Talk:George Frideric Handel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article includes content derived from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914, which is in the public domain.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified George Frideric Handel as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] homosexuality

It is often said that Handel was gay - this article should handle (lol) it. john1987

I've never heard or seen that. Where is it said? Is it in a reputable source? Is this just a lame joke? If you have appropriate sources, you can add the information yourself. Mak (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly Hadel was beaten by his father when he was a little boy so it might contribute to his sexuallity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.4.45 (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Why would this be a lame joke?

You could have a look at Eileen Harris, Handel as Orpheus?

Now there is a difficulty in using a 1960s word to describe someone's life two hundred years before, but we could also look at the genders of most of the roles in the operas and add that to the discussion on the cantatas?

antequeerians m&m w/h

Does it matter? Would You consider, when it is proofed that he was absolutely heterosexual? Ist homosexuality per se a qualification for composers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.47.246 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


i think the people here are making the vague and generally misunderstated theorem that people who are artistic and creative in nature, or are the least bit eccentric, are homosexual. I think we need to avoid this line of thought, if at all possible. Such narrowmindedness is the same line of thinking that brought on the holocaust in the 1940s. If I am incorrect in the reasoning behind this conversation regarding Handel's sexuality, then please forgive my most grievious error. 216.229.227.142 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] misc

  • Messiah is "supposed to be" (and still sometimes is) performed at Easter.
  • I don't think that Halle is/was in Prussia???? (it isn't - it's in Saxony)
Well, this isn't something I know a very great deal amount, but our own Prussia article says "Before its abolition Prussia included, as well as what might be called "Prussia proper" (the regions of West Prussia and East Prussia, which now lie in Poland and Russia), the regions of ... Province of Saxony (now state of Saxony-Anhalt in Germany) ...". As for when the Messiah is performed... yes, it was designed to be performed at Easter (as our article on it says), but we say here that it is "customarily performed" at Christmas, which is true. Whether it's useful to have that info in the opening para I'm not sure, but it's not inaccurate. --Camembert

Prussia annexed Saxony in 1756, starting the Seven Years War. When Handel war born, Halle was part of Saxony, as it is today. --anon

Well if it's wrong, by all means edit the article to put it right. --Camembert
  • I'd just like to point out that while in other composers pages much is said of the STYLE of the composer, barely is mentioned about Handel's style. Not that life facts and composition lists aren't important, but this whole article sounds truly dry because of it. 137.219.16.124 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it true that Tchaikovsky thought of Handel as a "fourth-rate composer"? Jc166117 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Handel

I removed the bit from the page about the "other composer named Handel without the umlaut who was much less known" --my complete New Grove lists only G. F. Handel, and it's pretty darn thorough; however I do know about Jacobus Gallus, aka Handl, who was Slovenian; I presume this is what the writer meant. If I am mistaken please indicate here. Antandrus 02:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] His name

I question the rendition of his name:


In German there is no umlaut on the a of Handel. In English he is normally called Frederick. Surely to both? -- RHaworth 09:29, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • His German birth name I cannot verify, but Handel did choose to spell his name as is spelt in the article in England, where he spent most of his life. Also, curiously, it was pronounced as "Hendel". --bleh fu talk fu 23:25, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
As bleh fu says, "George Frideric Handel" is how the man himself wrote his name after settling in England (though his middle name is often given as "Frederick"). His birth name, Georg Friedrich Händel, was, and is, indeed written with an umlaut in German (the French, incidentally, reflect this by spelling his surname "Hændel"). I don't know how anyone can say for sure how his name was pronounced in England during his lifetime, but given the way modern Germans pronounce their pseudo-English word "Handy" as "hendy", and what we know of old-fashioned English pronunciation -- thet men in the bleck het -- I suppose it's a fair conjecture that Handel (nowadays rhymes with "handle") was once pronounced more like "hendle"... -- Picapica 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well "Händel", in German, is pronounced "Hendle", if that's any help. -newkai | talk | contribs 05:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Handel signed his will as "George Frideric Handel"


Are you brits all going insane? It those time people tried to fit best in the place they live, even to an extent that they pronounce their name according to local habits. That, OF COURSE, is far from giving up his original identity. Its EMBARRASSING how some people here force Händel to beeing "an english composer" (ridiculous!). The fluctuation of european intellectuals was common thing back than and obviously you guys dont know anything about those things. Those articles create that amateurish and negative reputation of wikipedia - and it deserves it.

