which are different? I suspect that John Eliot Gardiner and Paul McCreesh, inter alia, might argue that it is more than which shape your bow is: that the whole performance, including the singing, direction, tempos, pitch, size of forces etc etc is ALL different, and that therefore to describe it as just being on old or new instruments is to oversimplify. I am not sure what better terminology might be used but I wondered what others thought. Finally, there doesn't seem to be an explanation on the page of what old-vs-new performances mean - I wonder whether there should be a link to other wp material which tells readers, or a short introduction to the recording section which explains the split, or both, or what? I know that many readers of this article will know this already but I am worried about those who don't, to whom I fear the reasoning may currently be a bit opaque. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Erbarme Dich[edit]

I notice in the Use in Cinema that at least three movies have used "Erbarme Dich", the prayer for forgiveness following the "St. Peter's denial" scene. Shouldn't that aria get more attention in the main article? CharlesTheBold (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Use in film[edit]

I have restored the section detailing the use of Saint Matthew Passion in films. I found this section useful when I chanced upon it, and spent some time cleaning it up. I did not think it was trivia. Mick gold (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont find this useful at all; it's a list of junk that only properly belongs in the sub-articles, that hopefully nobody reads, before they are deleted. Very much trivia. Surely there is something more interesting to say. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Value? Is there? Should an Encyclopedia care?[edit]

Good Evening. I apologize in advance for my mediocre use of English language. I decided to ask some questions, but also didn’t hesitate to also introduce some possible answers for the sake of rapid advance :)

To whom is such an article aimed at (=useful)? I would assume: Primary to someone not familiar with this composition. Why would such a person bother to look for an article like this? I would propose: To learn all the facts that the article rightly presents, but also to gain an idea of the compositions’ value. After all, should he go out and purchase a CD of this work? I ask then: Does the article serve in any way such a need? I would answer: No. Do we justify such a need, and do we believe that an encyclopedia ought (in some occasions -and I believe this is such an occasion) to satisfy it? I would dare to answer again, that, (among its other functions) most probably yes. I have to ask all the authors of this article: Do you believe that this work is a masterpiece? Again, I presume and answer to this question: Yes, you most probably all believe it is. You would declare it to any friend of yours, to your son. Go get 2-3 recordings, I imagine you would tell him. So, why are you so shy to just spit it out here? Is it because you don’t regard the possible reader as a possible friend? I would say, no, it’s not because of this. I, again, have a possibility in my mind and would like to present it: It’s because we all are somewhat obsessed with the need to be “objective” and we are also afraid of being accused of subjectivism. But I would, once more, ask: Is it an (objective) fact or not, that the work referred to here is a true masterpiece of western music?

Objectivism isn’t about eliminating value judgment all together, I believe, but more about soundly determining value and presenting it at times, and I presume that all essential citations for any possible adjectival definition of this work would have been ease to be sourced out. Adding such judgments from time to time, to where they justly belong to (with moderation, of course, and with subtlety, different from those presented by Moioci in the beginning of this page), makes an encyclopedia article more vivid and educational as well. I would also dare to say, more precise. Of course, overdo it and everything collapses - but I think that this danger should not end up with such an exhaustive elimination of anything implying a form of value judgment, as experienced in many articles of wikipedia that refer to masterpieces or masters. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaalis (talkcontribs) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Architecture and sources[edit]

This section has become a very long list and is suffocating the rest of the article. Any objection if i spin it out. Ceoil sláinte 18:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This section just lists the title (and singers and instruments) of every movement. (Such an overwiew was wanted for the Bach cantatas, quote "but a terse list of movements with their titles in the structure section is very helpful as an overview". Some of those even come with the complete text additionally.) I included it to show how Bach arranged action and reflection, and what instruments he used for which situation, thinking that it tells more about this great work than a description could do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Performance history[edit]

