Talk:Messiah (Handel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title of the work

The correct title for this oratorio is not The Messiah, but simply Messiah.

See:

http://www.hartfordchorale.org/Messiah.htm http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/handel_messiah.html http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/handel/messiah/mozart.html

Alright. Now to be even more nitpicky, there are three links to "The Messiah" instead of "Messiah". But it's your call.

Links adjusted too, Sbuckley. Alas, we can't do much about the main title as there is already an article called simply "Messiah". Tannin

I took out some "the"s in the text. It's now more correct but possibly odder-looking. I sort of like it like that but am not sure. Discussion please? Nevilley 08:55 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Not quite Nevilley. Think about it: we want to talk about Beethoven's 5th symphony. So we say: "My favourite symphony is the fifth." Or we love Wagner, so we say "I have always dreamed about conducting the Ring Cycle. The "the"s in this entry, in other words, belong to the sentences, rather than to the title of the work. In short: "I love the Messiah is wrong" (because it's simply called "Messiah") and "I love Messiah" is wrong (because it's ungrammatical), but "I love the Messiah" is correct.

Err .... at least I think so. I'm much better at hearing something and working out if it's correct or not than I am at getting at those formal rules of grammar locked up somewhere inside my head. In other words, I've boldly reverted you but I'm not 100% sure. Any others have a view on this? Tannin

I am not sure that your examples work, but the trouble is we all have The Messiah - just like that, italics and all, in our ears so firmly that anything else is hard to grasp. The example of the 5th symphony doesn't work because it is just a description of what it is - it has no name, with or without the, so yes, it's the fifth! Now, then, how about this: "My favourite overture is Leonore." or this: "I have always dreamed about conducting the Ring Cycle." - well, sure it's a cycle about The Ring, so it's the Ring Cycle ... Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring) - "The" is part of the title - but if we try again and say: "I have always dreamed about conducting Siegfried or Manon Lescaut or The Barber of Seville - we need a The when it's in the title, otherwise we don't. Now, it doesn't really matter and is not going to cure cancer and I don't want to fight. But if we suspect, as I do, that the more correct usage is to have no The, that it is not the same as "The Fifth Symphony" etc, then maybe as an encylopedia we should do it in what may be the right way, even if it does not initially sound right. I found that fact, which I had not realised, that it really is called Messiah and not The Messiah, to be one of those OohNotManyPeopleKnowThat moments which are nice to find in an encyclopedia. I think Messiah has a dramatic power to it and The Messiah sounds like it has been tamed by a choral society, and that we should be brave and use the right title. But, as I say, I have no stomach for a big fight, and will shut up now. :) Nevilley 16:09 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Me neither Nevilley! I don't think we are going to need nuclear weapons for this one. :) Notice that it was me that pulled the "thes" out of the italicised titles, so I'm with you on this one in all but the final details. Tannin

Messiah is the correct way of saying it, not the Messiah, it sounds better to our ears the Messiah but it is not correct. This is how it supposed to be, god i feel so bossy lol. panasonicyouth99

However, my copy of the performance by the Academy of Ancient Music has a facsimile of Handels third codicil to his will, where Handel himself refers to the work:

"I give a fair copy of the Score and all Parts of my Oratorio called The Messiah to the Foundling Hospital".

So there is some merit to referring to the work as The Messiah. Mvdwege 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But how do we know that this discussion might not cure cancer? You never know life. (Sorry to go abit out of topic. Please go on- It's just that my music teacher has told us to "listen to the whole messiah...no 'the' in that sentence). Chessmanlau (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In a sense this discussion is a little pointless, because everyone knows exactly what is referred to whether the word "the" is used or not. People are used to hearing the term “the Messiah” in biblical contexts. Jesus was asked if he were “the Messiah”. According to Jewish belief, there is only one true Messiah (and he still hasn’t turned up), and as “Messiah” is not someone’s name but a title, “the Messiah” is correct in this context (cf. "the Saviour" or "the Redeemer"). So people can be forgiven for adding the “the” in colloquial speech, particularly in juxtaposition with other works with one-word titles, e.g.:

Q. “What were the highlights of this year’s music season?”

A. “Well, for me, they were “Tosca”, “Turandot”, “Falstaff”, “Norma”, “The Messiah” and the Choral Symphony by Beethoven. (The first 4, apart from being the titles of the operas, are the names of characters; the last two are not.)

I can think of one other case where a title without "the" is used in the name of a work - Leoncavallo's Pagliacci, which means "Clowns". It's not "I Pagliacci" - "The Clowns", but people often erroneously add the "I". This is as natural, to both Italian- and English-speakers, as not referring to "La Traviata", "Il Trovatore" or "La boheme" as simply "Traviata", "Trovatore" or "Boheme" (although one might do so, casually).

The only circumstance I can think of (apart from the oratorio) where one might use “Messiah” without the “the” would be if one were addressing him by his title: “Messiah, you are the one we’ve been waiting for”, cf. “Lord, forgive me”. Given all that, Handel’s naming was a little odd; as odd as naming a piece “Saviour” or “Redeemer” rather than “The Saviour” or “The Redeemer”. Unless, that is, he intended it to be perceived as an address to the Messiah, for which I have no evidence. But at the end of the day, what we have to work with is the title Handel gave it - “Messiah”. We've made that point. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez Loise, we really shouldn't be so absolute in the flexible world of history. Same thing on 'I Pagliacci'. Or Dvorak's 'New World Symphony'. The piece itself can be known in more than one way. I wish you guys wouldn't be so absolute in your judgement's. Does saying, "It is incorrectly called 'The Messiah'" mean the reader is forced to correct everyone else for the rest of their life who says it as though? Or can we just claim that the composer himself named the piece simply "Messiah" but has also come to be internationally recognized as 'The Messiah'. My 2cents. Fadedroots (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

POV issues

POV much? Could somebody who knows something about this try to make it not quite so fan-pageish? -- Zoe

Where's the POV? It makes a series of statements about the popularity of the work, which is very great, and of relevance to its entry in an encyclopedia. I don't think any of those statements are untrue and I don't think they have to have been written by a fan. I don;t think they are expressed in a way which makes it sound like Wikiepedia's view is that it is wonderful music; merely that Wikipedia knows that it is very very popular music - a fact. I'd be interested to see a proposed rewrite which you feel would be less POV, but I have to say I do not see a problem with this page. Nevilley 08:09 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