I think the name is just Georg Friedrich Händel. That wont change, even if he used an english version of it in britain. --172.179.145.128 09:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, his original name was Georg Friederich Händel, not Friedrich. Grove's is the most important authority in this matter. 193.65.105.175 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scipione

In 1927 Handel's opera Scipio (Scipione) was performed <-- Clearly, 1927 is an error, but at this time I don't know what date should be there.

Thanks for noticing. The first performance of Scipione was March 12, 1726 according to the 2001 New Grove (composition finished March 2, 1726). Antandrus 16:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media list

The long list of media files bothers me somewhat; it is mostly of the Messiah, and that article already contains the same list. It also detracts somewhat from the idea of an encyclopedic article. How about moving them to a seperate page that lists them according to theme/composition instead? Then we can keep maybe 3 or so samples of his best works as "highlights" on this page? Dewet 16:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing, and since it's been a month and no one's objected I'm doing to delete almost all of them from this page. They'll still be at Messiah, where they belong. I'll keep about 3 or 4 here, though. -R. fiend 14:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Good; thank you for that. (I hadn't even noticed that enormous list.) Those belong at Messiah (Handel). Antandrus (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Academy of Music

In the Handel article, it says that Handel was once the director of the Royal Academy of Music from 1720 to 1728. But the Royal Academy of Music article which the Handel page links to says that the school was founded in 1822. I assume there was two different schools, or I'm missing something. Either that or a huge cock-up with the dates. Anyone care to help me out here? Thanks Bennity 03:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently there are two. There is a Royal Academy of Music, founded in 1719, which was an assembly of London noblemen, supported by the king, with the mission of promoting Italian opera. The other, which has an identical name but is an unrelated entity, is the famous conservatory founded in 1822. I made the link in the article into a redlink. (Info from the New Grove.) Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, thank you very much. :-) Bennity 11:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oratorio: Joshua

It is so hard to find information on Handel's oratorio "Joshua", since it it not one of his popular ones...i do know that it is about the Israelites defeating the Canaanites out of Israel, but the aria "Oh! Had I Jubal's Lyre", sung by Achsah really has nothing to do with the story does it?? It was actually written before as a separate song, and Handel included it in "Joshua". If anyone knows any information about the Oratorio, the character, or the aria it would be of great help since i have an exam and i have to know about it since i'm singing it  :-S thanks 217.22.180.22 19:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It was composed in 1747 (19 July to 19 Aug). Grove doesn't have much about it specifically, other than that it was probably written for Prince William, Duke of Cumberland (the younger son of the king of England), and that the text/libretto was anonymous. It's about the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. Handel very often "recycled" his music, especially when he was in a hurry to finish something, and since he wrote the whole oratorio in only a month that was probably the case here. You might go to your nearest university music library and do a search through periodicals to see if anyone has written specifically about Joshua. Hope this helps! Antandrus (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Initially input by Pierre Degott [1]

[edit] Pantheist?

Händel is classified as a "pantheist". I think there should something about this in the text if the classification is true. --128.214.200.98 12:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The same user (65.185.213.33) added several other articles to the Pantheists category. I suspect vandalism. Charivari 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

where do you recieve any support for the idea of Handel being a pantheist...?????? Please show some me where you found this please! ApsbaMd2 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dixit Dominus

I think that Dixit Dominus is one of Händel's most respected works. I think it should be mentioned. --128.214.200.98 12:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. 66.171.76.176 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The French article

