Wikipedia:Peer review/Messiah (Handel)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Messiah (Handel)[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Handel's Messiah is one of the most popular and most frequently performed works in the English choral tradition, and it deserves the best possible article. For the past few weeks users Tim riley, Gerda Arendt and I have been trying to achieve this; the article has been extensively overhauled and expanded, and is now ready for some community input. Please be gracious but unsparing in your comments, as we want to improve the article in every way we can. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Finetooth comments: This seems just fine to me in all respects, including prose, structure, illustrations, sound files, and layout. Here are few nitpicks, none substantial:

Background

  • "In 1741, Handel had been resident in England for more than a quarter of a century... " - Mention here that he was a native of Germany?
  • "Handel eventually saw off this venture... " - Not sure about "saw off".
    Both of these fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

  • "The autograph score's 259 pages... " - Is "autograph" sufficiently uncommon to need a link?
    Linked Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th century and beyond

  • "In 1902, the musicologist Ebenezer Prout produced a new edition of the score... " - Link Prout here, which I think is the first use?
    • He is mentioned and linked in the previous section, but I don't think another link here would be excessive; views gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation and numbering of movements

  • Unlink Prout and Shaw here since they are linked in the preceding section?
  • "does not number all the recitatives and runs from 1 to 47" - Link recitative?
    "recitative" is linked at first mention, but that is way back so I've linked it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

  • "After their introduction in the Part I chorus "Glory to God", apart from the solo in "The trumpets shall sound" they are heard only in "Hallelujah"... " - Add a comma after "sound"?
    Normal English punc style omits the comma here, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Place of publication for the Grout book?
    • Added (from Worldcat). By the bye, are we hyphenating ISBNs or (as I have done for my contributions) giving them as one long number? Either is correct, but we ought to standardise. Tim riley (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've standardised (with hyphens)

Other

  • Are we still adding no-break codes to 21st century and similar constructions? A few of these are scattered throughout the article. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I haven't used no-break spaces in ages. None of the "21st century" etc constructions need them at the moment but that could change if the prose is extended or contracted, so maybe we should add them? Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Finetooth, for the helpful review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: I have fixed the images in accordance with what I found deficient (or to be more tidy). File:TheTrumpetShallSound-Handel-sungbyArthurMiddleton1916.ogg is, however, a problem. This audio recording, fixated before 1972, is still generally copyrighted. US common law will bring this work into the public domain only in 2067. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review. I have changed "The trumpets shall sound" to "I know that my Redeemer liveth" - is this trouble-free? Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. Aside from the absence of information regarding where it was fixated, the date (1916) would also likely mean it falls into the restriction laid above. For audio recordings, it is wiser (less problematic) to find those licensed under CC or released into public domain by modern performers. Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a shame. It may be that there are no Part III soundfiles in the PD; Wikipedia:Sound/list doesn't list anything, though oddly, all the Parts I and II numbers are there. I'll remove it, and think again; any ideas welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is wrong. The Edison recordings are owned by a U.S. agency and are considered to be public domain by scholars and the University of California (which has digitized many of them). See: http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2008/07/the-messy-messy.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But do we have a definitive legal opinion? "Considered" by "scholars and the University of California" may not be definitive enough. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... the blog you pointed out states "So the assertion that the Edison recordings are in the public domain would appear to mistaken. The recordings are likely still protected by copyright - and the copyright status of the recordings doesn't seem to matter." as well as that the NPS (who received the recordings, whether copyrights were transferred is another issue) "does not presume that all Edison recordings are in the public domain". That certainly does not tally with your assertion. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, the US government can acquire copyrights. Unless they thereafter license the copyright, I don't see how it is PD or a suitable license.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt.

Excellent article on an important subject which puts my coins in the shade. I have number of quibbles; in honour of the work, I shall make my review tripartite. Here is part 1, the remainder shall follow soon:

  • Lede
I would have the fact that it is one of the best known, etc. choral works should be stated much earlier in the paragraph, on the philosophy you lead with your strengths.
  • I'd like to think about this. I have tried other wordings but I'm not yet convinced they read better than what we have (and it is quite a short paragraph) Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"to his ultimate glorification in heaven." Not my field, but is there a single word that describes this and can be piped?
  • I intended to say "apotheosis", but there may be theological objections to that, since Christ was divine in the first place. I will take advice on this (Tim may agree that "apotheosis" is suitably broad in meaning to be appropriate for use here) Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimey! The OED defines "apotheosis" as "The action of ranking, or fact of being ranked, among the gods; transformation into a god, deification; divine status." At least one of the three must be acceptable to the most rigorous theologian, surely? I'd go for "apotheosis". Tim riley (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that, according to Christian theology, Christ's divinity was pre-existent, not bestowed on him when he ascended to heaven. He could not be "deified" or transformed into a god, because he was one already, and on those grounds the use of "apotheosis" is questionable. Also, the word has a secular meaning (such as Wagner's description of Beethoven's Seventh as "the apotheosis of the dance". So perhaps the word is best avoided? Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt if we'd get flak for the word, but entirely happy to go along with your decision on this. Tim riley (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"adapted for performances" I would write "performance" but perhaps that doesn't work as well in Britlish.
"Since its first near-complete recording was issued in 1928 the work has been recorded many times." Perhaps avoid double use of the word "recordxx"? If you state what form of media it was released on in 1928, that should do the trick.
  • Background
"Undergraduates were reportedly selling" Suggest "Undergraduates reportedly sold".
  • Synopsis
I would end the first sentence after the first use of the word "Jesus" and delete the remainder. He's notable.
  • Yes, but the identification of Jesus with the name or title of "Christ" may need emphasising for readers outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, can "direct speech" be explained, briefly? I gather it means the characters don't engage in dialogue but what do I know?
"without some prior knowledge" Shorten, perhaps "ignorant"?
"explaining the thought processes behind his scriptural selections." A bit ambiguous, not clear whether the thought processes (isn't that too modern a term for this?) are for his choices, or explanation of the Biblical passages.
  • Writing history
Jensen's opposition to the Act of Settlement seems to beg the question a bit, especially since his religious views are also mentioned (I see you note he was Anglican). Was he a Jacobean supporter or he just didn't like Sophia?
  • The historically correct term for Jennens and his ilk is "non-juror", and what a confused bunch they were. They did not recognise the Hanoverian succession, nor did they accept the legitimacy of the Catholic Stuarts. Since there were no other options (the non-Catholic Stuarts having died out with Anne) they rather became lost souls. All this is interesting but, I believe, beyond the scope of this article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"having subscribed" Perhaps ambiguous. It could be read that he had a standing order for Handel's work, but I suspect what is meant is that he financially supported each new work. Perhaps this should be clarified.
Just a thought, but even though I know you are having difficulties with getting musical bits and pieces, an excerpt from Saul, obviously the "Dead March" is best known, might fill some space here. And the article on Saul, if you can call it that, could use some TLC and maybe some HGH.
  • I don't think it would be appropriate to have a sound sample from Saul here. I've not looked at that article, and am not likely to have time to work on it in the near future. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jennens's letter to Holdsworth of 10 July 1741, in which he first mentions Messiah, suggests that the text was a recent work, probably assembled earlier that summer." Summer being 19 days old, give or take a nickel (I'm too lazy to figure out if the 11 days were involved, but that could be one reason), this suggests remarkably sudden and speedy work by Jennens.
  • Well, if you take Midsummer's Day as the start of summer...but I think we can accept a broader definition of the season than that, surely? Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"wordbook". Perhaps a pipe is in order?
How long did it take him to complete Samson? Worth a mention if it's known.
" and would not be written down " I might say "and need not be written down", but that's purely stylistic.
"never performed" Due to the strength of the start of the sentence, I would tone this down without changing meaning by saying, "not performed".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments which have been adopted except where noted. Tim may have a few further words; in any event we look forward to your further input. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be back later this evening, after more wrestling with the Sage of Saddle River. All your comments look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dublin
  • "the tour's" What tour? All they did was lay about in Dublin?
  • I think "tour" in its broader meaning is OK; I can't offhand think of a better word. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The three charities" I would rearrange this paragraph somewhat:

The three charities that were to benefit were prisoners' debt relief, the Mercer's Hospital, and the Charitable Infirmary.[1]In its report on a public rehearsal, the Dublin News-Letter described the oratorio as "...far surpass[ing] anything of that Nature which has been performed in this or any other Kingdom".[2] Seven hundred people attended the premiere on 13 April.[3] So that the largest possible audience could be admitted to the concert, gentlemen were requested to remove their swords, and ladies were asked not to wear hoops in their dresses.[1] The performance earned unanimous praise from the assembled press: "Words are wanting to express the exquisite delight it afforded to the admiring and crouded (sic) Audience".[3] A Dublin clergyman, Rev. Delaney, was so overcome by Susanna Cibber's rendering of "He was despised" that reportedly he leapt to his feet and cried: "Woman, for this be all thy sins forgiven thee!"[4] The takings amounted to around £400, providing about £127 to each of the three nominated charities and securing the release of 142 indebted prisoners.[5][3]