I'm new here as well, but I agree that this entry is woefully riddled with POV. I was embarassed to read it actually. There is so much more that could be said about this piece, and the writer seemed far more intent on putting her/his agenda of how people incorrectly refer to it as The Messiah and the Hallelujah Chorus, truly trivial points when I'm looking for real information about this piece. It should be scrapped and handed to a truly knowledgeable person to write over again.GiosueCarr 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't written by any one person. It's a wiki. Lots of people wrote it. If you feel you can improve it, do so. —  MusicMaker5376 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm here. Someone who knows a bit about Messiah. And I've looked the entry over. And there ain't nuffin "fan-pageish" about it. The only thing I question is the "usage" note at the bottom, as it seems a bit too prominent. Oh, and that perhaps we are being a little too restrained. After all, this is only the most-performed classicial vocal music in the world. Tannin

the most-performed classicial vocal music in the world -- Do you have a reference for this? If so, it should be in the main article.--345Kai 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to the Wikipedea world. This is a facinating discussion of a near and dear subject to me. Would someone please tell me what POV stands for? Thnx, TG 216.204.88.170 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

POV stands for "Point Of View". Basically, WP articles are to be written from a "NPOV" or "Neutral Point-of-view" standpoint. The above posters were concerned that this article was too positive regarding the oratorio. However, if you notice the datestamps for the messages, the newest are about a year old. Anyway, you might want to take a look at WP:NPOV for more information on Wikipedia and Points of View. —  MusicMaker5376 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV thing, from my POV, is a bit over-done in Wikipedia-world. People who contribute articles about something are generally people who *like* that something. It is unrealistic, and a bit churlish, to then expect someone to take a rigorously dispassionate "POV" about a thing they are enthusiastic about. Additionally, to create a "Neutral POV" about a piece of evocative music seems about as silly as a analytical discussion about the love I have for my wife of 25 years. "Messiah" is one of the great musical accomplishments of Western Civilization and has become a cultural icon in the English-speaking world. That there is a fact. Please remove the "POV Concerns" label from the article - and drop your Politically Correct attitute about things that we all *ought* to be passionate about.emesselt 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of "usage"

I've demoted "Usage" from a subheader to just a bold word at the start of the para. Any better? I do feel the note should stay in, but I certainly agree that it does need need huge prominence! Nevilley 10

06 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

I felt the same - didn't want to delete it but felt it looked out of place. Much improved now. Tannin

OK and thanks. Nevilley 12:28 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

More on POV

The entire first paragraph reeks of POV. -- Zoe

Not this problem of saying when something is "famous" again? -- Tarquin 00:19 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Reeks? How? Let's look at it, shall we? One part at a time.

• Handel's oratorio Messiah So far so good. Handel wrote it, it's an oratorio, its name is "Messiah". I'm struggling to find the POV here.
• is his most famous work Yup, that's right. By far the most famous of Handel's works, as a matter of fact. Refer to any dictionary or encyclopedia of classical music, or see below.
• approached only by his Water Music Yup. That's just about the only other Handel work that is particularly well-known these days. Again, refer to any reputable source.

I believe Music for the Royal Fireworks is known approximately as well as Water Music, and indeed, Water Music is usually coupled with Music for the Royal Fireworks in performances and recordings. Corydon76 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• and remains a firm favourite with concert goers to this day. Again, simple truth. The Messiah is usually cited as the single most-performed classical work of any played today. Are you trying to tell me that the #1 most often played work in the whole of classical music is disliked by concert-goers? That the thousands to pay to see it each year don't like it? What a crock.
• Any modern listing of the most often performed classical works must include Messiah, and may well be topped by it. What I just said, though it might be better to cut out the "may well be" - that is rather over-cautious.
• although the text is devoted to resurrection and salvation Try reading the libretto. Any single page will do, it's all resurection and salvation. Mostly modified Old Testament verses, as a matter of fact.
• since Handel's death He really is dead. you can trust me on this.
• it has become traditional to perform the Messiah at Christmas Check your local concert calender. Check a few other concert calenders. Check as many as you like. It's sometimes done at other times of year, but mostly at Christmas.
• rather than at Easter It was written and first performed as an Easter work.

In a word, Tarquin, it's not one of those "is this famous" difficulties. Often we need to make a judgement of some kind, make a "how famous is famous" decision, but in the case of this work we can simply note that it gets played moe often than anything else in classical music - it puts more bums on seats - and there is absolutely no need to make a judgement call. Tannin

I'm the one with the problems, not Tarquin. -- Zoe

We know that. There are two paras above: the first is by way of reply to your bizzare claim that the current entry has POV problems. The second is a reply to Tarquin's question.Tannin 07:05 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Like Tannin, I can't see any POV problems with this article. Could you be a bit more specific, Zoe ? -- Derek Ross

The section on "Structure" starts with the work "Surprisingly". That's a little bit POV, maybe, but not too bad. --345Kai 18:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That section on "Structure" was written well after this discussion. The "Suprisingly" has always nagged at me, but I can't really think of a wording that won't sound POV to express that idea. (The only other word I could think of was "Counter-intuitively" which always sounds pompous to me.) If you can think of something better, please fix it. MusicMaker5376 19:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Borrowings?

Can any musicologist provide specific evidence that Handel borrowed from other work (his own or another composer's) to compose the Messiah? Although Handel indulged (brilliantly) in this practice for many of his compositions, I have never heard it said of the Messiah before. Yes, he did re-use elements of the Messiah in later pieces, most notably Lift up your heads in the third movement of Concerto a due cori No. 2 (c. 1747), but I am unaware of any examples of re-use of earlier work in the Messiah.

Hello 62.252.128.11, it appears that for the Messiah Handel drew on two chamber duets, Quel fior che all'alba ride and No, di voi non vo' fidarmi, which he composed in London some months before. The second in particular closely resembles the chorus For unto us a child is born.

If you are planning to continue to contribute to WP and would like to correspond via the Talk pages, it would be most useful if you could create an account and sign your postings. Thanks. -- Viajero 12:27, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, I believe I am correct in stating that the standard English spelling of Handel's names, as used by himself, was George Frideric, not Georg Friedrich, as used here. And no umlaut on the a. Handel was particularly proud of being made an Englishman by Act of Parliament.

Handel certainly anglicised his surname by spelling it "Handel" (i.e. not Händel and not Haendel). There is a story (perhaps apocryphal) that the Dean of Westminster Abbey complained about Handel having written the Coronation Anthems for the coronation of King George II, saying it was outrageous that the task should have been entrusted to a German. Handel, naturalised British by this stage, replied, "You, sir, are British by birth. I am British by choice."Ondewelle (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Move this page?

