Talk:Johannes Passion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Johannes Passion is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't 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.
	This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

The line "and to read into them bigotries and race-hatreds that originated many decades after the time of Bach" deleted because those "bigotries and race-hatreds" did not originate many decades after the time of Bach. They were in the air he breathed. The line about historical context seems in keeping with NPOV.

Removed recordings section (hopelessly inadequate and unrepresentative). Instead added links to websites where comprehensive lists of recordings can be found along with reviews, etc. 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus of article

The section about antisemitism seems hugely disproportionate in terms of what one would expect about in an article about a great musical work. Wouldn't one or two sentences that set out the 'controversy' and provide a balance to it in terms of the context of the work suffice?219.90.238.85 10:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Especially as the article doesn't actually address Bach's responsibility for the text, as opposed to the music. He would presumably have chosen the texts to set, but he was limited by the Bible narrative. Where the aria texts were taken from the Brockes-Passion, they were re-written by an unknown librettist. 80.1.88.92 22:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oratorio

I think, one should mention that the passions of Bach are not typical cantatas, but much more elaborated and that they are called oratorio in German. --Cethegus (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Polytics

I urgently need helpful information on the master piece in question. But I am astonished, because instead of a real WikiPedia article, I found a WikiPolitics article.

Namely 2/3 contains generalities, not too useful, and 1/3 contains polytics, what in addition is more related to the general critics of New Testament, than the critics of this musical master piece itself. Only one of the two "further readings" link is alive, namely the link belonging to the 1/3 polytics. This page is not encyclopedic. A simple link to pages accessively explaining this kind of problems would be more useful and encyclopedic.

Everybody has to understand, that a missused weapon becomes contraproductive. The missuse of a weapon similair to the overdose or to the too regular use of antibiotics. The result is well known: the antibiotics resistance. If someone does not believe me, then I suggest to analyse the polytics in Hungary between 1988 and 2008: more and more people became resistant aginst the "warning label" in question, effectively opening doors to enter the problem.

I will be soon 52, and to perform or listen to the live performance of this master piece is an old tradition in my church, and I had never made any connection between this master piece and the problem mentioned in the polytical 1/3. Contraproductivity is a consequence of the fact, that if I have to learn at my age of 52 from the WikiPolytics, that if we enjoy a musical master piece, then we enjoy some sort of ANTISEMITIC trash, then the only consequence of this WikiPolytics can be, that the category or warning "antisemitic" is not reliable for us any longer, and one can not trust on it's use, one must be suspicious in the future if this category or warning is applied for somethig.

In other terms: not the lyrics itself does matter, not the "professional" interpretation does matter, but the what really does matter, WHAT I THINK ABOUT, WHEN I LISTEN TO THE LYRICS. But none of the professionals asked me and the members of my church, what we believe in, what we think about during the performance of this master piece. This polytical 1/3 reflects the polytical professional's mind, but not the mind of the Christian audience. The polytical professionals in this 1/3 ignores the fact, that the Hungarian lutherans has quite considerable amount of jewis members, who declares themselves of jewis origin, and the Hungarian lutherans educated in their schools some wordl wide famous scientist of again jewis origin, and Bach was lutheran, Bach is often called the FIFTH EVANGELIST AFTER MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN. So this polytical 1/3 is not in well synchron with the fact that the Hungarian lutherans have a deep personal community and labyrinthine family connections with the Hungarian jews.

If the polytical 1/3 wanted to be polytically correct, then it must describe that the Christians, or in general the listeners of this master piece are not antisemitic in general. Similar disclaimers shuld be applied to the Luther and Wagner pages.

It is not well balanced, if the 2/3 does not yield any useful knowledge concerning the lyrics, but the remaining 1/3 explains that the lyrics, what we still do not know, the lyrics is antisemitic. There is no quotations of the lyrics at all, only professional opinions. It would be more scientific, to count the total number of words, then represent an antisemitic quotations, tell length of this quotation in words and whether this quotations is out of the Holy Script or from a writer, or from Bach himself, and whether this quotations is the central message of the master pice or not.

Yet an other good question, the interpretation of a quotation. Say I say to my wife, thet "I am hungry.". This can be quoted, and professionals can interpret what I really wanted to eat. Or even vorse, the word "hungry" covers something more agressive activity. So, the same way, it does matter, how the Christians interpret the Holy Script today (2008), and hence the lyrics of the master piece in question. THEREFORE IT IS SIMPLY SHOCKING THAT THIS 1/3 KIND OF OFFENSIVE ATTACK CAN BE MADE AGINST THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPT.

I simply protest against the attack of my and of my friends and of many other peoples believe and OBVIOUS GOODWILL.

Everywhere in the WikiPedia, if it wants to remain encyclopedic, it must be put there, that the Christians interpretation of the Holy Script today is far from being antisemitic.

As you can see, my English is modest, hence I ask someone goodwilling person to carry over the necessary modifications.

Or if none of us has enough time and knowledge together, the even the temporary removal of that polytical 1/3 is better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohlep (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)