London
  • " In an attempt to deflect such sensibilities, Handel avoided the name Messiah" The timeline seems a bit fuzzy here. If he did this before the first performance, you should probably say "had avoided".
  • Chapel Royal. We haven't heard of them in a bit, I'd link again.
Later performance history
  • "Meanwhile". I just think this word is a bit informal somehow.
  • Can anything be said somewhere that seeks to explain the great popularity of Messiah in the UK
  • This is a fair point which I can't answer immediately; my sources give no specific explanation as to why the popularity of Messiah has been sustained for so long. I don't think there is a simple explanation; the work "caught on" as a result of its regular London performances from 1750, and was taken up in a big way after Handel's death. It has held the public's interest ever since, I suppose because of its quality. I will see whether a reputable source deals with this point. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will complete with music tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I'll be back to this later on today. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And completing.
Music
  • "throughout the work of trumpets" instead, "of trumpets throughout the work".
  • "Nevertheless, " delete word.
  • "The aria "He shall feed his flock" underwent several transformations," I'd specify whether Handel did this.
  • "is the least revised of all the numbers in the oratorio". Are you saying it is closest to the original? Perhaps state it sort of like that.
  • "The extended trumpet solo". If the word solo could be eliminated here, as it occurs later in the sentence, it would be nice. Not sure it is possible though.
Recordings
  • Perhaps in the paragraph about the small scale productions, a reminder about what size forces Handel preferred would be in order?
  • "Among the first of such versions " awkward.

Excellent article, it will make a worthy addition to the FA family.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments - thanks so much to everyone for your work on this. It seems in very good shape to me. I have a few suggestions and nitpicks.

  • Tighten - is "in" needed? His first venture into English oratorio had been Esther, written and performed for a private patron in about 1718.[6]
    • This is an UK -v- US usage thing, I think. It would look odd to me without the "in". Brian, what think you? Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a free modern color photo of the Vauxhall Gardens Handel statue (in the V & A today) at File:BLW Handel.jpg
    • Thanks. I have posted this for the moment, see if there is any reaction. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Messiah and Jesus are linked in the lead, only Jesus is again linked in Synopsis
  • Should the article make clear that the Pifa is also in the first part? See There are two instrumental numbers, the opening Sinfony[n 1] written by Handel in the style of a French overture, and the pastoral Pifa, often called the "pastoral symphony".[18]
  • Since "Messiah's" is possessive, is "the" needed before Virgin Birth in In Part I the Messiah's coming and the Virgin Birth are predicted by the Old Testament prophets.?
    • The general prophecies of the Messiah's coming, and the specific prophecy of the Virgin Birth, are distinct, so I think "the" is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an image of Handel's SDG on Commons. I am not sure if it is up to snuff in terms of its license / sourcing - see File:Soli deo gloria.jpg. If it is OK, I wonder if it could be used in Composition and File:Messiah-titlepage.jpg moved up to the Synopsis section. Just a thought.
  • Speaking of Soli Deo Gloria, the article says At the end of his manuscript Handel wrote the letters "SDG"—Soli Deo Gloria, "To the only God glory". However, I have always heard it translated as something more along the lines of "To God alone be the glory" (focusing on the divine nature of inspiration, and not the monotheistic nature of God). While this may reflect my poor Latin, the Soli Deo Gloria article translates it as " Glory to God alone", which is about the same as my translation.
    • The Latin translation was amended by another hand. Although I am not a Latin scholar, I think "To God alone the glory" is probably the best English rendition. That is what the Luckett sources has, so I have reverted to that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the article provide translations of the Italian aria titles which are recycled here?
    • Not sure this is necessary, since the titles have no relation to Messiah. I don't have the translations anyway - my sources don't give them. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standing for the "Hallelujah" is an American custom too The British custom of standing for the "Hallelujah" chorus originates from a belief that, at the London premiere, King George II did so...
  • Synopsis italicizes Hallelujah, elsewhere it is just in quotes "Hallelujah" - need to be consistent on this and all titles from the work
    • I intended only foreign titles (e.g. Pifa) to be italicised & will check that this is the case. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • that? (not thar)11. The people thar walked in darkness (bass)
  • with? (not wit) 16. And suddenly there was wit the angel (soprano)
  • Make clear what the original version was The aria "He shall feed his flock" underwent several transformations, appearing at different times as a recitative, an alto aria and a duet for alto and soprano before the original [soprano] version was restored in 1754.[104]
    • Doesn't " before the original [soprano] version was restored" make clear what the original version was?
  • There are two sound clips for Part III listed at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Messiah
    • I think, unfortunately, that these two are the subject of the discussion above and that, in Jappalang's view, they are not PD. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few things not mentioned in the article that I expected - early on there is mention of relatively little spoken word, but (and I have read this carefully twice now) I did not see a later mention of where this occurs.
    • There is no mention anywhere of "relatively little spoken word". I think what you're referring to is "there is very little use of quoted speech", which means that generally, words are not put into the mouths of characters. The single exception is the Angel's recitative in the pastoral sequence. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly I was a bit surprised that there is no mention of the Hallelujah (chorus) in the lead, as it seems to me to probably be Handel's best known work.
    • This might read as opinion unless a reliable source has specifically nominated "Hallelujah" as Handel's best-known work. None of my sources say this, but perhaps Tim has something? Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've pondered this, but can't find anything to back up singling out that one number (though for myself I am in no doubt that it is indeed H's best known single piece) Tim riley (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also surprised that there was no mention performances of individual parts of the work (as is done with opera arias). Hallelujah is performed by itself quite often. I have also heard and/or sung And the glory of the Lord, For unto us a child is born, and Since by man came death as individual works
  • I also was a bit surprised that the article makes no mention of the proper title being just "Messiah" (and not, as it is often called, "The Messiah")
    • The article uses the proper title. I'd add a footnote referring to the frequent mis-titling, but I can't find a source that makes this particular point. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is surprising how many reputable writers in the sources we have used fall into the error of using the definite article, but I agree that it would be hard to find a source that specifically notes it as a solecism. I'll check the JSTOR articles again. Tim riley (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are minor quibbles and I will be glad to support when this is at FAC. Thanks again for a great article, and hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this review. If I have not addressed any points specifically you can assume I have adopted your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new sources from Ruhrfisch