Ok, let me see if I understand. The piece is called Messiah, but most know it as The Messiah. So...shouldn't this be moved to "Messiah (oratorio)"? Or "Messiah (something else)". --Spikey 03:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. I'd say that "Messiah (Handel)" should do the trick. It's conventional: if there is or will be more than one musical work called Messiah (unlikely) then it follows standard convention for that eventuality. It's unique: Handel made no other work called Messiah. It's accurate: we've established the fact that there is no definite article in the title of this work. A redirect will suffice for The Messiah. Wooster 19:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why "the Messiah"? It should be Messiah. I support redirection. Mandel 12:20, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Removing an external link

I removed an external link to kingmessiah.com/115 with the one word "messiah" as its description. Why? 1: Its anon editor didn't think it was worth saying in the edit summary what it is or why we need it; 2: nor did they think readers of the article deserved a word of explanation of where the link goes; 3: the article already has some external links so in the absence of any other info I don't see why it needs more - didn't there used to be some rule or suggestion about not turning Wikipedia into a collection of external links? and 4: at the time of writing the link is dead anyway, so it is impossible to assess its real worth (as opposed to its current worth, which is 0). --138.37.188.109 07:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Update: if it was working, it would be a link to a Lubavitch site about the King Messiah. You can see another link to it at lubavitchnetworks.org/. This is not - and I mean no disrespect - relevant to this article about Handel's piece, being a somewhat specialised interpretation of the word. --138.37.188.109 08:06, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Working" spam links? We don't want any spam links! Good call. Lambyuk 10:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Still more on the title

Can someone elucidate for me? The G.Schirmer edition of the score, which is in popular use, calls it The Messiah. Any one know why? Quill 00:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Either Schirmer made a mistake or they Anglicized the name, which is not uncommon sometimes. Mandel 12:43, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Biblical sources

It's fine, I think, to list the passages in Revelation from which the words of the Hallelujah Chorus were drawn--but it's odd to do just the Hallelujah Chorus. Might anonymous user 206.13.84.200 be able/willing to help out with the rest of the text? Opus33 21:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps just because it's the most famous movement? Still looks lopsided. Quill 11:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, so I put in the libretto but am not happy with the formatting. Can someone help out there?71.236.165.113 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- pay attention to the timestamp on messages like this. The request for the libretto is about two years old. I put the libretto up awhile back, integrated with the recording, and it has since been moved to Wikisource. (You can see the link at the bottom of the article.) As such, I reverted your contribution. Thanks, tho! —  MusicMaker5376 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprecedent translation? What??

This seems strange to me:

In an unprecedented translation effort, the entire work was translated into the Spanish language for use in concerts by the National Evangelical Choir of Spain throughout that nation in the 1990s.

Even if true, what makes this an unprecedented translation effort?

Quill 11:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I´ve heard of this as well via some relatives living in Spain. There are a large number of largely Brethren as well as some Baptist churches that collaborate on a regular basis translating classical works of cultural and religious value so that the music is enjoyable in the traditional sense but also intelligible. Since most works are not translated from their original language for actual performance, it would seem that the comment made about it being unprecedented is likely, though, it is a given that he should have documented his sources.

This has intrigued me... I´ll look into it more and post again here after I´ve got something... --69.148.76.160 04:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Audio Recording

I'd like to thank the performers who kindly agreed to make the recording that we are using available to everyone under a Creative Commons licence. A little research shows that they were those musicians, soloists and choral members who took part in the MIT Concert Choir's December 2001 concert. While Wikipedia doesn't normally credit contributors in its articles because their names are recorded in the article history, this is not the case for these particular contributors, so I think that it's important to mention, on the discussion page at the least, the organisation which made this fine contribution to the article -- even though its members didn't realise that they were doing so at the time. I very much enjoyed listening and can only wish that I had been able to attend the original concert! Thank you all, people! -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Where is this audio recording? ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.206.132 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah Chorus needs to be cleaned up

The paragraph about why people stand is just a string of disconnected sentences. The fact the Hallelujah chorus is actually about Christ's assention not birth also contradicts the text that was added by anonymous user 204.9.123.50 so it should likely be cleaned up a lot.

My favorite reason that George stood was that he was asserting the royal pique. Refer to the libretto.

Air (Bass)
Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against His Anointed.
(Psalms 2 : 1-2)

Chorus
Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yokes from us.
(Psalms 2 : 3)

Recitative (Tenor)
He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn; the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2 : 4)

Air (Tenor)
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
(Psalms 2 : 9)

Chorus
Hallelujah! for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
(Revelation 19 : 6)
The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
(Revelation 11 : 15)
King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
(Revelation 19 : 16)
Hallelujah!

Handel had just spent the previous 10 minutes slamming "them," that is, kings in general and in particular George II. George responded by a gentle reminder that, whatever biblical quotes that one strings together, it's still good to be the king.

Sflservices (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Handel didn't write the words, Charles Jennens did. According to our article, he was a nonjuror, and probably a Jacobite believer in the divine right of kings. It's unlikely that his work would have been perceived as republican at the time. Matt's talk 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Listing of all movements

Since we have the MIT concert of the first two sections (can anyone vouch for their completeness? We did the first two at 'Nova, as well, but I know it's common to skip portions. If I could find my score, which isn't filed where it should be, I would do it myself.), shouldn't we add the names of the final section's movements? And might it not be a bad idea to add the libretto and the book chapter:verse while we're at it? MusicMaker5376 06:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Derek Ross for adding the movements in the third section, but I doubt their completeness. I know the third section is much shorter than the two previous, but I'm pretty sure you've left out a couple. My recollection numbers "Worthy is the Lamb...." in the 50's, but this current listing puts it in the 40's. I could be wrong, my mind could be playing tricks on me (it wouldn't be the first time), and I still can't find my score. I had it three months ago; I don't know where it could have gone. MusicMaker5376 18:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. I found it. I, apparently, was not looking very hard. MusicMaker5376 19:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I just added the extra movements from the album notes for my Messiah LP (the Malcolm Sargent/Huddersfield Choral Society/Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra recording). It's supposed to be complete. If not I suppose it's too late to get my money back! If you've got something a bit more authoritative, please go ahead and use it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just updated things using my vocal score; it should be complete. Looks like you got robbed! I once bought a "complete" recording because I was singing the bass aria in college (But who may abide) only to find it raised a minor third and sung by an Alto! Not happy.

