Talk:Messiah (Handel)/Archive 2

Pooley?
It is said that the libretto for Messiah wasn't written by Jennens; instead, Jennens took credit for the work of his secretary, the clergyman Pooley. I know for a change of this sort to the article a source will be required, however if an injustice has been done, I hope a note in the article is worth considering. HWV258 . 01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll need some high quality sources for that one. Historians enjoy speculating (or repeating speculations) after all, we'll need to pin down someone actually trying to prove it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The notion of outside credit for the writing of the libretto is generally refuted by modern scholarship. The most specific source I have found is Jens Peter Larsen's book.  In Handel's letters, Jennens is acknowledged as the compiler of the libretto.  While it is possible that Handel provided some assistance himself, there is no evidence as such.  There is also no ground to assert that Jennens was not the compiler, as he assisted Handel both before and after Messiah ("L'Allegro" and "Belshazzar"). --Timosaurus (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Movement list
Does anyone else think the list of every movement is overkill for this article (and if it is to stay, spelling and formatting need sorting). Apart from anything else, which version should we use? David Underdown (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is overkill for the article. Whichever version gets used should be clearly stated. I'm happy to work on improving it if someone will make suggestions about a source for the movements. HWV258 . 10:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, that's what the Wikisource entry on Messiah is for. Graham 87 03:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing the movements (and possible variations in movements between versions) of the text used by Handel in his oratorio (under Messiah_(Handel))? What does the information at Messiah have to do with that? HWV258 . 22:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
In my edition of the KJV, the word is spelled Messias rather than Messiah, and Alleluia rather than Hallelujah. However, I have seen different editions that use the more modern spellings. How did Handel spell it? Rwflammang (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC
This article is being nominated for FAC. GFHandel &#9836; 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Gluck and Lobkowitz
I dont mind if the information on the two is put one paragraph up. It goes there too.Taksen (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to format the reference consistently with the rest of the article? Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A separate article on the Hallelujah Chorus is needed
Handel's Messiah is most commonly known as and for the Hallelujah Chorus. Far more people will know the name Hallelujah Chorus, or at least understand it, then they do "Handel's Messiah" and yet there is no article or section that adequately discusses the history and influence of the chorus. Hallelujah Chorus redirects to Messiah Part II and The Hallelujah Chorus redirects to Messiah (Handel), a subsection which doesn't exist. There are three solutions I think: (1) create a large section on Messiah (Handel), (2) expand Messiah Part II to include history and influence, and include there the phrase "Hallelujah Chorus", or (3) create an entirely separate article just to talk about the Hallelujah Chorus as the separate choral work that it has become. I prefer the latter because the Hallelujah Chorus is culturally, in practice and in the mind of most, a separate song. It has its own history and influence separate from the rest of Handel's Messiah. --Bruce Hall (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The same question was raised on Messiah Part II, I responded there, let's keep it that one place, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Me bad. Should have put a link from one and the discussion in another.  Don't know why I didn't.  Just didn't think of it.  Hadn't done this two conversations too much in Wiki-world. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to stick in an oar on what I think is an excellent article, but as a newcomer to it I was a little surprised that there is no reference at all to the Hallelujah chorus in the introductory paragraphs - I don't disagree with the separation of the articles at all, but I think a casual observer might expect it to be linked in a bit more obviously to reflect people's perception of the significance of the piece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.103.115 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation invasion
This FA is suddenly under attack from editors with an agenda in re citation formatting. May I invite any of the invading tank commanders to address WP:CITEVAR on this page or else leave the page alone? Those of us who have contributed substantively to this article have better things to do with our time than defend it against drive-by formatting changes. Tim riley (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The editors who brought this article to FA did an outstanding job. Their work was discussed at several stages by a large number of experienced editors, including at Peer Review and at the FAC.  How someone could possibly think that it is a good idea to change the citation style for an FA article without discussion is beyond me.  Please respect WP:CITEVAR throughout this encyclopedia.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The revision of 4 June 2012 contained a mish-mash of YYYY-MM-DD and DMY formats for the dates used in the citations - both for publication date and access date. As required by MOS:DATEUNIFY, I've restored the last good version that sorted out those problems. I'm not sure how the article passed FA with publication dates of "2009-04-14" (Ref3) mixed in with "24 December 1997" (Ref115) as well as access dates like "2012-04-13" (Ref3) mixed with "15 June 2011" (Ref5), but there has been far too much zeal in resisting improvements aimed at eliminating this kind of mess - CITEVAR specifically does not require us to keep a patchwork of different formats masquerading as "an established style". --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Further questions
1.    I believe that Handel's music, and especially Messiah, was revived after a period of neglect through the efforts of Felix Mendelsohn. If that is correct, mention of it should be included in the article. 2.    In the discussion of the discography, a conspicuous omission is the recording made by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra featuring the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Eileen Farrel, William Warfield, and other distinguished artists.
 * You're thinking of J. S. Bach, I think. Mendelssohn played a major role in resuscitating his music, rather than Handel's. Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you a WP:RS explaining how this recording is notable? Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