  • This article, originally from Smithsonian (magazine) and titled The Glorious History of Handel's Messiah] may be useful.
    • It calls Messiah Handel's "best known work" This year, the 250th anniversary of Handel's death, has been a boon to the Baroque composer and his best-known work. (page 1 of 3 in the online version)
    • It also explains that Cibber was involved in a scandalous divorce at the time of the Dublin premiere, which helps explain the "Woman, for this be all thy sins forgiven thee!" comment better (also page 1)
    • Says Handel was the man that Ludwig van Beethoven himself, citing Messiah, said was the "greatest composer that ever lived." (page 1)
    • It also follows the article in many ways and mentionsthat Messiah is often performed around Christmas, especially in the US
      • I have added a sentence emphasising the continuing popularity of Messiah, especially around Christmas, and have included by way of a footnote the possible explanation for the "Woman, for this..." comment. I don't want to add too much to the detail of an already lengthy article, so I haven't added Beethoven's opinion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found two relatively recent articles in The New York Times. I can send them to you as a PDF if needed, just email me. "The first is 'Messiah' Mavens Find That Its Ambiguities Reward All Comers" By ALLAN KOZINN New York Times Dec 24, 1997; page E10.
    • Published on Christmas Eve, the first sentence is “It may seem entirely natural to us that Handel’s ‘Messiah’ is heard everywhere at this time of year, whether complete or represented by its emblematic ‘Hallelujah’ chorus.”
    • Nicholas McGeegan recorded every version known with the San Francisco Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra and included all the alternative version on the CD so listeners could program their own favorite.

The Heavy, Use (Good and Bad) Of Handel's Enduring 'Messiah' By ALEX ROSS The New York Times Dec 21, 1993; pg. C19

    • Mentions standing for Hallelujah as a 200 year old tradition
    • At least 21 performances in New York that month (Dec)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these additional sources. I am sure that we will be able to add a few useful tit-bits to the article.

If it is no trouble, I would be very pleased to have copies of the two NYT articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found a RS on Messiah vs The Messiah - see here which sayds "MESSIAH" OR "THE MESSIAH"? What is the correct title of Handel's oratorio? Well, the correct answer is Messiah - but we know that people starting talking about "The" Messiah within days of the first performance. If it's a mistake, it's certainly a time-honored one. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I've used this source in a footnote, to bring in the "The Messiah" point. I'd be happier with a slightly more scholarly reference, but no doubt this passed the RS test. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference B17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Luckett, p. 126
  3. ^ a b c Luckett, pp. 127–28
  4. ^ Hogwood, pp. 22–25
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cole was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Messiah_(Handel)/archive1&oldid=1078795607"