I think that, later today, I'm going to add the chapter:verse and quotes to them all. MusicMaker5376 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh! And I couldn't figure out how to make the numbers and who's singing not be in a link with the title -- I think only the title should link to the media. If anyone can help, it would be much appreciated. MusicMaker5376 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the correct titles, who sings what, the book, chapter and verse and quotations, but, I dunno, is it a bit much? Also, I didn't check to make sure that all the voicings are correct with regard to the MIT recording. I know that an alto can sing "But who may abide", and I know that there can be other substitutions. I didn't go through the entire MIT recording because, well, I'm not in the mood to listen to the Messiah. (I don't care what Handel called it -- he's dead -- everyone calls it THE Messiah....) Anyway, I'm sure that MIT used the G. Schrimer version from 1912 (like everybody else does, you know, where it's called "THE MESSIAH" on the front page...), and that's what I used as a reference, but some arias can cut short and not include the entire quoted chapter and verse. It probably doesn't really matter since this article should reflect the work as a whole and not one single performance. However, if there is a difference between the recording and what's noted, there should probably be some explanation as to why.MusicMaker5376 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done! It may or not be perfect but you've done a power of good work there which forms an excellent basis for any improvements that others may wish to carry out along the lines that you have suggested. Cheers! -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article text and most of the stuff in this section of the talk page says that a 1912 edition by T Tertius Noble ublished by Schirmer is the most commonly used edition (at least I assume they're the same thing). I suspect this may be somewhat US-centric. The vast majority of UK performances I've been involved in use the Novello published, Watkins-Shaw edited, score, with the once popular Prout edition (possibly also Novello published, I forget) running a fairly distant second. David Underdown 14:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tone Painting

I'd like to add a section regarding the Tone Painting that Handel employed throughout the Messiah, but can't do it without adding musical notation. I've seen it done somewhere on WP, but I can't remember where, and I don't know how to do it. If anyone can give me a hand, feel free to add to my talk page or right here, or point me in the right direction. Thanks! MusicMaker5376 05:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I figured it out (obviously), but I think the writing kind of sucks in that section. If anyone wants to try to clean it up a little, feel free. It's just hard not to sound repetitive. MusicMaker5376 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that the notation is going to show up differently on different resolutions (I'm new at this, in case you can't tell....). I'm sure if I look through gobs of unhelpful help pages I can figure out how to fix it, but I'm kinda sleepy. If anyone can fix this, I'd be much obliged. MusicMaker5376 06:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Leaving after hallelujah

The article says this: Occasionally, people unfamiliar with the work have been known to leave after this movement, assuming this to be the end of the oratorio when this is, as noted above, merely the conclusion of the second of the three parts.
While I assume that this is possible, you'd have to be pretty dumb to leave while the lights are still off, climbing over people to get out of your row, and then miss them starting I know that my Redeemer liveth. There's almost never an intermission between parts II and III, as part III is only about fifteen minutes. I want to assume good faith, but I think this is pretty outlandish. Furthermore, whomever originally wrote it called it a "symphony" and not an "oratorio". Semi-intelligent vandalism? MusicMaker5376 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this was based on the observation of the symphony conducter at the Spencer Theatre in Rudiso, New Mexico, who noted that when he breaked for an intermission between "Hallelujah" and "I know that my redeemer liveth" the theatre was not as full when the audience was called back. When we came to that part of the preformance his observation proved to be true; my estimate was that maybe 1/4 or so of the people who had originally arrived for the preformance did not return for the last part. It may just be a Southwest thing, or maybe the lack of a decent understanding of basic english down here results in people getting wires crossed. In any case, it was an observation I thought may have encyclopedic value, but if you wish to remove it I will not complain. On the other matter, I called it a symphony because my spelling sucks, and I did not want to butcher the word oratorio by gravely misspelling it. The only reson its spelled correctly here is because its already been written here ;) TomStar81 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just attended a Messiah last night at Lincoln Center (Ton Koopman conducting New York Philharmonic), and indeed, after "Hallelujah", there were a number of people who got up and left, and continued to do so through to the end of the performance. Actually in NYC at least, this is a quite common occurence. Some patrons just don't want to wait for the crowd to disperce at the end, or to wait at the coat-check, or want to get their cars out of the garage first etc. I'll never forget the time I witnessed a good quarter of a Wednesday matinee audience rising to leave as soon as the famous "One" number at the end of A Chorus Line began! Go figure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.107.225 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Jennens

I made an article for Charles Jennens, the librettist, because the source I had in hand had interesting things to say about him. It's still a little thin; help appreciated. =)

Greg Price 03:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On This Day

Nice to see we're getting some "On This Day" recognition for the article! MusicMaker5376 08:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL -- Too bad it was on the wrong day!! MusicMaker5376 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Revealèd

The fact that Handel sometimes set words ending in -ed to be sung with a separate syllable for the -ed (such as revealèd on three syllables) is not a reflection of his nonnative fluency in English. It was very widespread in English poetry of the period to allow -ed to be pronounced as a separate syllable for purposes of scansion. Shakespeare does it constantly. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Much thanks. I wasn't happy with that section at all: I thought the reasoning was off, I KNEW the explanation was bad, and I thought it needed IPA. Thanks, again. MusicMaker5376 19:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nevertheless, there are passages in the Messiah that in my opinion do show that Handel wasn't a native speaker, but (1) I can't remember what they are right now, and (2) it would be original research for to add it anyway. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you ever think of them, feel free to post them on my talk page and I'll be happy to look around for some references. MusicMaker5376 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a native speaker would not have set "all we, like sheep" as a phrase by itself, or at least not without intending the double entendre. Gdr 11:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"For unto us a child is born" is probably the most revealing on this score. No native speaker would put "For" on a stressed syllable, although this may be exacerbated by the fact this is one of the "recycled" numbers using an aria from a previous composition. David Underdown

The best illustration I know is in "There were shepherds", where he wrote "were" as two syllables! (Everyone sings "And there were" where he wrote "There we-re".) The same happens in "And lo, the angel of the Lord", where most performers sing "(rest) and they were" for his "and they we-re".

The one I find most conspicuous if done as he wrote it -- and Schade in the recent Harnoncourt recording does -- is in "The trumpet shall sound", where in about five places most performers sing "be rais'd in-co-RRUP-tible" or the like for Handel's "in-co-o-rrup-TI-ble" or the like.

(Source for what Handel actually wrote: the OUP edition, ed. Bartlett.) Greg Price 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot about "Trumpet shall sound". I've sung it. -- MusicMaker5376 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisions to Messiah

Please could I suggest to all of you the addition of a table detailing all the revisions and adaptations Handel made for Messiah? I feel it would help make the article more exhaustive and make sense of the confusion that surrounds listeners.

