Talk:Der Messias

Some ideas

I'm really happy this finally got started as a separate article. I don't have time to contribute much at the moment, nor do I want to interfere with other editor's active editing sessions. Here are some ideas, mainly based on the liner notes by Andreas Holschneider for Helmuth Rilling's 1991 recording (which I have before me) – I suppose these will find their way to the article eventually:

• Christoph Daniel Ebeling is mentioned as translator (i.e. author of the German version of the libretto) – the fact is mentioned in the de.Wikipedia article of this scholar, but afaics not yet in the en.Wikipedia article of the same.
• Some movements may be discussed outside of their listing in the table, particularly how Mozart's adaptation is something "new" compared to the original: e.g. the overture is more than an "arrangement", with the material Mozart added its form is quite different from Handel's original.
• Reception topics may include whether (for instance in German-speaking countries) Mozart's adaptation was more successful than Handel's original (or versions staying closer to that original), etc.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Good ideas, needs someone to do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(Re-)orchestration issues

• "Handel had used only strings with oboes, and trumpets in a few movements" is a poor simplification... Handel's original had a continuo, with instruments including organ, bassoon, etc. The trumpet parts were somewhat different, written for "clarino" performers in Handel's day, a technique largely lost by Mozart's day, etc. Holschneider extensively discusses the characteristics of Mozart's re-orchestration, which in certain respects had to make do with less than Handel's original, e.g. the city palaces for which Mozart's version was intended had no organ (thus re-assignement of the original organ material to other instruments was necessary), also no clarino performers sometimes made necessary to reassign original trumpet material to other instruments (eg Horn). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought that I mentioned exactly some of these points: lack of skilled trumpet players (without introducing clarino which is not even mentioned in Handel's work), no organ in private houses. Remarks to individual movements are planned, as in the Messiah Part articles. Feel free to add, it's a work in progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to update the somewhat misleading "Handel had used only strings with oboes, and trumpets in a few movements" currently in the lead paragraph. As said, I don't have too much time for this now, and would anyhow only start editing actively when there isn't too much editing activity by others (i.e. too much edit conflict risk) any more. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Typically, the lead is the last thing to be polished ;) Continuo is normal for Baroque music, I'd see no need to mention it in the lead of Mozart's work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The NDR reference used in the article mentions:

• no oboes nor timpani for the first performance of Handel's oratorio in Dublin ("Orchesterbesetzung, ... bestand für Dublin nur aus Streichern, Trompete und Generalbass")
• A version adding oboes, horns and bassoons was realised by Handel ("Händel fügte danach Oboen, Hörner und Fagotte hinzu")

Also, Handel's original version was never performed during his lifetime ("Zu Lebzeiten des Komponisten wurde der „Messiah“ im Übrigen nie in der Fassung aufgeführt, in der er 1741 komponiert worden war").

In sum, the whole sentence comparing Handel's "original" and Mozart's "symphonic" orchestrations seems not only factually wrong, but quite irrelevant for this article: imho the only relevant comparison is between the version(s) Mozart knew and/or used as a model for his arrangement, and the arrangement. A discussion of Handel's early versions, with no source contending Mozart knew such versions, is not a useful topic for this article.

Also, the expression "symphonic orchestra" would better be avoided in the comparison: symphonic orchestra seems like a (19th-century) anachronism. Handel used the orchestra of his time, and Mozart converted that to an orchestration for an orchestra of his time. Neither was exceptionally small or large for its own time once the red herring of "Handel's original version" is dropped (major differences being "plus" some woodwind instruments and "minus" organ), and a baroque orchestra has no less nor more claims to being "symphonic" than an enlightenment era orchestra. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Rebooting where we left off here: does anyone have access to the first published version of Messiah (London 1767)? That is the version Mozart (and van Swieten) used when producing the adaptation. As far as I understand also Schildkret compared to this version in his analysis which I had dubbed the "relevant comparison" on 22 September above before having seen Schildkret's analysis, but I think it would be mighty handy to have this version visible when writing the (re-)orchestration-related parts of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC) (expanded "relevant comparison" as what I said on 22 September 19:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

I don't have access to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Tags

a bit dismayed others (including myself) aren't given much of an opportunity to deal with the issues of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You probably refer to this edit. I think that a load of tags doesn't improve readability, and offered the (temporary) solution to drop the specific sentence. I'd be happy if you wrote what you just said above about the orchestra of each period in the article.

