Talk:Messiah (Handel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An event in this article is a April 13 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

---

Contents 1 Title of the work 2 POV issues 3 Formatting of "usage" 4 More on POV 5 Borrowings? 6 Move this page? 7 Removing an external link 8 Still more on the title 9 Biblical sources 10 Unprecedent translation? What?? 11 Audio Recording 12 Hallelujah Chorus needs to be cleaned up 13 Listing of all movements 14 Tone Painting 15 Leaving after hallelujah 16 Charles Jennens 17 On This Day 18 Revealèd 19 Fiction related to the piece 20 Revisions to Messiah 21 Possible error: King James version? 22 Surprisingly?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
• 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fiction related to the piece

I liked this story, probably not appropriate for linking to the article but I thought I'd mention it here: Sam the Messiah Man

Phr (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a Christian and I love the Messiah, but I still must say that that was a terrible, horrible, ill-formatted, poorly-written, stereotype-glutted, glurge-filled piece of work. That is all. 128.122.253.229 08:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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|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)