The French article has great information. If I only were better at French I'd translate parts of it to add to this one. Could somebody else, perhaps, take some info from there and add here? Andelarion 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I am inclined to remove the "Trivia" section entirely - I'm not sure if there's any place for it here. By its very title it is "trivial". My only hesitation is the information-will-be-lost issue. However, the information can be found at 3826 Handel, Garfield: His 9 Lives, and pressroom.garfield.com. I think I'm going to go ahead and remove the trivia from the article and leave a link to the old version here. -Sesquialtera II 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing a "Trivia" section on the grounds that it is trivial, is an argument for removing the Trivia sections from all WP articles. I would strongly challenge such a proposition. Either Trivia sections are legitimate everywhere, or nowhere. They can't be acceptable in some articles but not others. JackofOz 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JackofOz. I also think that trivia helps pique the reader's interest. Besides, it's not as if the article is becoming too large.
--Primetime 21:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there's an active discussion of this issue going on at the Village Pump (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_.22Trivia.22_be_a_valid_sub_heading_for_Wikipedia_Articles.3F). I'm divided; I see good points on both sides. Antandrus (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the link. Taking an idea from there, I would strongly support a References to Handel in popular culture article, linked to under "See also" of this article, but I prefer not to have such references in the article itself because, to me, they seem anachronistic and irrelevant to Handel himself. -Sesquialtera II 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I re-insterted the Trivia subsection because there is no consensus for removing it yet. Also, I should mention that I have made a forceful argument for the inclusion of trivia in articles such as these in the thread mentioned above. --Primetime 08:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am implicitly making an argument for removing "Trivia" from all composers' pages, although as of now it's only applicable to this page, as I haven't seen a trivia section on any other composer's page. I don't think that an asteroid and Garfield add any understanding of Handel's life and works. Trivia seems to be a somewhat contested topic on Wikipedia, but many suggest to keep, e.g., Handel information in the asteroid article but asteroid information out of the Handel article. See Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia talk:Trivia for other discussion on this topic. -Sesquialtera II 22:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling a section Trivia is surely self defeating. If trivial, why include it?
Nevertheless this is really about relevance rather than labels. How do we decide whether a piece of information is relevant or not? In this case, i would be inclined to include the asteroid but not Garfield because the choice of the name 'Handel' for the lump of rock was a tribute to the composer, whereas the Garfield was (presumably) not.
What if we simply called the section Other References?
Kleinzach 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the asteroid is much more relevant than Garfield. If it were quite a significant asteroid, then to me it reaches the bounds of inclusion, but unless we are prepared to make a "Trivia" section for every single article referenced in Meanings of asteroid names (3501-4000), it seems fruitless to say that this one is important enough to make it into the article proper. The astronomer that discovered 3826 Handel also is responsible for over 500 other asteroids, implying that the fact that this one was named after Handel is not very significant for Handel. I think I see what you mean about relevance, but I feel that if something is important enough to be a major tribute to Handel, then it should be given a paragraph or so, not an entry in a trivia list. -Sesquialtera II 16:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we have better things to do than link up hundreds of asteroids with the people they are named after. I am sure you are right about number 3826. What I was trying to do was suggest criteria for relevance as a way of resolving the issue.
Kleinzach 19:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Handel

The crux of my argument is that this article is about George Frideric Handel, and as such everything in it should contribute something unique towards an understanding of him; i.e., every sentence should add some insight about his life or music. My issue with trivia is that it does not add this; rather, it is information on the influence of Handel on people he never met, which is an important distinction. I don't have an issue with including popular culture Handel trivia on Wikipedia; I think it's pretty neat to see the various ways that people have referenced him. However, I think that "culture's salute to Handel" is a different topic than "Handel". It is related, and so it should be included in the "See also" section, but it does not add unique information. If, for some reason, the Garfield show introduced new scholarship on Handel, then I feel it would be worth mentioning, but otherwise it falls into the category of Handel's influence on popular culture. -Sesquialtera II 17:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handel in popular culture

I propose a Handel in popular culture page, linked to from this one. That page will have things like asteroids, Garfield, etc. Is this acceptable, or are editors of this page committed to listing all the trivia facts in this article? -Sesquialtera II 16:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In general I like the idea of spinning off "satellite articles" when the trivia sections get to be unmanageable, or seem overly distracting (have a look at Modest Mussorgsky for another example). Antandrus (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This would be a reasonable way of maintaining the focus of the original page, while also encouraging the development of alternative/popular material - Kleinzach 01:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In the state in which I'm viewing it, this article has two "trivia" items. One concerns an asteroid, and I hadn't realized that asteroids (real ones, not those pertaining to Starwars Trek, etc.) were either trivia or part of popular culture. I'd be inclined just to zap the Garfield bit and integrate the asteroid into the article in some other way. On the other hand, if there is a constituency that's keen to add triviality after triviality, then just delete it all -- oh, gosh, no, can't do that; it would be "elitist"; no, I mean take your cue from List of references to Citizen Kane in other work. -- Hoary 03:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that opinion is against keeping the material. When the "Handel in popular culture" entry is created, however, I think that the second-level subheading currently in the article should remain with a link below it per the Marduk#References in popular culture example given by ElectricRay at the Village Pump. That way, the material will not be too difficult to find. --Primetime 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The point about asteroids is fair enough. What, then, is the best article title? References to Handel? Modern references to Handel? Tributes to Handel combined with Handel in popular culture? -Sesquialtera II 01:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I was wrong. While I'd still claim that an asteroid isn't trivial and that (real-world) asteroids have a lower status in popular culture than do, say, certain works by Handel, the naming of an asteroid after Handel is a Handel triviality.
You may think, and I do think, that "trivia" is a disparaging term. But the people who enjoy this kind of thing seem to like it. So how about Handel trivia? Everybody should be happy with this title, even if for different reasons. -- Hoary 04:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest something like Other references to Handel or Alternative Handel. Using the word trivia surely just invites further 'are-asteroids-trivial?' type open-ended discussions.
Kleinzach 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion died out a while ago. WP:TRIVIA and WP:WPO support removing most or all of this section. Normally I'd just delete it, but I'm posting here first b/c of the prior discussion. Fireplace 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pieces by Handel

