Talk:Missa solemnis (Bruckner)

Form of citations

I have never seen a manual of style for citations that puts the page number first, the year second and the author last. Where does this come from? --Hegvald (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I took it from J. Dyslexia. But please feel free to change it to the standard Wikipedia citation format. James470 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If a scrambled citation format is the only thing you find confusing in this article, Hegvald, I think we can go ahead and get rid of that confusing "confusing" tag. I think the tagger would be just as confused by Missa Solemnis (Beethoven). Incarnatus (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that the article could be better, but "confusing"? I fail to see the point of that tag, or the requests for expansion or expert attention. It seems that most articles on Wikipedia needs both expansion and the attention of experts. How is this article in particular need of these things? --Hegvald (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Confusing" is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't find the article confusing at all because I wrote the first version. But if we're to assume good faith on the tagger's part, we must believe that he was honestly confused by the article. It would have saved us confusion if he had tried to explain his confusion here.

Expert attention would be nice. But unfortunately, Wikipedia's music articles just don't draw expert attention the way math and science articles do.

The request for expansion of the lead is the one tag that somewhat makes sense to me. If you compare the article on Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, you'll find that this one has a very short lead. James470 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this page and linked it to that on Bruckner's earlier Masses and later ("mature") Mass No.1, which I had created in the meantime. I have also added a discography section, according to the the recent analysis by specialist Hans Roelofs. Unfortunately, this mass is neglected by the performers (only 4 recordings, of which two of higher quality). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Partiality?

I think this excerpt could be considered excessively partial, even though it cites the source: "According to Hans Roelofs, Jürgens and Rickenbacker performances are both of higher musical level. Jürgens performs it with religiosity, i.e., as a mass. Rickenbacker performs it more strenuously, i.e., as a concert work." Perhaps the second part, about "religiously and strenously", might not be that partial, but I'm almost sure that qualifying a recording as of "higher musical level" is. What do you think? Mctanaka (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote "higher musical level" I meant "higher musical level than the two other available recordings." I am sorry for it English is not my native language. I will amend it as such.

Have a look on Roelofs' page. Roelofs reviews the four commercially available recordings in detail. So far I know no other critical review of the recordings of the Missa solemnis is currently available. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Missa solemnis

I tried on the talk of the template documentation of {{infobox musical composition}} to be more specific about terms that serve as name and form, name and key ... - trying to discuss what should appear where, and what be linked from where. Any title from the name looks wrong to me, for example, but let's see if I am the only one. Do we need a link to Missa solemnis at all, for example, which is a specialty of the mass in general, and even amerge request at some point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Originally I had added Missa solemnis as a "form" of the general "type" Mass. But Nikki removed it. When I reverted it with the justification why I did so, she removed it again and put the link to the title. I agree with you that no link should be added on the title of a specific work. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

NB: She did also the same for Bruckner's String Quartet...

A similar discussion occurred in past about the title and form of the infobox of Bruckner's Rondo in C minor and Intermezzo in D minor... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To not have similar discussions on various pages, I started a discussion, see above. Please follow the link, then talk, then (at the moment) last topic. I think a name is name and should not carry a link to a form, nor a catalogue number, but opinions may vary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Critical review of Borowicz’ recording of the Missa solemnis

There are several reasons to be happy about this new edition of Bruckner's Missa solemnis: First of all, the work was no longer represented in the current CD catalogue. However, the new CD can be described directly as "exciting". Not only is the performance of the Missa solemnis based on the new Urtext edition by Benjamin Gunnar Cohrs, but an attempt has been made to partially reconstruct the musical program of the Inauguration Mass for Prelate Friedrich Theophil Mayer, which took place on 14 September 1854 in St. Florian. The Missa solemnis sounds, but also some smaller works, by Johann Baptist Gänsbacher, Robert Führer and Joseph Eybler – which stand for the then common sacred repertoire. Since the performance of the works is also at a high level, the new CD would be very welcome – if it were not for the buyer being punished with only 47 minutes of content, so that among other things the rarely performed Psalm 114 is missing. The whole concert would have fit on the CD! Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

References