Talk:Belshazzar's Feast (Walton)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Belshazzar's Feast (Walton) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
	This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

[edit] Really so rare to hear it performed well?

"Despite its familiarity, it does present challenges to the chorus, and it is rare to hear a performance, recorded or in concert, without a few tentative entries."

Challenging it may be, but it's a bit much to say that it's rare to hear it without tentative chorus entries. Unless someone has some evidence to contradict the several live and studio recordings and live performances I've heard that contained no such entries, I'll be editing this. chrismear 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up - I was importing my impression of the live performances I've heard. Fixing it. David Brooks 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berlioz - Requiem or Te Deum

Concerning the Beecham/brass bands anecdote: was the Berlioz work in question the Te Deum or the Grande Messe? All the printed sources I've seen have the first, but several online sources claim the second, and 88.108.86.207 (talk · contribs) has just made the change. Can anyone look at an authoritative bio, or the actual programme listing? David Brooks 18:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I must admit that the lack of actual brass bands in the orchestration of the Te Deum[1] is pretty compelling! David Brooks 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Times for 12 October 1931 reviews Beecham's performance of the Grande Messe.Tim Riley 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moral judgments of BF

The final two sentences of the text as it now stands are not referenced, and seem to me, if I may say so, to be an exegesis amounting to a point of view. Would anyone object to deleting them? Tim Riley 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you are right, and by strict encyclopedic rules they don't belong. The thought is not original to me, but I couldn't find a reference. I put them in because otherwise a casual reader wouldn't even be aware of the "trumpeters and pipers" interlude, which is in contrast to the rest of the final section and is a self-evident criticism of the Halsey view. David Brooks 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)