Speaking of spinning things off into other articles, is it time to put the list of Handel's works into a different article? It's beautifully done, I just have a thing against huge tables in the midst of articles. Note List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach, List of compositions by Henry Purcell as examples of where this has been done. Makemi 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Long works lists probably ought to go into separate articles. (Anyone up for making a Telemann works list? Just kidding...) Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment, Makemi, and yes, structuring the major composers into groups of pages seems a good idea. No doubt in time some of the texts will get very long. - Kleinzach 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That would make the works much harder to find. The 32kb convention is not a one-size-fits-all. Articles in online encyclopedias are very often longer than 32kb. For example, Britannica's "China" article is 1,057 kb and Compton's is 233 kb. Encyclopedia Americana Online's "United States of America" article is 1,957 kb; World Book Online's is 211 kb; Microsoft Encarta's (i.e., Funk and Wagnall's) is 366 kb and Columbia Encyclopedia's is 229 kb. --Primetime 18:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this would make the works much harder to find. There could be a prominent link in the "See also" section, and we could even leave the header with a link, and maybe leave links to a couple of the most famous works under the header. My reason for a separate article is not because of size in terms of kb, but for readability and clarity. My feeling is that it's hard to get the essence of things if visually things are too cluttered. Makemi 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the article looks (or will look) very cluttered. I think the table looks nice and is about the same size as other tables included in many encyclopedia articles. The fact that it's not even in the body further alleviates any difficulties. If we want the article to be easier to reference, perhaps we could make some of the current sections subsections of others (e.g., Media and External links part of See also)? --Primetime 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the works list to its own page, since that is the standard for the majority of composers' articles, especially those with significant output; and there is fair consensus here for the move. Primetime, since you bring up valid points that apply to other composers' pages as well, perhaps it would be good if you brought the issue up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Composers, so that we can set a specific standard. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed that both the French and German articles--the French one a featured article--have the list integrated in the entry. The German article is 48 KB and the French one 37 KB. It looks like the article in every language has an integrated list . . .--Primetime 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Meh. We don't have to do everything the same as the other Wikis. You might notice that, say, Bach and Purcell do not have works lists in their articles. Handel wrote approximately a gabillion pieces of music, if you count all the stuff he stole from himself and repackaged. I don't think all that information needs to go on the main page. Grove has 13 pages dedicated to his works. The lack of a big table also makes people realize (hopefully) that more fleshing out needs to be done in this article, and not in the area of lists. Mak (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just checked, the real number is approximately 603. Which seems a bit large for this page. Mak (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's just hope that Jimbo's dream of having Wikipedia published never comes to fruition, though. Think about getting through the article "Handel, George Frederic" and then having to get up and get the volume L to look up "List of compositions by George Frideric Handel". I don't think I've ever seen a single electronic reference work (e.g., Grove Music Online, Encyclopaedia Britannica Premium Service, Encyclopedia Americana Online, World Book Online) that breaks them up like we do, but I guess bad habits are hard to break, and we can't upset those who use those "rarely used browsers" mentioned in the article-size guideline. Strange, though, how almost every featured article on Wikipedia is longer than 32 KB.--Primetime 03:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