Yip1982 (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2006 (GMT)

I would have to assume that that's probably not going to be possible. Records for every revision and change simply do not exist. To my knowledge, the main issue lay with But who may abide and is covered extensively in the article. If there are other far-reaching confusions, feel free to post them here, and I'll see what can be done. —  MusicMaker 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible error: King James version?

The article claims that the text for Handels massiah is taken from the King james Bible. However, there is a difference here: KJV: "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them." Messiah: "Thou art gone up on high, Thou hast led captivity captive, and receivèd gifts for men; yea, even for Thine enemies, that the Lord God might dwell among them."—Preceding unsigned comment added by SveinungKv (talk • contribs)

There were about five versions of the KJV over a period of several years. The last one -- published after Handel wrote Messiah -- is the one commonly referred to as the KJV, today. Undoubtedly, Handel used an earlier version, and that may be why discrepancies exist. Whichever version he used, it was the KJV at the time; he (or Charles Jennens) probably would not have had access to anything else. I may edit the article to reflect this. (Or I may not. Since I don't know which version he actually used, I may just leave it.) —  MusicMaker 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, SveinungKv is right. The psalms are not from the KJV, but from the BCP. This is, however, not an error. The article explains that the text is from two translations.Rwflammang (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly?

Note what it says in one of the sections:

Surprisingly for a work of this title, much of the libretto comes from the Old Testament.

— Structure

Why surprisingly? Jesus was (according to Christian doctrine) there to fulfill the Old Testament. The very next sentance states that Isaiah is full of prophecies about the Messiah. I would think that Jesus' story would be incomplete without it, told in any form. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been fixed, and I'm pretty sure it had been fixed much earlier than this -- I don't know why it might have been changed back. I thought "Surprisingly" was POV and I remember changing it. Or I might have left it. Who remembers? Either way, it's okay, now. —  MusicMaker 00:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pifa

I noticed that someone wrote a small blurb regarding the Pastoral Symphony, which I subsequently edited. I think it was a good idea, the section stuck out as not having a verse beneath it, but now, I would think, each movement should have a sentence or two about its music. Every valley doesn't really need it, as 1/4 of the article deals with that particular movement, but maybe the others? I don't want it to get out of hand -- especially considering that you can just listen to more-or-less everything -- but maybe the article would benefit? —  MusicMaker 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Orchestrations

it would be good if someone could give us something on the orchestration, and how it's varied over time (e.g. Handel's versions, Mozart's version, 20th century versions). Countersubject 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Language" section: Original research?

I am concerned that the section about Handel's use of language is original research, as I can find no source for the claims made, and this seems to me to be an interpretation rather than a set of simple observations from the score. Heimstern Läufer 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure text book refs could be found to support it, tone painting (or word painting as I was taught to call it) was used by most composers of the time so often a particular example may be hard to find a specific reference for, but it is fully illustrated with examples from the score and I don't think you'd find too much argument from most music theorists that this was a good example. Note that the word painting article uses virtually the same example and does appear to have a couple of references (not available to me). David Underdown 09:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, then this article needs better citations, and so does the word painting article. While the latter does at least refer to sources, it doesn't say where the specific examples are from, leaving it questionable whether or not they're original research. I will see if I can have a look at this shortly. Heimstern Läufer 15:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote most of the offending section. I am most assuredly NOT the first person to notice the word painting in that particular aria. There were several online sources when I wrote it (I remember, specifically, plagiarizing the phrase "three lengthy planes"), but I'm not finding very many at the moment. I added one okay source and have removed the template. I will look for better sources. —  MusicMaker 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One reference would certainly be C. Steven LaRue's article 'Handel and the aria' in Cambridge Companion to Handel (ed. Burrows (Cambridge 1997) p. 119

Intent and Meaning

This weeks Sunday NY Times, has a multi-page article discussing the intent and meaning of "Messiah" as a celebration of Jerusalem's destruction as a punishment for the Jewish people's rejection of Christ as Messiah. Just wondering what everyone's take on putting this in the article would be, since I'm sure a lot of people will read the Times article and this page doesn't have any mention of it. 204.227.243.16 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

I would be reluctant to see such a NY Times article incorporated into this Wikipedia entry. Journalism isn’t scholarship, and the characterization that “Messiah” is an anti-Semitic celebration put to music is so outlandish, it’s almost crackpot. I have been very familiar with “Messiah” for 20 years, and an anti-Semitic interpretation has never crossed my mind. (More experienced Wikipedia Editors are welcome to put these entries farther down the page where they belong).75.80.235.72 06:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Katella Gate

Just a further note on this topic -- The NY Times published another article this week (though much shorter and less prominent) that discussed a conference of Handel scholars that met at Princeton last week. The author of the Messiah article in the Times presented his paper there; his argument did not impress other Handel scholars. Wendy Heller, a Handel scholar from Princeton, was also invited by the Times to respond to the original article. Her response effectively debunks most of the arguments about anti-semitism, and she (who is Jewish) also expressed a bit of disgust with the original article and its implication that people who stand at the Hallelujah Chorus are tacitly supporting anti-semitism. All in all, the original article appears to be a stunt by the NY Times published on Easter Sunday to get people worked up. Most people (including most music scholars) appear to have seen it for what it was, though -- an unjustified attack on one of the most well-known pieces of choral music of all time. Was anti-semitism a problem in the 18th century? Of course. Did the librettist of Messiah read a few books that argued for a Christian theological position over a Jewish one? Yes, he did. But the connections to Messiah and particularly to Handel are just incredibly tenuous. 140.247.240.248 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi everyone, I'm relatively new to editing on Wikipedia (about 2 mo. now), but I've taken on editing all of handel's oratorios. They seemed to be rather underserved and it's some great music that I really love. I'm excited by all the work that's gone into this Messiah article! I feel like it's ready to take the next step to using really high-quality references/scholarship and improving the tone and construction of the article. I just wanted to offer a few thoughts in that direction to get the juices going...

Wikipedia articles aren't the best place for full-text of librettos. It unbalances the article. Wikisource is a much better place, although I really like the integration with the recording. We can make the integration with the recording happen over on WS too, so I think at some point we should move all that over there, but certainly still link to it prominently and maybe have just the recordings links here on WP. Bravo to whoever got the MIT choir to release it under CC -- that's a wonderful idea.

(Note: I've done this now. Fred 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

The music excerpts look great too -- they're very clean and clear. They might be formatted a bit to big (image-size). It stretches the whole screen for me at 1024x768. I've resized them down from 1000 wide to 700 wide and it looks a lot better on my display and still is quite effective in the context of the article. How's it work for everyone else?