I would prefer the passages about Mendelssohn and the (overly detailed) first English performance appearing somewhat later in the article. (Someone new to the article gets details on that performance before knowing about the work.) What do you think? Do it? Discuss it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree; there could be a section "Performance history" before "Structure", with the two last paragraphs from the lead (Leipzig, 1829; London 1854), and possibly others, if significant. Such a section should probably start with a repeat of the relevant sentences from the lead about the original performance (1727, 1736). I also noticed on the talk page that the article's sentence "there is no mention of the Resurrection in any of these texts" should possibly be qualified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
this far copied from talk page. Adding: since the word resurrection is only mentioned once by the Evangelist, almost in passing, I don't see a need to qualify. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuo instrumentation[edit]

I have seen performances using e. g. a theorbo (Koopman), and others using (baroque) bassoon and contrabassoon in the continuo. Is there a consensus which instruments were historically used by Bach? -- megA (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

intermediate performances[edit]

There were documented performances in the later 18th century, at least one in 1780, about which I will insert details as I have a chance. Marlindale (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

There have been arguments from either side of the merge, but ultimately I feel there just hasn't been enough involvement to decide one way or another. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

I just noticed this article has a {{more footnotes}} tag on top for over two years, I propose to solve this by merging in the referenced content from St Matthew Passion structure (which largely overlaps with the content of this article, but with better references), as I don't see (after nearly two years of being tagged) this article will get better references otherwise.

Other reasons that seem to support a merge:

I think the article St Matthew Passion structure is too big to be merged into the main article. It contains more than 100 images and its 11 screen lengths (on a large monitor) would overwhelm the main article and double its size in bytes. I agree that piped easter eggs should be rephrased. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
How do you propose to proceed on the WP:EGG linking? And on the {{more footnotes}}?--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, the current St Matthew Passion has a total of TWO images: one of these is also used on St Matthew Passion structure, the other is a difference in lead images... so merging the content of the other article in while keeping the current lead image doesn't create an article with more images than the current St Matthew Passion structure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, when the table of St Matthew Passion structure, is moved in as a *replacement* of the very long list at St Matthew Passion#Movements (with the same content but less detail), and any other double content is avoided (best to choose the version with the best references for each of these), the merged article won't be all that much longer than either of the articles now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, we'd still be far from Orgelbüchlein and very, very far from Clavier-Übung III length, we'd arrive rather at something of Clavier-Übung IV length. I don't defend the excessive length of the first two, but the third is not an article with a "length" issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
St Matthew Passion structure is supposed to be expanded by adding paragraphs to the individual movements (in 2017). Please keep that in mind when considering to merge. If you don't mind that, a merge is fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That can be kept in mind from the St Matthew Passion article too, so says nothing about the merge now. Further, detailed description of separate arias and chorals is not so much a structure thing than that it belongs in the main article of the work, being its detailed description, not saying anything about the structure of the work as such (apart from what is, or can be, summarized in the section about the structure and its table). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you have a view on how to resolve WP:EGG and {{more footnotes}} issues? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I seem to be unclear today, sorry. The question is that IF we merge - again: fine by me - will it not get too long with sections about the individual movements? If we don't merge, it would make more sense to add that to "structure" where scoring, key etc are already established. - IF we merge, no need to deal with EGG, and probably not with footnotes. I didn't want to step on the feet of the authors of this article, so created structure. It would be interesting what they think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The usual process is: expand content → split off when it becomes too bulky. The other way around, i.e. starting an alternative article with content fork issues and then merge is not forbidden, even a valid approach, but often more problematic, see Talk:List of Bach cantatas#History merge request which makes the history on prior work by fellow Wikipedians a bit harder to find. In that scenario there is stepping on feet, not in the usual expand → split scenario. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge because the sub-article is too large to merge, especially with the gigantic chart of nearly 80 sections with their over-wide music images. The main article already has too much space taken up by another sort of chart of the same 80 movements. Adding or duplicating citations is not difficult -- it does not take merging two articles to find/add citations to the main article. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. "chart of the same 80 movements" – of course these charts would be replaced by the charts currently in the structure article.
    • Alternatively, I'd propose Part I / Part II subarticles for everything that's not about the structure of the composition as a whole (e.g. images of music incipits say little or nothing about structure). A similar split has been applied successfully for Messiah Part I / II / III subarticles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The charts in the Structure article are too complex for the main article, which rightly only lists the speaker (singer) and the text, which are the two most important elements for each, and which are too hard to read in the Structure article's charts. The charts in the Structure article rightly focus on the technical aspects of the music and structure. There is absolutely no good reason to divide up either article into Part 1 and Part 2 -- it's one whole piece always performed in its entirety, not two barely related pieces that happen to be performed together. The Messiah sub-articles only exist because there are three (not two) sections and they go into much finer detail than anything in the SMP articles; they are also largely summarized in the main article. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I hardly ever post over here as I am usually quite occupied over at IMSLP. We have been running into similar page-size problems as described by several of the people commenting here. With massive works like this one, (and operas), the structure is going to be pretty complicated even when there aren't alternate schemes of organizing the contents. We have created several contents pages tied to large works at IMSLP, typically collections which contain hundreds of different titles. We managed to deal with the issue somewhat for operas with a switching template which allows for separate pages to be set up for the thousands of works which are derived in one way or another from an opera like Carmen allowing us to keep the pages for the operas themselves relatively clean - preventing their being overloaded with arrangements styled as 'potpourris', 'Glittering gems from…', 'melanges', 'schottisches' and the like. With a single huge work like this one, which is usually performed complete (all by itself, in my experience), with its own catalogue number (as it should), the need for a separate page with a detailed listing of the individual sections makes itself fairly apparent even to someone who is pretty familiar with the piece - especially since the numbering and organization differs from edition to edition. We've linked to your structure page at IMSLP, for whatever that is worth in deciding the case. Best Wishes, Carolus (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. "We've linked to your structure page at IMSLP" – this highlights the problem. In fact IMSLP, on its Matthäuspassion, BWV 244 page, has two links to the structure page and one to Wikipedia's St Matthew Passion page. Yet that page is, apart from the second paragraph of the intro (and a reception history section down below), all about the structure of the work. The explanation has become fuzzy over time, and it's high time to put it straight, so that IMSLP doesn't need to make a choice which page to link to (of course the St Matthew Passion structure link will continue to be operational, leading to a table with the structure via redirect or whatever). Half of your comment reads like, IMSLP can't keep a clean house on its pages, so how could Wikipedia... Thanks for the compliment, but no reason to freeze a situation in disarray. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Bass aria "Mache dich, mein Herze rein.ogg" sound clip[edit]