EEeeesh, what's the problem? Follow a link at the bottom of the article! It's obvious! If this were print, yes, I'd want the list to be on an adjacent page (not the same page). Luckily, this is the interweb, so an obvious and highlighted (by placement) link is the equivalent of an adjacent page. My issue is not with loading time but with overall formatting. Looking at a single webpage with way to much information tends to overload people, and it's difficult to take it in. When there's a huge table in the middle (of, hopefully 603 pieces at least) it makes it harder to see the overall format of the page for the average reader. To me, a separate page is just another way to break up information to make it more understandable. Not the same as throwing it in another volume, but rather the same as making headings or chapters. Oh, and if you go on Grove, the works aren't on the same page, you have to follow a link to get to them. Because it's the intarweb. So, if and when Jimbo decided to kill a bunch of trees, I will mention to him that daughter articles should perhaps go closer to their parent articles than I am to understanding your reasoning. Mak (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Grove Music Online article has one table of contents on a pane on the side of the screen, so you don't have to look under each section and then go to the adjacent article. I think it's a shame, though, because it makes editors' contributions look worthless. 'Hey, honey: I just added a paragraph to the "Early life of Gerald Ford" article'. One thing's for sure: I am not *touching* this article. I was seriously considering adding a few more pages to it like I have to some others, but if they'd get tucked away somewhere where no one would read it and a paragraph or two taking their place, then it's just not worth it.--Primetime 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opera composer of the month

Handel is opera composer of the month for April on the Opera Project.

We are hoping to have contributions to the following opera articles:

Acis and Galatea, Admeto, Agrippina, Alcina, Alessandro, Amadigi di Gaula, Arianna in Creta, Ariodante, Arminio, Atalanta, Berenice, Deidamia, Ezio, Faramondo, Flavio, Floridante, Giulio Cesare, Giustino, Hercules, Imeneo, Lotario, Muzio Scevola, Oreste, Orlando, Ottone, Partenope, Il pastor fido, Poro, Radamisto, Riccardo primo, Rodelinda, Rodrigo, Samson, Scipione, Siroe, Sosarme, Tamerlano, Teseo, Tolomeo

Kleinzach 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of the following is still absolutely minimal:

Admeto, Agrippina, Alessandro, Amadigi di Gaula, Ariodante, Arminio, Atalanta, Faramondo, Giustino, Ottone, Partenope, Il pastor fido, Radamisto, Rodelinda, Rodrigo, Scipione, Sosarme, Tamerlano, Tolomeo

Has anyone here seen any of these operas? Ideally it would be good to have performance histories, synopses, info about recordings etc. - Kleinzach 11:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German or English?

