Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a

WP:PRIMARY concerns

For the description of the work a lot is referenced to the (Bärenreiter) score, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, except for possible interpretations explained in text by the (unnamed?) editor of that score. E.g. "special function" (etc) can not be sourced to the music score (notes on music paper) exclusively, while in that case an interpretation of a primary source. I think most of it is OK, but interpretations need to be sourced outside the primary source material, see WP:PRIMARY. That being said, the description of the movements is a fantastic job, like it a lot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying with an example: [1] - named author (editor of a score published by Bärenreiter), referenced to a page of the text introduction to the score, this is not a primary source interpretation by a Wikipedia editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We had articles like that before, such as Mass in B minor structure, - I don't think there is any "interpretation" (and if you find it remove it). Saying that voices enter in a succession is like saying the dress of a woman on a painting is red, - we don't need a secondary source to confirm that. The message that Bach was an unbelievable creator should come across, without being mentioned. - In a next step (getting ready for GA) I will look for more sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you name the editor (Alfred Dürr) as author, rather than Bach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Example:

• "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders" can be sourced to a score
• "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders which are assigned to a special function" (emphasis added) contains an interpretation which can not be sourced to a (primary source) score. Unless the editor of that score inserted a text note to that effect (or Bach wrote such note in his manuscript which I don't think is the case here). In that case the name of the editor needs to be given (the editor is the source, not the music Bach wrote down and which was transferred to a printed score), preferably also date of publication, etc.

I'd recommend to change all "score" references to a publicly available score (if possible). Then the interpretations that aren't directly clear from the music notes and accidentals on the page, get different references with named authors.

Anyhow, what is interpretation and what is non-interpretative deduction I can't check, while the references are made to a publication I currently have no access to.

More important is to understand what WP:PRIMARY is about, when writing an article. The answer above didn't put me at ease... so yes the dozens of references to the (Bärenreiter) "score" source need to be checked. I don't feel like putting the {{Original research}} template on top of the page while probably most of these are in order, but that's in fact what I should do until it is all checked. Now anyone can familiarize themselves with WP:PRIMARY and do the checking, but failing time and means and/or other candidates to do the checks, I'd have to put up {{Original research}} until it is done. (sorry I'm a bit uncompromising on this: DYK is mainpage exposure, WP:NOR is a fundamental policy and we can't have wide exposure to something blatantly going contrary to it.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the listing of general score and other sources e.g. Piano Sonata in C major, D 279 (Schubert)#Sources can be taken as an example, e.g. indicating Urtext editions, autographs, names of editors that wrote an introduction, what the official catalogue says on the subject, publication dates, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Related issues with the Bärenreiter score reference (used several times): it is the D-dur version (so not 243a) while the intro to the Movements section says "The instruments are those for BWV 243a, slightly different in the later work" you can't source that content to the score of the later work, which puts some doubts around "The opening movement Magnificat anima mea is performed by all forces with the exception of the recorders" sourced to the score of the later version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which open access score would you suggest to use for that? Probably not the digital manuscript? CPDL is easy to read, compared to IMSLP manuscript and IMSLP BA, but can't offer a prominent editor name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would happily use an E -flat score, but didn't find one, IMSPL offers only the added movements under that name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not possible to say "in what follows we discuss the orchestration of the Eb version", then "the orchestration from the Eb version differs from the D version" and than say something about the orchestration of the Eb version referenced to the D version. I have no solution (yet), but will keep looking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In this version, the D score is ref 13, used only after the table for details of the movements. The orchestration (above) is listed for E-flat. I tried to avoid keys and instrumentation in the movements, but mistakes may still be there. - I see two possibilities to proceed: merge the articles to Magnificat (Bach), or separate the movements to a third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)