This was recently deleted, but why, the edit summary didn't say. In my experience of WP editing I've only on one previous occasion deleted and added sound clips. (That was to correct a factual error in the Clara Schumann article, to replace a Robert Schumann clip by a Clara Schumann clip of a piece of the same form.) I'm going to temporarily restore the bass aria clip, have a listen, then return here. Marlindale (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't actually succeed in listening, and didn't restore the clip, but I like that bass aria very much. Please explain here why the particular clip of it should not be given in the place it was or, perhaps, elsewhere, or maybe another sound clip of the same aria. Thank you in advance. Marlindale (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The article Marriage of Figaro has three sound clips in the body of the article, for the overture and two arias. Marlindale (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the deleted clip was just the "first 29 seconds" of a performance of the aria, That seems too short, so I agree now with the deletion.

If we wanted some sound clip(s) of aria(s), another candidate might be "Erbarme dich", mentioned in April 2009 above as seemingly well-appreciated. Marlindale (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This link tells you who deleted it and why. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Marlindale (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Error in score sample[edit]

There is one wrong note in the Opening Chorus sample [1]; the c sharp in the soprano in the 2nd group of the 2nd bar should be a c natural. I haven't checked a sea of sources, but the Neue Bach Ausgabe and all the recordings I recall tell me so. Neither do I know how to replace it, so it's an open call. Anapazapa (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your eagle eyes and your sharp ear. I raised the matter at c:File talk:BWV 244 Nr. 1 Kommt, ihr Töchter.svg and asked the uploader to have a look. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The uploader confirmed the mistake at his talk page, but stated that he currently can't correct it due to problems on his computer. Unfortunately, a crop from the full open score from the BGA (vol. 4, p. 4) doesn't lend itself for use as an incipit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's a serious mistake I advise removing or commenting out for the time being. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
How would you comment out part of an image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
We could make a footnote, but I guess the next person to notice may arrive in a year, - I didn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I was suggesting to comment out the whole image -- or remove it -- until the creator or someone else can fix it. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I wouldn't do that. The important opening theme is correct, and choirs will not perform from our incipit. - Do we have people who could make such an image - or music score - easily? We could have that one larger and separately on top, as #1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted to create a correct version; see File:BWV 244 Nr. 1 Kommt, ihr Töchter.png. Although it's less clear in appearance, I'm going to use that file here soon. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! - Could you perhaps also create the melody of "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden"? Without text, because I want to use it for "Herzlich tut mich verlangen", where it was used earlier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Try this. Alternatively, you could try it yourself with Help:Score. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2016[edit]

St Matthew PassionSt. Matthew Passion – Non-controversial grammatical fix, adding period after abbreviation. The page history at St. Matthew Passion is an old disambig page that now redirects here. HGK745 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: when we discussed this last, the agreement was to have it the English way, for whom "St." is short for street, not saint. I don't care. An equivalent to saint is no part of the original Latin title (Passio Domini nostri J.C. secundum Evangelistam Matthæum - "The Passion of our Lord J[esus] C[hrist] according to the Evangelist Matthew"), nor of the German Matthäus-Passion, - not a Protestant concept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually just realized I requested this wrong. Moving to WP:RM#TR. --HGK745 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't know. It was controversial last time, must be in the archives of Classical music. Don't we have more important things to do than debating such minor things? It was stable for estimated five years, has hundreds of incoming links, related articles such as discography, + the same for Bach's other Passion??? - why change??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
ps: found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 31#St. John Passion, 2010, many participants. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 10:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

St Matthew PassionSt. Matthew Passion – Adding period after abbreviation. – HGK745 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Andy W. (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That would be inconsistent with St Matthew Passion (disambiguation), St Matthew Passion discography, St Matthew Passion structure, St John Passion, St John Passion discography, St John Passion structure, St Mark Passion, BWV 247, St Mark Passion, etc. — Andy W. (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment: this was written before British English started being lax and dropping periods, so the common form is the older form, using the fullstop, as this predates the recent shift in British English, and the topic isn't a British topic, since it's German. Though the best solution is just to spell out "Saint" instead, no quibling with British grammar shifts -- (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Have you ever seen it spelled out in a book or a concert program? Saint Matthew Passion is NO common name. St Matthew Passion is one, St. Matthew Passion another. The difference in meaning is not visible for me. So why not leave it as it is, and as it was decided by members of the related project in 2010, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 31#St. John Passion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: in British English that's called a full stop. In German it's just "der Punkt"? But it doesn't disambiguate here. Nor add any meaning. Nor get closer to WP:COMMONNAME. Nor fit with the eight other related articles mentioned by User:Andy M. Wang. But if you really want to crusade about British English before it "started being lax", you might want to turn your attention to the inconsistency in the names of articles for churches? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Since Bach was German, the original language and title don't apply. I prefer periods (full stops) after abbreviations, as the abbreviation is more easily grasped that way, particularly for non-English-speakers. Likewise, the title without the period will always look like a typographical error to those used to seeing it with one, whereas it is still immediately comprehensible and understandable to those used to seeing it without. (And as the IP mentions in Bach's day British English would have utilized a full stop. And British usage of full stops in abbreviations is confusing for non-Brits -- omitting when the abbreviation is the first and last letter, but retaining otherwise -- which makes the absence merely an [confusing] affectation rather than a point of logic or consistency.) Recommend this form for all of the related articles and disambiguation pages. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 31#St. John Passion In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. British spelling has been established for several years for the titles of this and related articles, and there seems no convincing argument to change now. --Deskford (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location of performers in first performance[edit]