I tried to honour your improvements by including you in the DYK nomination. - Before I can turn to this article again (removing "small" if nobody beats me to it), I have to deal with a few other overdue topics. There is real life, also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd propose, for the time being, to concentrate on improving the article, not the DYK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They go together. A DYK has to be nominated no later than 7 days after creation, - I rely on mercy already. It qualifies for that already, without tags at least. GA or higher quality is a different topic. A DYK presentation might attract more people to improving. I find creating a wanted section header, such as Reception, to only mark the section empty, unconstructive. I wrote probably 100 articles on compositions without a reception section. It's certainly no DYK requirement to have one. Yes, it's interesting, go ahead, write it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is to take "time pressure" out of the equation. If the DYK nomination inspires to take appropriate tags out before the issues indicated by these templates are handled, then, sure, I'd prefer putting effort in upgrading this to an article that more or less covers the key points of its topic (without time pressure) above a substandard article being linked from main page for reasons of time pressure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Once nominated, there's no deadline. I explained that I don't think creating an empty section and tag it as empty is an "appropriate" tag, and might add that a tag "citation required" for oboes playing in a Baroque oratorio seems not any better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at the chapter I added as a source here: might clarify why not having a word on the reception of Mozart's version is a serious void for this article (which, then, is properly tagged the way it is). Also, I think we're through discussing procedural matters for this article: either you have time for it, which would be better spent upgrading its content and references in mainspace (after which tags can be safely removed), or you don't, then let the tags attract the attention of someone who has: also for myself they work as a reminder of what is still left to do when I enter an editing session. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I have no choice, because I have no time. I haven't even improved the Bach cantatas for yesterday yet, - am that much behind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If you feel a "serious void" or something "left to do", please fill it. The tags have not attracted attention, as far as I see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Table

I fail to see why the table would be better sortable, while what I like to see at a glance that is in three distinct parts, and that several different movements treat a continuous passage in the Bible, in other words: it was unsortable on purpose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• sorting by bible book (last column) seems meaningful to me. Also allowing to sort movements alphabetically, in both languages, seems meaningful. Also allowing to sort arias and recitatives by soloist seems meaningful. And sort (back) to the original order of movements, in both versions, is a useful complement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll not do any of that but won't stop you. Please comment out the shortish single movements until filled, or do something else, - the present state is in that section no service to a reader. Today is another day with almost no time (nice weather and Handel opera), sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Irritating deletions

Francis, I focused on the German article until now, and find the tags irritating. What can I do? What can you do? I want to ask Corinne to copy-edit but would like a stable situation first.

I found the Schildkret source valuable, thank you, and added to the German article some general sentences about instruments and changes, some about individual movements. Should I translate that, or some of it?

I found in a Swiss source quotes (in German) that could go to reception. Should I translate that?

I don't know what your plans are with the article but confess that the short single sentences for the movements look stubbish to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "What can I do?" – improve text and references, without removing tags before issues are settled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You said: "the whole sentence comparing Handel's "original" and Mozart's "symphonic" orchestrations seems not only factually wrong ...", - so I tried to eliminate the comparison, only to be reverted. I tried to please you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't revert that sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I see I didn't look closely enough. What about that revert then? I rephrased the sentence. If the second version is still not to your liking, can you please improve it yourself. I am at my limits, which is true also for the other 2 reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm at my limits too (although I may mean something different than you do): if you don't know how to improve it, then don't. There is no time pressure. The tags won't wither before someone has time to address the issues they indicate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought I knew how to improve, only your reverts showed me I didn't succeed. I won't try again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe collaborate? I don't know everything, nor probably do you (although you maybe thought you did). Better to put together what each of the participants knows than relying on a single editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

"Mozart set basically a translation to German which Klopstock and Ebeling had written for Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach's performances in Hamburg." - What's wrong with that, and how could it be improved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"set ... a translation to German" – seems an inadequate phrasing, but I'm no native English speaker. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Mozart used a symphonic orchestra of his time. He used wind instruments (Harmonie) more, often to add a specific colour to a movement." What's wrong with that, and how could it be improved? - Do you think a link to Harmonie might help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"symphonic orchestra" – is there any source using the expression "symphonic orchestra" for the orchestra used by Mozart? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I meant "symphonic orchestra of his time" as a whole. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, does the qualifier "symphonic" appear in any reliable source in this context? Way up above I explained what I think is wrong with it, but seems you missed that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"wind instruments" and the German word "Harmonie" have a slightly different meaning:

• "He used more wind instruments" is correct
• "He used a Harmonie (extended group of wind instruments)" is probably correct too
• "He used ... Harmonie ... more" is probably not correct, and seems badly phrased.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Many sources use the (ancient even in German) phrase "auf Harmonie gesetzt" for what Mozart did, - what would that be in English? Can you suggest a phrasing for the article, as a summary for the difference in sound? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it is untranslatable like Fingerspitzengefühl, and that is probably why so many, also English, sources retain the original German expression. "Harmonie" probably has the double meaning of "harmony" and "woodwind and brass band" enclosed in a single word. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose "auf Harmonie gesetzt" is chronologically a successor of the "colla parte" instrumentation combined with "harmonisation" as found in, e.g., Bach-chorales, so I'd possibly try to find sources giving somewhat more explanation on the subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly Harmonie is also a historical development as the private counterpart of the "public" Stadtpfeifer? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "Do you think a link to Harmonie might help[?]" – sure, hadn't realised there is a comparatively well-developed en.Wikipedia article on the subject. The section that seems most relevant in the context of Mozart's Messiah adaptation is Harmonie#"Harmonie" as wind section; that section in the Harmonie article could in turn be expanded with an explanation of the "auf Harmonie gesetzt" vernacular, as, for example, used in the context of Mozart's Messiah adaptation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do it, sounds good to me. - More singing today than writing for me, and another composer died whose article needs care now that people look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Novello edition

The Towe source writes: "...the Mozart-Hiller setting as it was known in Britain in the latter half of the nineteenth century thanks to the Novello full score, published in 1859 with the original English text".

The table at Der Messias#Structure mentions that the movement numbers of the English version are according to the Novello edition. I requested a full citation there, as to be sure whether or not this is the same Novello edition as the one Towe talks about. And if so, does that edition include Nos. 35–36 (omitted by Mozart)? And which version of No. 52: Handel's aria version or Mozart's recitative version? --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, rather unfamiliar with English publishing. I mentioned the Novello because it's the numbering used in the source for the libretto of Handel's Messiah. The above sounds as if they also made an edition for Mozart's adaptation, but in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm using Robert Franz's 1884 numbering now (a hybrid Handel/Mozart/Franz edition, allegedly purged from Hiller additions). Couldn't find the Novello edition of Mozart's version yet (apart from what Towe says about it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as there are links, fine. I added the Novello in Handel's work because it seems common, - I had used (only) the HHA before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What I see is Links from the titles, without the Novello number, which is possible but creates a sea of blue which I tried to avoid. I also don't know why you use lower case abbreviations for the soloists, while all articles I know use upper case. They will not be confused with the choir, even capital. If lower case, why not also "satb"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Some movements have a quartet of soloists, was still in the process of figuring out whether that would be sstb or satb. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Mozart didn't change, it's satb, - as we heard in yesterday's performance when the mezzo singing s2 was not at her best in the low register. The choir is marked "Canto / Alto / Tenore / Basso", just when the soloists do it, an additional "Solo". Hope that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, called it "q" (for quartet of soloists) now, always correct, and uses less width than four letters. In the description of Handel's version the article currently has "Only once is the chorus divided in an upper chorus and a lower chorus, it is SATB otherwise" – I asked a clarification for that, with this content in the tag visible on mouseover: "Table shows something different: one SSATB movement and three movements with "four soloists + SATB". It needs at least to be clarified which choral movements are different in Handel's and Mozart's version". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

the q: I'd offer a space between q and SATB, because they don't sing together, example #5: solo to measure 20, tutti m21 to end, example #8: solo to m32, then tutti ("Wunderbar"), and similarly a few times back and forth, example #15: tutti from m41. - The ssatb: Handel and Mozart did the same: The upper 3 voices begin (ssa), the lower two respond from m11 (tb), back and fourth a few times, in m27 the upper 3 begin (ssa) and the lower 3 answer (atb), from m32 all 5 parts in homophony, then again antiphonal, now ss versus atb. Too much detail for the prose, I believe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for substituting out trumpets

There are theological/translation reasons why Mozart, using a near approximation of Luther's German Bible translation, might have decreased the role of trumpet. See Sackbut#Symbolism. Luther's bible translation says "Posaune", not "trumpet", then (I think) still a more generic term (it now means "trombone"). Readers would therefore not necessarily have thought of the trumpet as the instrument that would raise the dead at the last judgment, the instrument which accompanied the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:18 and the unbearable voice of God in Hebrews 12:19, the instrument that topples the walls of Jericho, etc.. HLHJ (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. The Hebrew instrument was none of ours, two trumpets play in the orchestra for the aria, but the solo is horn (not trombone). It's not Mozart's Tuba mirum ;) - The translation reason is given in the German version. I asked what of that I might import here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Holschneider (liner notes of 1991 Rilling recording) speaks about this, in these steps:

1. Handel's trumpet part for this movement was for a virtuoso clarino player;
2. The clarino technique was largely lost by Mozart's time (and, for clarity: trumpets with valves didn't exist yet)
3. Mozart apparently struggled: he wrote two versions of his arrangement of the solo part of this movement, deciding for horn in the second (virtuoso horn players were less a problem at the time)
4. The fact that Luther's translation had "Posaune" (instead of trumpet in the English translation) made that this would not be perceived as problematic by a German-language audience.

At least according to this author there was no "theology" steering the "composer", rather the composer seeing a way out for a musical technicality. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Music

From the article, as it is now:

For the music, Handel used the same devices as in his operas and other oratorios: choral and solo singing. The solos are typically a combination of recitative and aria. His orchestra is small: oboes, strings and basso continuo of harpsichord, violoncello, violone and bassoon. Two trumpets and timpani highlight only selected movements, such as the Hallelujah Chorus. Handel uses four voice parts, soprano, alto, tenor and bass in the solo and choral movements. Only once is the chorus divided in an upper chorus and a lower chorus, it is SATB otherwise. ...

Mozart used a symphonic orchestra of his time. He used wind instruments (Harmonie) more, often to add a specific colour to a movement.

• I tried to drop the sentence about Handel's precise scoring, because you are right, there is not one specific scoring but the one for the premiere in Ireland, where he didn't know what players to expect, another for London, and then probably changed with every performance due to who was available to play, then several editions. - Francis, you brought it back, and I feel helpless.
• The matter of the one chorus with five parts which runs in questions and answers between upper voices and lower voices was analyzed above, - how can we word that?
• I said "symphonic orchestra of his time" expecting a reader of this article to have heard a symphony of the classical period and have an idea about its sound. What is there to be cited? Would it help to link to Classical orchestra? Or this?
• Several sources say that the addition of woodwinds was the most noticeable change, how about Steinberg? Or Schildkret? Holschneider writes in his foreword to the score: "Mozart set them for wind band", - another? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So I might try like this:

For the music, Handel used the same devices as in his operas and other oratorios: choral and solo singing. The solos are typically a combination of recitative and aria. His orchestra is a Baroque orchestra based on strings and continuo, with oboes that double other parts, and trumpets and timpani highlighting movements such as the Hallelujah Chorus. Handel uses generally four voice parts, soprano, alto, tenor and bass in the solo and choral movements (SATB). In one chorus, he assigns five parts with a divided soprano, and uses upper voices and lower voices in dialogue. ...

Mozart used an orchestra of his time. Compared with Handel's orchestra, it uses wind instruments (Harmonie) more, often to add a specific colour to a movement.(ref Schildkret) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Please see above #Some ideas which already contains an elaborate discussion of these issues. Why start a new section on the same? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I saw these ideas, including we should not compare. The idea of the first paragraph is to shortly describe Handel, and nothing but Handel, for readers who don't know. The idea of the second to give the most striking differences in short, supported by details later. - I'd like to discuss the remaining tags, because I can't edit the sections without feeling like edit-warring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Never said "we should not compare" – I definitely said "relevant comparison". I'm really opposed to having this discussion in two different sections on the same page, resulting in more confusion instead of less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry, "not compare" was short for "In sum, the whole sentence comparing Handel's "original" and Mozart's "symphonic" orchestrations seems not only factually wrong, but quite irrelevant for this article: imho the only relevant comparison is between the version(s) Mozart knew and/or used as a model for his arrangement, and the arrangement." So I removed "original" and "symphony", trying to please you. - Regardless of how the Handel score looked that Mozart had, we know that copyists copied the voices and strings but left empty staffs for winds.[1][2] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm really, really opposed to have this same discussion in two different sections on the same page. What part of that sentence is difficult to parse? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
          • I don't see "the same discussion". Above we have some ideas for a future. Here, I'd like to simplify three sentences NOW for the reader, because I believe the tags make reading difficult. - I don't have anything to add to the above, agree with your view. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this is not a different problem, and I see too little progress, in view of what I said above, and which I'm not going to repeat here because someone seems obsessed about fracturing a discussion in so many parts until it seems to be going nowhere. You have my comments, surely you can handle them and do something constructive with them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I commented above at the same time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)