Talk:Christmas Oratorio

Question

So does it consist of 6 cantatas or various chorales, ...., and cantatas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.182.51 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

By "romantically infused" (as opposed to HIP) I was referring to 1964 Harnoncourt (and 1965 Karajan) Brandenburgs, by "historical vocal" to E. Schumann and Meili, as you mentioned them – nothing about boy sopranos, FFJ, or castrati. The deficiencies of the Christmas Oratorio recording here are in a different category. The tenor is atrocious throughout; no breath control and poor pronunciation, cracks on G# at "auf dass er sich schätzen ließe" (No. 2) and again on A at "des Herren Engel" (No. 11); No. 15 is well beyond him (shades of FFJ). The trumpet misses C in the introduction to No. 8. The orchestra's dynamics in No. 19 (and elsewhere) lack nuance and are very unsympathetic to the alto; the orchestra regularly misses to play together on the first note (cue, Einsatz) of many numbers. The choir tenors in No. 24 are too timid. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No. 24 is over-all too bad, and I commented it out.

Should have been clearer in my first comment about Harnoncourt: I meant his first recording on historical instruments – highly acclaimed at the time, would chase 21st-century listeners away, among other reasons for the natural horns playing out of tune in the first movement of the first Brandenburg, which imho is worse than a few missed notes in an amateur recording, while the horns in the 1st Brandenburg play close harmony (in a different rhythm) against the remainder of the orchestra: if the tuning and tempo aren't perfect (which is of course difficult to achieve on natural horns) it sounds horrible, as it does in Harnoncourt's case.

Having listened to a few more numbers of the recording now, the aspect that displeases me most is its slow tempos – off-beat Einsatzes are often caused by choosing a too slow tempo, especially if at least part of the performers are amateur, as seems to be the case here. Bach has survived worse, and that's, generally speaking, a difference with Debussy: Debussy's music is over-all too delicate (a bit like, exceptionally, the horns in Bach's first Brandenburg) to survive second-rate performance. I'm still pondering about No. 15: more than a few missed notes there, especially, twice, when he has to sing a series of notes in rapid succession. True, the balance isn't right in No. 19, but, imho, not fatally so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. I've listened to a few of the sound files. I harken back and agree more emphatically with Michael Bednarek's original comment. Some of the performances are terribly out of tune and not well coordinated. I feel it would be better to have no performances than a substandard one. - kosboot (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

So it's agreed now to remove them all. Whoever has the time should do it. There are two excellent YouTube videos of the complete oratorio, Gardiner conducting the English Baroque Soloists and Monteverdi Choir, Claron McFadden and Katharine Fuge (s), Christoph Genz (t), Bernarda Fink (a), Dietrich Henschel (b), which has been uploaded by the EuroArtsChannel; those should be added to "External links": Parts 1–3 on YouTube, Parts 4–6 on YouTube. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

The Botticelli was removed a while ago, and after waiting a bit, I inserted Bach's first page instead. I believe it has more to do with the composition, but Boticelli is there again. Thoughts? (signed later) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought it appropriate that an article about the Christmas Oratorio should show a picture of the nativity. There's an obvious spot for the autograph in the "Music" or the "Instrumentation" section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure, because Christmas is in the title, so no surprise it's about the nativity. I'd like to hear what others think. As it is, it looks like an article about a painting - to me. If a nativity scene, perhaps not an Italian one but one that Bach may have seen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the nativity image whereas BWV248 Autogrpah looks great to illustrate this page; our readers can see it is about Christmas from the title and the Christmas season link. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What is an oratorio?

Bach may have called this an oratorio for lack of a better title. However, as a collection of six cantatas, intended for performance as part of the church service for six days in the Christmas season (from Christmas Day to Epiphany) this is not an oratorio by the strict definition. An oratorio was not performed in church, except for the earliest oratorios c.1600 in Italy, which were performed in the oratory (prayer hall--It. "oratorio") of a church, but not the main sanctuary. By the 17th-century, it was performed in a concert hall (which did not exist until the 1670s or so), hence in a secular location. So let's call this work "The Christmas Cantatas of Bach" as a better title. Other than that, this is an excellent article. Professor Emeritus of Musicology (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't name works, but use the so-called "common names" which are often wrong. Some terms changed meaning over time, - Bach didn't name (most of) his cantatas "Cantata" but "Concerto", and what was an "Oratorio" for him, isn't in a more modern meaning. Concert programs will say Christmas Oratorio, and will be recognised. The Christmas cantatas would include many more than these six, see Christmas cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Adoration of the Shepherds