Well, I may be opening an excessively large can of worms here, but was Handel German or English? An anon just changed our characterisation of him from German to English, which made me pause. I looked at Grove, and they characterise him as an English composer born in Germany. Now, while technically I suppose he was naturalized a British subject in 1727, is that enough? When I think of his musical style within the context of music history, I think of it with other German Baroque composers such as Georg Philipp Telemann and J.S. Bach, with a bit of French Baroque mixed in, such as Jean-Baptiste Lully and Marc-Antoine Charpentier. I don't think of him as closely connected musically with John Blow or Henry Purcell. But perhaps all of this is irrelevant to his nationality, and perhaps my musical studies have been too influenced by German Nationalism. Any thoughts? Mak (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good question indeed. I had looked up exactly this same thing myself just a little while ago when the anon put it in. Grove, being English, not surprisingly calls him an "English composer of German birth." But was Domenico Scarlatti a Spanish composer? Was Chopin a French composer? Ummmmm... How about German/English composer? Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, I think it's a bit misleading to call him an English composer, despite his citizenship. What about A German composer who was naturalized a British subject in adulthood and spent many years in England or a less awkward version of that? It respects his choice and experience, while at the same time is not quite so misleading. Mak (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Nicolas Slonimsky calls him "great German-born English composer". Darn. I do not think of him as English myself. Your wording is fine with me. Looking in other sources, Scholes dodges the question, just saying he was born in Germany and died in England; and my (very dusty) 1911 Britannica calls him "English musical composer, German by origin". His style is German, much influenced by what was current in England and France--really an international style. Antandrus (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
From a google search (Handel and German and English) it looks like the first hits echo Grove. Interestingly, the current student edition of Britannica calls him "not and Englishman but a German". Perhaps both countries claim him as their own, but since we speak English that view is prevalent in our sources. I'm going to change the article to my proposed wording for now, pending further discussion. Mak (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see someone already changed it, but with the wrong year. I'll fix that. Mak (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone has now changed Handel to a "German/British" composer, presumably because Grove says he "became a naturalized British subject in February 1727". Does anyone know the circumstances of his 'naturalization'? On the face of it, this seems an anachronistic term. I assume he didn't just saunter down to the Home Office and fill in some forms. I also wonder whether GFH would have thought of himself as British. English perhaps. - Kleinzach 11:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It was me who changed him to German/British, which seems a reasonable and accurate compromise to seal up this can of worms. Most of his major works (eg Messiah, Royal Fireworks, Zadok, Judas Maccabeus) were composed when he was clearly British. (Don't go there on British/English - Churchill would probably have called himself English, but he was still the British Prime Minister. Great Britain was in 1727 and remains so the name of the country.) I don't know enough about Chopin, but was he ever a French citizen? If not, the reference above is neither here nor there. On a more general front, people can choose their nationality. Handel did, so who are we to tell him he was German when he had lived in Britain since his twenties, chose British nationality and died in Britain. Where does this end? In a very different field, the British-born athlete Fiona May chose to become an Italian citizen in 1994 (aged 25) and then won a string of championship medals, eg at the Olympics in 1996 and 2000. She's Italian (rightly) on Wikipedia, however much it grieves me. That's accurate, so is German/British, reflecting Handel's own choices and life. Cardicam 12:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Greetings from Scotland, a country with its own separate identity, laws etc. as England also have - but this is no place to go into political technicalities. I was asking for information about Handel's naturalization. . . . Anthony Hicks in Grove gives "English composer of German Birth". That sounds a more accurate and more elegant description than German/British. - Kleinzach 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like German/British either, it looks and feels clunky to me. I think that Antandrus and I are both having trouble thinking of him as a primarily English composer, despite any citizenship status (which I know no more about than you). I still like the A German composer who was naturalized a British subject in adulthood and spent many years in England option I gave above. You may note that his naturalization occured the same year George II was crowned king, so his change in affiliation may have been a political expediency, but that's pure OR on my part. Mak (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A German composer who was naturalized a British subject in adulthood and spent many years in England sounds fine to me. I am puzzled by the naturalization thing. I don't know of any other 'naturalizations' at this time. (I have comic visions of GFH standing up at court and saying (à la JFK) "Ich bin ein Englander", George II responding volubly in German and the court all rolling their eyes.) - Kleinzach 11:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
But it minimises his period in Britain rather a lot, doesn't it? "Many years" implies rather less than the 2/3 of his life he spent in Britain and plays down the British context for some of his music after 1727 (viz. Judas Maccabeus and the Fireworks music). Kleinzach may not know of other naturalisations, but it certainly happened according to Handel Haus Halle's website, which has GFH applying to the House of Lords for British citizenship on February 13 1727 and having it approving by the King seven days later. (Sounds like fast-tracking to me.) "British (not English) composer of German birth" is obviously fair enough, but why does German/British imply he was a primarily "English composer" as claimed two contributions ago? It doesn't and British is not even listed first. You could just sidestep the entire issue by deleting any nationality reference from the "German/British" line and leaving the subsequent sentence about how he was born in Germany, then lived most of his life in GB and became a British subject/citizen" to stand on its own? That surely is indisputable. Cardicam 13:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I have checked the naturalization issue. It was introduced by act of Parliament in 1709 to give the protection of the crown to a large group of German protestants who were going to the American colonies (the Palatinate Emigration of 1709-10). So Handel's naturalization was the real thing not an anachronism.
Regarding the British/English question, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern ireland did not exist then. Wikipedia Great Britain states "Most reference books . . . describe the all-island kingdom that existed between 1707 and 1800 as the Kingdom of Great Britain." That is from the point of view of the crown of course. The people continued to regard themselves as English, Scottish and Welsh, not as Great British.
What did Handel think he was? I am sure he regarded naturalization as a declaration of loyalty to the crown. Did he think he was no longer German? Are there any documents to cast light on this? - Kleinzach 11:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Are we perhaps confusing 2 separate concepts here? In terms of musical tradition, he was German and nothing but. In terms of formal citizenship/nationality, he started out as German-ish and finished up English. (I say German-ish because there was no such state as "Germany" until 1871; Handel was possibly Saxon or something like that). Do we think of Stravinsky as an American composer, or a French composer, or a Russian composer? He did have French and American citizenships at various times in his life, but in terms of musical language he was Russian. Maybe trying to encapsulate these separate concepts in one short sentence is just not possible without introducing ambiguities. Of course, this issue is not just confined to Herr Handel. I don't know the answer. Leopold Godowsky has an innovative approach which I think works quite well (not to mention that yours truly came up with that form of words), although it may not fit here. Maybe there is no one single template but perhaps a unique solution needs to be found for each person to reflect their unique set of circumstances. JackofOz 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Jack, that is an elegant statement of the problem. And your solution is? - Kleinzach 12:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the second sentence in the introduction to he lived most of his adult life in England, becoming a subject of the British crown in 1727. I trust that is in line with the discussion above and gets us closer to an agreed formula to solve the nationality problem. - Kleinzach 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that I am very impressed with the civil discussion of nationality. :D As was briefly mentioned above, calling composers "German" is quite misleading anyway, because very few of the well-known composers lived in a country called Germany. They may have considered themselves German by ethnicity, but then so would have the Austrian composers, and thats an area we probablly shouldnt get into (don't ever start making the argument as to wether Brahms or Mozart are Austrian or German...I speak from experience). Good soultion 02:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)deguerra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.58.126 (talk)
Perhaps this is a frivolous comment, but the article on King George I describes George as "King of Great Britain and Ireland" who was "born in Germany", and not as "A German statesman who was appointed a British king in adulthood and spent many years in England". Seriously though, many Germans regard German-ness as a nationality, rather than a citizenship, and this would have been especially true during Handel's lifetime, when there was no actual state of Germany. I guess the main criterion should be how Handel described himself - if indeed he ever did. I myself am a naturalized Canadian citizen of German birth, and although I probably would not be offended if I was described as a "German mathematician", somehow "Canadian mathematician" seems more accurate, given that I live, vote, and earn all my money in Canada (Handel, of course, did not vote). Selinger 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel in Egypt (oratorio)