There's also some cleanup to be done about connecting handel with the libretto. Some places use the logic "the libretto says this, therefore handel thought this", whereas Jennens is, I believe, at least 90% responsible for the libretto and comments about the text's message belong squarely on his shoulders unless it's musically related...

anyway, this is undoubtedly the most popular of all Handel's oratorios and it deserves an undoubtedly great article too! I'm looking forward to working on it with everyone. Cheers! Fred 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

After digging around in the article for quite a while last night, I'd like to respectfully suggest that it would be beneficial for more-or-less a complete re-write. Take what we already have and sit down and re-write all the facts into a more flowing narrative. The phrasing and structure of the sentences is fairly awkward and comes across as a collection of tangentally related statements of fact, rather than a well-constructed encyclopedic article. I've tagged it with the Tone template as we move toward this goal. thanks! Fred 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the images a little larger -- 850 px. They were a little tiny on my display. If you want to re-write, by all means do so. I'm fairly certain that there's been no concerted effort to get it to sound cohesive; it's been more-or-less just collecting information over the past couple of years.

I have to say, tho, that I am a little sad to see the libretto and music files go. I rather liked that part of the article... —  MusicMaker 07:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that there's a way on Wikipedia to dynamically size images to the width of the browser. It's a simple javascript trick -- maybe someone has already devised a template for it? I'm not sure where to look. On all the 1024x768 displays I try the wider graphic creates an unnecessary scrollbar which is essentially a cardinal sin in web design. I'll look into this more...

As for the libretto -- you've seen where it's moved to over on Wikisource, right? It's great work, and a stroke of genius to integrate the recording, but it just unbalances the article here too much (I've tried including librettos in other articles before and it really does belong over on WS). Can you think of a better way to integrate the libretto/recording into the article through cross-linking? Fred 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found any way to dynamically size the images. Wikipedia has a "thumbnail" optimization which allows users to specify the size but nothing for full-sized images. The image itself is re-sized on the fly before it is sent to the user, and there doesn't seem to be any code for dynamic sizing. I guess we'll just have to come to a consensus on this one. Fred 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been around here in awhile, but I'll happily take a pat on the back for the "stroke of genius" to integrate the files and libretto. Chalk it up to a newbie editor taking be bold at its word.

Are you still working on the rewrite? —  MusicMaker5376 02:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still in my head to re-write, but I haven't got any measurable progress and life has been overwhelmed with income-bearing projects (like playing weddings and taking auditions and such), and less on the non-income-bearing projects (like rewriting the Messiah article for the benefit of all humankind). I will set aside some time to do it in the future, but for now don't wait for me. I'll start fresh from the article as-is when I do. Fred 04:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Major Contradiction in this Article

I have added a note to this article that ther Messiah was written in the temple of Gopsall Hall in Leicestershire. The museum webiste quoted provided in this article claims it was written in London. Handel must have had very long arms as he was most definately living at Charles Jennens' house in Leicestershire. The temple has been preserved at some cost by the Crown Estates and East Midlands Development Agency. I will be informing them of the museums bold claims butthe evidence I have read convinces me that the Messiah was written over a 3 week priod in Gopsall Hall Leicestershire. Robdav69 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

wow, a conflict of facts. The brochure by the gopsall hall simply claims it to be so, and there appears to be no actual substantiation of the claim. An article from 1902 suggestests that we have no historical record of Handel's visit and it may be legend: Musical Times, Vol 43, no 717. Updating the article to reflect this. Can anyone find other scholarly evidence to the contrary? Fred 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

while I'm at it, here's another great Musical Times article on Jennens, reprinted in large part in the preview: Musical Times, Vol. 43, No. 717 Fred 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oratorio

... What about something about the fact that Messiah is unusual for a dramatic oratorio because the soloists do not inhabit 'characters'. E.g. The tenor does not take on the role of Jesus, the soprano is not an angel etc.

Aerosheep 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We'd need a reference for it, has anyone else written this about it? David Underdown 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding my way around wikipedia so I'm not confident to do anything to the article but here are some other ideas. The introduction to the Overture is sometimes played 'French Overture' style (double-dotted) and sometimes not - I believe this info can be found in the intro to the Prout edition of the score. As the performance of the whole work comes over some three hours, if numbers are to be omitted there are some that are *conventionally* omitted. Can be found in Prout again. Not in Prout but I may be able to find the reference - during the time in which the orchestration became successively overblown Messiah festivals were put on (by royalty I think) with cheap tickets, the object being to 'moralise' the masses.

Aerosheep 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Texts and Structure (correction)

There is a small error in the following paragraph. "Hallelujah" is at the END of Part II, not in the middle of it. (Perhaps the intent of the sentence was to say "in the middle OF THE WORK", not of Part II.

While performances of Messiah are most common during the Christmas season, it should be noted that the complete text of the work relates to both the Christmas (Part I - "the Birth") and Easter (Part II - "the Passion") seasons of the Christian calendar. It is interesting to note that the "Hallelujah" chorus, often associated with the Christmas season, is found in the middle of Part II -- the "Easter" section. Because of the popularity of this association, it is common for an Advent performances to include the first 17 numbers of the work and then follow immediately with the No. 44 "Hallelujah" chorus as a finale.

Pastelle 12/3/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastelle (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I caught this too when reading the article. I removed the "the middle of" which struck me as both wrong and unnecessary. Derekt75 (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs clarification -- the article isn't saying that it's in the middle of Part II. The "Easter" section comprises some of Part II and all of Part III. As such, Hallelujah is in the middle of the Easter section. I'll try to clarify this even further. —  MusicMaker5376 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Text Painting......

I like the description of the tenor solo as an example of text painting, but perhaps even better known is the (part II?) chorus, All We Like Sheep. The chorus sings the line "All We Like Sheep" very nicely all in good order, followed by "have gone astray", in which they do indeed all go astray. --Dan (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good example, but I don't know if it's necessarily "better known". The nice thing about "Every Valley" is that the text painting occurs rather consistently over the whole beginning, and, to someone without any musical training, it looks kind of obvious: you can see the hill, you can see the drop on "valley", etc. For someone without training, trying to read the four staves of the chorus would be a little daunting (not to mention taking up more space). Of course, a text explanation of "All We Like Sheep" would always be welcome. Maybe one of these days I'd get around to adding notation to it.... —  MusicMaker5376 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Didacticism in "Hallelujah Chorus"

I really wonder if we need this paragraph:

• Because this piece is so often heard separately from the rest of Messiah, it has become popularly known as "The Hallelujah Chorus", which, like "The Messiah", is not entirely correct usage. "(the) Hallelujah chorus" or "'Hallelujah' chorus from Messiah" is more appropriate.