I changed the link from adoration of the shepherds to the piped adoration of the shepherds here, as the original article is about a series of paintings. I'm surprised there is no more suitable article to link to as, I would argue, the actual event is more notable than the paintings which depict it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What should we do? We could make a redirect to the Nativity instead, only: to where? The lead of the paintings' article describes the scene better than the few scattered mentionings of the phrase in Nativity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I discovered that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That article, without mentioning it in the lead, also has (a few) musical depictions. Perhaps we could expand it and make it about the episode and its treatment in art and music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. That might be a bit too complicated. Admittedly the biblical passage is very brief and appears on only in Luke? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Then we could make a redirect with lower case shepherds. I used that more than once, without looking into where it goes. Johnbod, what do you think? For you, it might be not too complicated to transform the Shepherds article a bit, to make it suitable for readers who just want to know what the episode is about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the adoration of the shepherds article is "suitable for readers who just want to know what the episode is about" already; it's the 1st section after the lead, as you both say, FAR more detailed than the super-brief mentions at Nativity of Jesus. It was certainly unwise to change it. The article is not about "a series of paintings" but the subject in art generally, which is I'm sure how the majority of readers encounter it. One could I suppose add theological interpretations lower down. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is there (read my first post above), but the article should not begin as it does: saying that it is about paintings. - That could be the only change needed, while mentioning music in the lead (also) would be desirable. I wonder about the capitalisation of Shepherds when the episode is meant. - Sorry for having been unwise, - I read "a bit too complicated" and tried something simple, - too simple perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it I suspected the opening had been messed about, and sure enough it was unhelpfully edited in September by User:Dicklyon. I'm re-jigging. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussions at Talk:Adoration of the Shepherds seemed to make it clear that the capitalization is appropriate for the large number of creative works by that name, but that there's no actual Biblical event by that name. Dicklyon (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I made the redirect. First pic is about it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

But if that REDIRECT is used in the article, it would lead readers twice to the same article under different visible links. More seriously, that REDIRECT now introduced a circular link in the article Nativity of Jesus, a link that previously was meaningful. Further, there are quite few links to that REDIRECT, and in some, e.g. in Adoration of the Shepherds (El Greco, Madrid), they were meant for the original target. I suggest to Gerda to revert. Also to Gerda: please review your addition of an infobox. There are several mistakes in your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Michael, is there a rule that two different words or phrases cannot link to the same target? How is the reader disadvantaged by that? I think many readers will be surprised they are taken to an article about paintings. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And regarding Gerda's addition, are you happy to see it remain if the mistakes you have seen were corrected? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Formally, we have WP:REPEATLINK, and for reader expectations, I suggest they will be slightly confused when they click on two quite different links and land on the same article.

I stopped caring about the addition or removal of infoboxes long ago; I do care about invalid article quality badges, wrong hatnotes, and erroneous DISPLAYTITLE directives. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was out, and will be away again. The redirect was reverted. Then we should really provide content for those looking for the episode, not images. I must be blind for mistakes in the infobox, even being told REPEATLINK link didn't help me. I am used to links being repeated in lead, infobox and body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's already there! Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Replied further up in this thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Gerda, my replay above was in two parts; the first directed at Martin regarding repeated links, the second to you about invalid article quality badges, wrong hatnotes, and erroneous DISPLAYTITLE directives. They have now been corrected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand but if fixed also no need. Thank you for a lilypond! Frohlocket! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Michael, I don't see how WP:REPEATLINK helps us out here. Yes, perhaps readers will be confused by being led "twice to the same article under different visible links". They might be as surprised as I was to be led to an article about art. I can see it's styled as adoration of the shepherds as opposed to Adoration of the Shepherds, so it's a kind of "re-use Easter egg" in my book. Johnbod, yes I can see that the article is about "the subject in art generally". Maybe it should also include music, as Gerda suggests. I was just expecting to be led to the actual event in the story of the Nativity. I don't see why the event is just a "theological interpretation". I suspect that the majority of readers will encounter the story via the Bible, not via the paintings. But that's just guess. Very sorry if the change was "certainly unwise". If there is no better place to link to, then I guess that will have to do. At least it's now linked to the section on "Biblical narrative." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot I don't understand about this discussion, but it seems like a lot of people never read the Adoration of the Shepherds article: it does have a section on music. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It does have a section on music, and detail about the biblical episode, but the intro (at least when I looked) just said it's about paintings, - sorry if I misunderstood something. Fine that it's now fixed, - thanks to all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake. It does and it looks very good. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Following Johnbod's re-jig, which I have only now just seen, I now don't see any problem with the target article. Thanks very much. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad I caught the earlier changes. I've added a sentence on music to the lead. Actually what we have now only covers carols, and there is surely lots to add from the classical reportoire: Berlioz, L'enfance du Christ, has "L'adieu des bergers (The shepherds' farewell). A famous choral movement, often performed separately". The oldest on the List of Christmas operas, and so on. I won't add there but someone should. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. They would be very good additions. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Table of chorales

We have a table of chorales which is sortable by several parameters, including one that is simply called #, and I see no explanation. It is not the movement number and I wonder why. I also wonder about the initial arrangement. And also why there are two numbered 1. - I volunteer to use the movement number, with a link to where it sits in the table of movements. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a table with a column heading "#". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

WDR on Youtube

Few days ago, WDR produced the Christmas Oratorio Cantatas I-III without advertisements on YouTube Bach - Christmas Oratorio - Simon Halsey - WDR Radio Choir - WDR Symphony Orchestra on YouTube. I think, its of good quality and an alternative to the historical informed versions of Gardiner and Speck. Should we add this YouTube video to the external links? Grimes2 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As the WDR production is only of parts 1–3, it should not be used as alternative to replace the complete recordings. I doubt it's helpful to add another recording, especially an incomplete one. But even if they issue the remaining parts, we have to be mindful of WP:EL#What to link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)