If anyone is up to it, we need a re-write. Israel in Egypt (oratorio) was a copyvio, and so we need a new article. -Will Beback 11:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrival of the Queen of Sheba

I am wondering why I cannot find a strong link between Handel and "The Arrival of the Queen of Sheba" surely one of his more famous works.163.188.34.51 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


"The Arrival of the Queen of Sheba" is the Sinfonia to Act 3 of the oratorio, Solomon.

[edit] sentences

Handel's compositions include some fifty operas, twenty-three oratorios, and a large amount of church music, as well as instrumental pieces, such as the organ concerti of which there are sixteen, including the most famous, known as "The Cuckoo and the Nightingale", in which the birds can be heard calling back and forth to each other during passages played in different keys representing the vocal ranges of each of the two birds, the Opus 3 and 6 Concerti Grossi, the Water Music, and the Fireworks Music.

This is a nice example of bad correct writing. Nothing's wrong with the language mechanics, but it jumps from one idea to the next, ignoring the standard of single-idea sentences. I mean, what the fuck? Ten year olds write better paragraphs than this shit. Drop the geek rambling, kay?

Who's Kay? JackofOz 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, quite a few of these sentences run-on, expressing multiple ideas with commas and the rare semi-colon; this type of writing however, has been shown to confuse readers, impede cognition, and make relevant facts difficult to cite, since multiple ideas are expressed in the same sentence. Jussenadv 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct article title

According to my classical music CDs, this guy's name is Georg Friedrich Händel, not the thingy on the "a". Could we move this article to the correct title and leave this article as a redirect to that? Or aint that his real name? --Adriaan90 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I never read the introduction to the article. --Adriaan90 18:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of Handel revival

Currently, the Handel revival is briefly mentioned during the Works section. Ought the recent interest in performance, and its reasons (I added the countertenor/castrati bit) deserve its own section? I feel the reasons should be explored in more depth, the fact that many recent stagings of Handel have rather wacky sets and incorporate Handel into modern times should be mentioned, and it would clean up the works section a bit.Anderfreude 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saints?

Why is the article part of WikiProject Saints? Yellowpurplezebra 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm bemused too. --Folantin 10:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the category box, Handel is a Lutheran Saint. I think that's right, though I don't know why. If so, they don't have very high standards of inclusion: there are some wonderful anecdotes relating to Handel's love of good food and drink. Moreschi Talk 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Saints don't have to be ascetic. Look at Solomon. Mak (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messiah

While I do note that there IS a page dedicated to Messiah, might not more be said of the work in this page, perhaps to illuminate for those who may not be familiar, the sheer status of this work in the literature of western classical music? A read of this article reveals very little of this fact, surely a most important fact to mention on a page about Handel. Jc166117 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This link is broken: Sonata in E minor - Grave (file info).217.159.146.245 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The main article on Handel claims he stopped writing operas after the success of The Messiah in 1742. But the list of operas he's credited with shows him writing one opera in 1744. Both claims can't be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.131.103 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messiah