I'm slightly confused about the location of the performers in the first performance. In the article currently it is stated that: "The St Matthew Passion was composed as to perform a single work from both organ lofts at the same time: Chorus and orchestra I would occupy the large organ loft, and Chorus and orchestra II performed from the small organ loft", and the source provided in the end of the paragraph is this jstor article. However, in the jstor article I couldn't find the information about the location of performers (maybe I have overlooked it...) Then I have found this article, which states: "The two choirs and continuo players were placed one in each gallery. At ground level, one to the east and one to the west, were the two orchestras." So there is contradiction. Unfortunately, I don't have access to much printed literature now, only online sources... --Yury Bulka (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

All that jazz. Syncopated rhythms?[edit]

@Michael Bednarek and Francis Schonken: The reference that's been added does not support the article text that was reinstated. Yes I could have tagged the initial edit of that text "citation needed", but with something so obviously incorrect coming from a new account, I just removed it. My bad. At any rate, the dotted rhythms are not "syncopated rhythms" and surely, the WP:WEIGHT of RS references do not characterize them as such. Moreover it would be pretty rapidfire lashes, if the beats are literally representing whip strokes, syncopated or not. The reverted text struck me as kind of badly done "music appreciation" program notes. I've now edited the text to what I believe is verified by the new reference. The whip lashes thing -- if you have WP:DUE sources for that -- I'd appreciate you sharing them here before reinstating it again. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a general {{more citations needed section}} banner for the section (placed nearly three years ago), so a {{citation needed}} for individual sentences makes little sense. That doesn't address the issue though. As for correctness: if it's just replacing "syncopated rhythms" by the correct term "dotted rhythms" then WP:SOFIXIT, but it would still need a reference. Maybe some WP:CHALLENGEs would be a good idea to get decent referencing for the section under way?
@SPECIFICO: why didn't you ping Ganahan11? They might be interested in further improving the article, and this talk page discussion might be excellent to get that started (less counterproductive than blunt reverts, I suppose). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The dotted rhythms are WP:SKYBLUE, although relating them to the point made in that cited source may not be. I'd be fine removing the whole bit until there's proper sourcing and the text it supports. Or not. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you ping a red link? Be my guest. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Redlink users can be pinged (IP's can't, but redlinks can), so I already did. Interleaving comments (as you did) is however a no-no, see WP:TPO, but I already repaired it.
For the dotted rhythms, we'd of course need a reliable source that connects the dotted rhythms with the whip lashes (otherwise that would be a Wikipedian interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source, which also is a no-no). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking regarding interleaving or what you did to "fix" whatever. But I hope you'll not restore nonsense and OR article text in the future. Enjoy your article. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for for not following guidelines. However,the text of the recitative itself makes reference to whipping, so the change does seem appropriate. Ganahan11 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ganahan11: thanks, no problem: did you read that somewhere, or is that your own interpretation of the music? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The text reads 'Ah, yes, you have a heart/It must be like the whipping post/Or even harder still'. But I cannot find a source which explicitly connects the rhythm and chords to the whipping. Ganahan11 (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The score of the St Matthew Passion, that is text ("... like the whipping post ...") and music (... the rhythm ...), are considered a primary source for the purposes of this article. See WP:PRIMARY (that is a clickable link to the guidance on the subject). That guidance says:

Do not ... interpret ... material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

... so, if no source can be found, this Wikipedia editor's interpretation will have to go. Sorry about that. A lot has been written about the St Matthew Passion: Wikipedia's approach is to summarize what can be found elsewhere. So, the recommended approach is to find decent commentaries and explanations (which are published elsewhere) about the composition, and add summaries of these to the article (with a reference to where you found it). If you'd like to do that, I'd be looking forward to your further improvements of the article. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Guess I'll have to read the guidelines more thoroughly. Ganahan11 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)