32.178.242.186 (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Title/move
Can we rename this? Surely the more usual style would be Messiah (oratorio) or similar. The link exists, but I think the article should be at that location.

We usually disambiguate by type of subject, not author (Russians (song), Harry Potter (character), etc) FT2 (Talk 12:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Each Wiki project has its own guidelines, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines would be the place to start a discussion on standardization (you've got Elijah (oratorio) on your side, but see Category:Oratorios by Joseph Haydn for some relevant counter examples, or even more to the point Category:Oratorios by George Frideric Handel). Sparafucil (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messiah (Handel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908030611/http://gfhandel.org/messiah.html to http://www.gfhandel.org/messiah.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messiah (Handel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321204204/http://www.chandos.net/pdf/CHAN%200522.pdf to http://www.chandos.net/pdf/CHAN%200522.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Recordings for Messiah pages
Note: this applies mainly to subpages Messiah Part I and Messiah Part II. For the first two parts of Messiah, we have used (for quite a while) the MIT Concert Choir CC recordings. Not too long ago, I found a public domain recording (Scherchen) which includes both what was in the MIT recording, as well as Part III. Messiah Part III already includes this recording. While I would not replace serviceable media without a consensus, I think that the professional recording is of better quality (musically, if not in terms of audio files). Both recordings may be found in c:Category:Ogg files of Messiah. Thoughts on switching to the Scherchen? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To have recordings for the movements, and it doesn't matter which, is a problem for the layout, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gerda, are you saying you're against the recordings currently on Messiah Part I, Messiah Part II and Messiah Part III? Because I'm only talking about replacing the ones on the subpages (which all already have movement-recordings of some sort). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We have them, but every time I look, they disturb me. Which recordings ever, could they somehow not dominate the space so much? Size? Layout? We just had the Debussy PR when most recordings were removed, before and after. Just thinkinking ... - Btw, there's also Part III. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm already using the Scherchen recordings for Part III. The issue is this: the MIT recordings were here first, covering Parts I and II. Part III at the time had no recordings. The Scherchen recordings cover all three parts, and I added them to Part III but didn't replace the MIT recordings for Parts I or II. Hence the question: should I replace the MIT recordings? The Scherchen recordings are definitely better musically (in my highly subjective opinion), although perhaps are a touch worse in terms of sound quality. As for the whole layout issue, it is not different from any other recording infobox on Wikipedia --- they're all kind of clumsy, and I'd love if we had a new infobox system for displaying them that were less intrusive. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry about not checking the history. Go ahead then changing. Perhaps there's a way to not list the performers every time, just the first? ... making the symbol smaller? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Pius XII
Even if Haendel was recognize as a Master Mason for which the Roman Catholic Church comtemplated te excommunication untill the reform of the Code of Canon Law introduced by Pope John Paul II, we have a procession of Pius XII introduced with the Messiah of Handel and followed by a German speech to some German cardinals. It doesn't seem to be a movie.

Relavnt for the WP article since Masonic chants and musics couldn't be played in the consacrated Churches, even out of the Holy Mass.


 * OK, four quick things: 1) you (User:78.14.139.217) can sign talk page posts by typing 4 tilde ~ 2) the link is to Der veruntreute Himmel, a fictional film 3) a masonic composer doesn't make a composition masonic (Masses by Haydn, Mozart &c) 4) where is the legislation on masonic music in church, if there is any? Sparafucil (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)