Firstly, the "the" is always used. One would never say, for example, I heard a fabulous new recording of "Hallelujah Chorus" yesterday. It would be I heard a fabulous new recording of the "Hallelujah Chorus" yesterday. The only question is whether, in writing, "the" should be written with a capital T and inside quotes, as if it were part of the formal title - to which the answer is a resounding No. But this is no different from referring to the Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves from Nabucco as, e.g. Now we come to the "Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves", rather than Now we come to "The Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves". We really don't have to be this didactic about the normal use of the word "the" in reference to a piece of music. I distinguish this from the discussion about the title of the entire oratorio - "Messiah", not "The Messiah" - because many people honestly, and for good reasons, which I've gone into above, believe Handel called it "The Messiah", when in fact he didn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This hasn't attracted any comments so far, but I still believe what I wrote above. The word "the" is usually used in reference to movements from works. We wouldn't say "I'm listening to Andante from Beethoven's 5th Symphony", would we? I certainly wouldn't. No, we talk of "the Andante from Beethoven's 5th Symphony", "the Waltz from Tchaikovsky's Pathetique", "the March to the Scaffold from Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique", "the Bridal Chorus from Lohengrin", and "the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah", even though in no case does the word "the" appear in the name provided by the composer (except before Scaffold). -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. It seems completely unnecessary. In colloquial English, its extremely common to insert an extra article here and there and, as you point out, that article could easily get incorrectly inserted inside the parenthesis. There's really no point in making any kind of a deal about this type of thing. There's much bigger differences that this one that go by without comment. For instance, is it a 'Trumpet Concerto' or a 'Concerto for Trumpet and Orchestra' or even a 'Concerto per il Clarino'? DavidRF (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Done. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bach's Overture No. 2

Has anyone else listened to Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 2 - Overture and found it remarkably similar to the overture of Messiah? There is nothing that mentions this similarity in either this article or the article on Bach's orchestral suites (which were composed earlier). Does anyone know if Handel deliberately based his overture on this work by Bach? 76.182.116.210 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

various comments

(1) people leaving after Part II -- I don't think this was due to stupidity in the audience. The oratorio is long, and Part III only has one well-known piece (I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVETH). If the performance was going badly (the conductor didn't consider that possibility!) the audience may have given up and left. I personally left once because I was feeling ill and decided to stick it out through the Hallelujah Chorus. This may be shocking to musicians, but audiences may be practical.

(2) the "anti-semitism" article -- I read that article and thought it was a classic case of guilt by association. Handel knew A knew B knew C who was anti-semitic, ergo Handel was anti-semitic. And they used the same Bible! The writer made a big deal of the fact that the word "heathen" (non-Jewish) was replaced by "nations" (including Jews?) in setting "Why do the heathen rage?" The two words are the same in the original Hebrew, "goyim". The writer didn't seem to know that. The Jewish historian Ariel Durant in the Story of Civilization pointed out that nearly all of Handel's oratorios were based on the Old Testament (SAUL, SAMSON, JUDAS MACCABEUS) and that even MESSIAH focused on Old-Testament prophecies and had a Hebrew title -- all this at a time when most sacred music was based on the Catholic Mass. For the tenor part at the first performance, Handel hired a Jewish Cantor -- although the latter got in trouble with his synagogue for participating. She concluded that Handel was highly sympathetic to Judaism at a time when few other Christians were.

(3) All this talk about "The" is much ado about nothing. Somebody with authority should just delete it all and leave room for something important. CharlesTheBold (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

Isn't the title near-universally given as "The Messiah"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As the article points out, that's incorrect. My vocal score is certainly simply Messiah. David Underdown (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the text written in?

I just want to know... I searched up the text of Messiah and it did not say anything about what the language of the text ( libretto) is in. Some say German, and some say english, so I'm confused. I appreciate any help. Dragon276 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's English; A German translation was used for Mozart's orchestration, a good time after Handel's death. I can see why you would find the article confusing! Sparafucil (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sparafucil 174.0.59.33 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

To be used.

• [1] from npr
• [2] Good source, but may not be sufficiently reliable.

More will be added.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

typical duration

the various secions are mentioned, but the typical duration of the entire work isn't -- i believe it is 2:10 + intermissions (see [[3]] [[4]] ) Andy t roo (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

21 unwanted edits?

I'd certainly support anyone who also thinks these 21 edits should be reverted. Apart from the rambling new lead paragraph, you just have to wonder about the focus and interest of an editor who believes that the word "summer" need be linked in an article about a musical oratorio. The fact that dates are no longer linked (1741) suggests that the editor responsible is also well out of touch with changing WP policy. At least we now know that the oratorio was "originally composed".  HWV258  08:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but they're well meant and I'm too lazy to go through them all to see if there's something worth saving. "Most respected" certainly needs explanation: in my circles over-familiarity has bred the opposite. Sparafucil (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the changes, make suggestions for improving it, speculation on my focus and interest is pointless and more than a little rude. The new lead contains information on the original composition, that it was mutable, what language the German-English composer wrote it in, the major textual and religious source, a significant arrangement (that is sometimes confused for the original), and an assertion to its notability. Who, what, where, when, why, how.

As to most respected in specific, I admit to not hanging around circles in which oratorios are discussed frequently. I do however, notice the considerable amount of study devoted to Messiah as a likley sign of high respect among professional critics, scholars, and performers.--Tznkai (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt the edits were meant well, but I would support going back to the 19 November version. MusicaBaroque (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite. Why? I have hard time believing that every edit between 19th and now was some how bad.--Tznkai (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am merely supporting what HWV258 suggested. Of course not all of the edits were "bad." Here is the comparison. The differences are not that great, but with minor exception, what differences there are do not improve the article. The 19 November version reads more clearly and accurately. I would keep (or add back in, as it were) the dewikilinking that was an improvement, brought on by the overwikilinking done in the 21 edits to which HWV258 objected. MusicaBaroque (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So to be clear, you prefer the incorrect reference to the Abrhamic concept (which is not a unified beleif among 3+ religions, Messiah is a distinctly Christian work), no reference to the origin of the text, no reference to its mutability, no reference to Mozart in the lead, or its 3 part structure. It is improper for it to be "one the most popular and respected works in Western choral literature" but not "is among the most popular works in Western choral literature." " It includes the very well-known chorus, "Hallelujah!". " is preferable to " It includes the very well-known chorus, "Hallelujah!" is preferable to "Messiah includes the popular movement "Hallelujah!" which is famous in its own right. ". Each and everyone of those changes?--Tznkai (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to get frustrated. You made it seem as if going back to the 19 November version would be a big deal. I was just saying that it wouldn't be such a big deal as the changes are not that significant, really. I'm sure other editors will work out the awkward phrasing in subsequent edits. I have no strong feelings on this, so I will leave it at that. MusicaBaroque (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not a terribly big deal, its just several hours of work, and the apparent refusal to engage on the matter. I'm not a brilliant writer in my own estimation, but I do consider myself competent, and the Nov 19 version actually has errors. I am happy to entertain any argument as to why I am full of it, but the only argument presented has been. "It was better."--Tznkai (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Why?" (using the 21 edits as a source for the following):

