Talk:Messiah (Handel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Messiah (Handel) 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.

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

[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)

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)

[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)

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. — Music Maker 5376 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. — Music Maker 5376 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)

[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.

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)

[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)

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! — Music Maker 5376 17:04, 28 September 2007 (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)

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

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. — Music Maker 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[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."—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.) — Music Maker 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[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

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. — Music Maker 00:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? — Music Maker 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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 taht 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. — Music Maker 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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... — Music Maker 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? — Music Maker 5376 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. — Music Maker 5376 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.... — Music Maker 5376 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Categories: WikiProject Classical music compositions task force articles