Talk:Christmas Oratorio

Question

So does it consist of 6 cantatas or various chorales, ...., and cantatas?

Six cantatas, each containing several chorales (and choruses). Michael Bednarek 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

I am very dubious about several assertions in this article.

• written in 1734? Rather: written for the Christmas season of 1734/35.
• text by Picander/Henrici? That's true for two other passions of Bach's, but not this one.
• Everything in the section Music is either wrong or superfluous.
• Wrong:
  • The music of the Weihnachtsoratorium (Christmas Oratorio) consists of various chorales, arias and cantatas.
  • ... and recitativos and choir pieces and one sinfonia.
  • Every sung text is accompanied by the chorus, contrary to the St. Matthew Passion.
  • Most recitativos and solo arias are not accompanied by the chorus.
  • There are also no big chorales in the Weihnachtsoratorium.
  • What's a big chorale? A chorale is a strophic hymn and is never very long. All chorales in this work are set in counterpoint, fully instrumented, sometimes elaborately so.
• Superfluous:
  • Bach used many previous works in the Weihnachtsoratorium. He used at least 19 previously written pieces, for example BWV 213, 214 and 215.
  • This has already been mentioned at the beginning of the article.
• It's not First piece but Part 1 or On the First Day of Christmas. If it only cites the German text of the first recitativo (with errors), this section might as well be omitted - less is more. If more is wanted, look at de:Weihnachtsoratorium (Bach).

Michael Bednarek 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Music notation?

What the heck does this mean?

In any case, a key and time signatures for a recitative are merely musical notation.

As opposed to...? —Wahoofive (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten a little (the given keys need a more thorough checking) but am finding this more and more interesting. Recitativo secco is customarily written without key signature, as in Mozart & Rossini operas or Haydn's Creation. Bach's practice here and elsewhere is to use the key signatures of adjacent music, and Handel does this too, for example in Messiah but also in the early Aci, Galatea e Polifemo as well as Acis and Galathea, at least if Chrysander's editions can be trusted. Sparafucil (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Title

Libretto title

To my knowledge,there's no original title "Weihnachtsoratorium",- any source for that? The first page of the libretto has this, Oratorium / Welches / Die heilige Weihnacht / über / In beyden / Haupt-Kirchen zu Leipzig / musiciert wurde. / Anno 1734" (Oratorio which has been performed over the holy Christmas tide in both main churches at Leipzig). That can be summarised to "Weihnachts-Oratorium", but we should not suggest that it was Bach's title.

A melody used three times is Vom Himmel hoch, - please see the talk of that article for arguments against a lead image with a too Italian feel (which I don't share any more - I remember I did when Botticelli was introduced here - however, it came up). The libretto title should perhaps go somewhere in this article, perhaps even as lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sound files quality

Is it just me or do others agree that the quality of the sound files (Dalal) are sub-standard? Soloists, choir, orchestra all fail. If someone who's never heard the work got their first impression from these files, they could be forgiven for never wanting to hear it again. I don't think these files are a worthwhile addition to the article. The interested reader can easily find more competent recordings online. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I never listened, but am sure that I support your view. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's likely always a trade-off when using sound files in open source context. DDD studio recordings by reputable performers get likely cut off after 30 seconds; expired copyright recordings by reputable performers may no longer align with modern taste and are mono with a lot of background noise anyway; amateur recordings by enthusiast Wikipedians are rarely top notch; technically perfect synthesiser renderings are rarely Wendy Carlos grade (and not conforming to evolving tastes anyway); same can be said about recordings of simplified arrangements; non-copyrighted public performances are rarely by the best ensembles, and are rarely presented in a format that filters out background noises... There are examples of all of these categories in Wikipedia articles: the present recordings belong in the last category. I see no reason not to use them. Harnoncourt's first recordings of the Brandenburg Concertos would, in the 21st century, drive nearly anyone away from these excellent compositions: we would use them in Wikipedia if they were copyright-free; Elisabeth Schumann's recording of "Bist du bei mir" or Max Meili's recording of BWV 189 (top notch at the time of recording, over 80 years ago), could have a similar effect, yet they are used in the respective Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's article on Chopin's second piano sonata was recently GA-approved with far from perfect amateur recordings. Etc. The "taste" aspect is subjective, and the failing technical quality of the recording never stopped Wikipedians from adding such files to articles. It's what we've got (and the poor quality may instil the desire to find better on Wikipedia contributors). The alternative, per the suggestion above, that people who want to hear what the article is about should click away from Wikipedia, is hardly a preferable option. Sound recordings of vocal music by Bach, performed by actual singers, are a rare good in Wikipedia (I think there are less than a handful of articles that have them), and Wikipedia would be poorer without them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Romantically infused recordings of Bach were in-time; historical vocal performances were in-tune; much can be said against synth/MIDI renditions, but they are in-time and in-tune. Aside: The sound files in the Chopin sonata article weren't mentioned in the review, but I'd prefer Xenopoulos' versions for all 4 movements. My concern isn't "taste" but poor musicianship/competence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Re. "historical vocal performances were in-tune" – that is a quite incorrect generalisation: not all boy sopranos of early "historically informed" performances were Wiener Sängerknaben of course, not even mentioning Florence Foster Jenkins for the romantically-inspired earlier ones. The only extant recording of a castrato singer is notoriously out of tune. There is technical quality and there is taste: both can not always be cleanly separated. I've heard Fauré's "Pie Jesu" being sung out of tune, and in tune with excessive vibrato: in my subjective appreciation it largely depends on artistry of the singer which one gets away with it most easily. And I abhor completely in-tune MIDI renderings of vocal music (a four-part chorale that somewhat sounds like an organ rendering might be the only exception to that): a real person singing with deficiencies is by and large preferable imho.

I didn't hear all 36 tracks which I inserted entirely: I didn't think their quality terrific, but not so bad they couldn't be used for the purpose. Could you maybe point to the ones you think worst, I might have missed them when trying to determine over-all quality by listening to random samples? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec, sorry for late reply:) I agree with Michael that no sound example is better than a bad sound example. Many were deleted from recent FA Debussy, as cluttering the layout, and not really doing justice to his music (see the peer review or article history). - Good sound files are fine, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)