• Topic focus: "sometimes incorrectly called...": the lead should be focussed on what the subject is, not what it isn't.
• Subjective language: "famous" (aspects leading to the conclusion of "famous" should be in the article: e.g. the use in popular culture, number of performances, number of recordings, etc.—allowing the reader to draw a conclusion). "Messiah is Handel's most famous creation" (perhaps, but proof of this?).
• Overlinking: English, summer, Dublin, German, Vienna, 1741.
• Inconsistency: Why link 1741, but not 1742 or 1789?
• Tautology: "originally composed" (it is sufficient to write: "The oratorio was composed in London..."); "while he was alive" (as opposed to the version he changed when he wasn't?).
• Policy violation: the guideline in the MOSNUM is that dates such as 1741 not be linked.
• Clumsy language: "is made from", "Since the first performance", "multiple times".
• Punctuation problems: There is no punctuation in the "sentence" "Since the first...no definitive version" (there should be).
• Factual: I'm not certain that Mozart's arrangement is "famous" (the article uses "notable").
• Personal choice: I wouldn't mention the Mozart involvement in the lead paragraph as the article is about Messiah as a work by Handel. By all means refer to how other composers have been involved with the work within the article, but I wouldn't choose to use the lead for that. (Others may disagree.)

I'm glad you are taking an interest, but as a great man once said: "a man's got to know his limitations". Perhaps if you want to make changes of this magnitude, you could construct a draft on the talk page? I'm sure everyone would be happy to assist and comment.
 HWV258  21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• The first sentence of a lead is definitional, defining what the topic is, as well as explaining what it is called. If "The Messiah" was a proper title, it would go in the first sentence as "also know as" since "The Messiah" is both common and incorrect, it becomes "sometimes incorrectly called", it informs the reader who may be confused as to why its called "Messiah" (see this talk page for an example).
• Fame is objective, and more to the point actually part of the original version of the lead. However, you know its famous, I know its famous, reliable sources say its famous. If you want to change that, great, but then we're left with the lack of an assertion of notability.
• Overlinking - been fixed by Tony1.
• Inconsistency - see above.
• Messiah was composed and then changed, or in otherwords composed and then recomposed. One could say that Mozart recomposed it after Handel's death, but the term arrangement is preferred. I'm not a musicologist, so maybe there is a nuance in those terms that has left me. Breaking down the sentence aesthetically however "Originally composed in London during..." sounds better than "Composed in London during..." Any word with an odd number of syllables placed before composed would do. The point is that the piece was written and rewritten, if you have a superior wording, great, but it seems to me thats important information.
• Policy - Guidelines aren't policy for goodness sake, and its a trivially easy mistake to change in any case. Last I checked someone had done so.
• Clumsy language: Could you be more specific? How is it clumsy, or what would you prefer?
• Punctuation - {{sofixit}} I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm saying, if you see a problem, fix it. I obviously missed it, but its hardly a justification for reverting. (c.f. the advice given in, I believe it was WP:EW or WP:3RR
• Factual: Notable is a terrible word and should be avoided at all costs. Its a peice of Wikipedia enhanced jargon that means nothing without context. Things are notable (worthy of note) because they are famous, or significant, or important. Mozart's arrangement is notable because if its fame and popularity, or at least that is the impression I get. Perhaps there is a better descriptor but I assure you, "notable" is not it.
• I have no strong feeling about the Mozart arrangement being in the lead, but it gives the paragraph a thought to end on.

As to working on drafts in talk space, that isn't how a wiki works. You see something, you fix it, and then hopefully someone else improves it, unless what you've written cannot be salvaged.--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll bow out at this stage (leaving it to others). Suffice to say that I tried (I really did), but now consider it not worth the effort to push uphill against an editor who believes that the tautology of "Originally composed" sounds better. As to "Any word with an odd number of syllables placed before composed would do"—the mind boggles.  HWV258  23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to focus on what these 21 edits are not, but one could wonder how it took hours of work to originally compose these edits. The edits must have been changed and then recomposed several times throughout 24 November 2009. I am objectively famous, though not notable, for my clumsy language, but I don't know how to say it other than that I think Tznkai might be taking himself a bit too seriously. Cheers. MusicaBaroque (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? --Tznkai (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very sensible change, in my opinion, as well as a demonstration of the wiki process in action. I'm not convinced by the Messiah singalong part, but based only on my own unfamiliarity with such activities.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hallelujah Chorus: the dreadful truth

Sorry, whoever reverted my removal (it's been removed again, thank goodness). It's frustrating to have at hand a free sound file that is relevant to the topic, but we have to have standards. While the reinstater's edit summary appeared to label the enforcement of such standards as subjective, the following are simply acoustical and musical facts:

1. The orchestral parts appear to be played by a brass band (which authorised version is that?)
2. The choir is a ragbag of wannabe operatic singers, belting it out with full romantic vibrato (the overbearing soprano swoops). They are hopelessly out of tune in many places.
3. The acoustics are just awful—is this an outdoor performance, or perhaps in a tent? The dull thud of almost no reverb turns the short choral interjections from thrilling masterstrokes by Handel into ugly, comic gestures.
4. The words are virtually unintelligible, except for the obvious "Allelujah", which soon tires in this context.
5. It is an unforgiving, shallow interpretation that completely misses the intended grandeur; instead, it flits.

And BTW, the description page is totally inadequate, and would be laughed at if a nomination for FSC. Now, I'm afraid that either dwe find a decent performance (preferably with period instruments, but a good one on modern instruments might be OK) or we leave the readers to follow it up themselves. We probably cannot link to YouTube performances for copyright reasons (YouTube itself is very slack on that count). But readers can do what they like: there are tons of performances of this movement on YouTube—some are vaguely professional; all are better than this one, unless intended as a joke. Tony (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The version that was on the page was nothing but a joke. There's no way that the grandeur of Handel should be heard that way.  HWV258  10:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New here, but I found what looks like a good public domain recording from Project Gutenberg at http://hallelujah-chorus.com/download/mp3.html Atmos42 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2