When the part of this oratorio called "Halelujah" is sung, people usually stand up. This is because when people sang this oratorio, the king came in when they were singing "Halelujah". Then they stood up, and from there is the habit of standing up when "Halelujah" is sung.--Idontknow610 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That used to be the tradition, but it is seen less and less often these days. It started with King George III King George II, who stood up the first time he heard it and royal protocol demanded (and still demands) that those in attendance not remain seated whenever the monarch stands. I'm not sure if this was at the Dublin premiere, the London premiere, or some other performance. -- JackofOz 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


It was the Dublin Premiere. ApsbaMd2 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opera/oratorio definitions

Perhaps there might be some tightening up of these in the work-lists, eg "Hercules" is not an opera.--voxclamans 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality (again)

This article says he was born in 1685, died in 1759 and became 'a subject of the British crown on 22 January 1927'. In other words, and leaving aside his unmistakably German music, he was at the very least officially German for more of his life than he was a subject of the British crown. For that matter, is there any evidence that he stopped being German? [this article says he was merely 'German-born'] Indeed, his 'subject status is the third point: hundreds of millions of people, from Cork to Calcutta, were subjects of the British crown and were never, obviously, British (unless they became successful of course upon which they were promptly claimed, but leave that aside). For musicians, as with all artists, it was natural to show loyalty to your patron by conforming with his politics, especially given the huge amount of travelling across Europe which marked Mozart, Bach and all the great composers. But conforming is an entirely different thing to converting. 193.1.172.163 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He took that nationality by choice, there doesn't seem to have been any particular pressure on him to do so. Having settled in England, he spent little time elsewhere (and don't forget that he lived in London for 15 years before actually taking British nationality). Is his music so "unmistakably" German? There's a fairly heavy Italian overlay. The current position is a compromise which has taken a long time to reach. David Underdown (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've just copy-edited the opening and noticed the invisible comment at the top about not messing with his nationality only after I saved. Stating in such a prominent location that Handel was a British composer is rather difficult to swallow, even if technically he did become a British composer at one point. I think this should be treated in greater detail below, and not baldly asserted at the top. If this view is disputed, please come up with third-party references that argue convincingly that his style can be classified as "British" or "English". I doubt that these references exist. Thus, the issue is best left for the body of the article, don't you think? Tony (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This is probably a better solution. --Folantin (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image: Handel as a boy

This is a problem. The artist, where the work is housed, when it was produced—surely we know something about it. Does anyone have copyright on the digital picture used here? There's just no information at all, aside from the link to a questionable web site. Tony (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday Year Discrepancy

The composer, George Frideric Handel, according to all the cd/s and reference books I have ( and according to Wikipedia ), was born on 23 February,1685. However, a photograph in The Encyclopedia of Music ( copyright 2003 / 2007 published by Hermes House ) of his memorial in Westminster Abbey, shows the year of birth as MDCLXXXIV image here. This translates from Roman numerals into 1684. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgeousbloke (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See Old style - in England (but not Scotland) until 1752 the New Year officially began on Lady Day (25 March), not on 1 January. David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Handel in 1750: not Germany but The Netherlands

See the article 'Handel's Travels in the Netherlands in 1750' by R.G.King (Music & Letters LXXII, 1991, p.372-386) which is a serious biographical correction concerning Handel's whereabouts in 1750: from september up till the beginning of december he visited the Netherlands -NOT Germany- for a friendly-visit towards his former favorite music-student the Princess Royal Ann of Hanover and her husband Prince William IV of Orange. During this stay his performed in the city of Deventer ('Grote Kerk', September 10th) as well as in The Hague ('Nieuwe Kerk', December 3th). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.2.224 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Blind musicians?

While Handel did lose most or all of his sight towards the end of his life, I'm not sure the category of "Blind musicians" is appropriate. Are the reasons really the same as to why Handel, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles are grouped on that category page? There isn't even a mention of "blind" anywhere else on the main Handel page. Perhaps there should be a [[Category:Musicians who naturally lost some or all of their eyesight right near the end of their lives due to inadequate eye-care facilities in previous centuries]]; but until then, I propose removing the recently-added category—anyone mind?  HWV 258  03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It has just been removed.  HWV 258  04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)