Messiah (Handel) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 20, 2011 Peer review Reviewed August 4, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Classical music: Compositions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not 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.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Archives

/archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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").^[1]--Timosaurus (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IMO, that's what the Wikisource entry on Messiah is for. Graham87 03:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)#Texts_and_structure)? What does the information at Messiah have to do with that?  HWV258.  22:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:TheTrumpetShallSound-Handel-sungbyArthurMiddleton1916.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being nominated for FAC. GFHandel ♬  21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#44 and The Hallelujah Chorus redirects to Messiah (Handel)#"Hallelujah", 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#44 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The revision of 4 June 2012 [1] 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)[reply]

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.

• 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)[reply]

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.

• Have you a WP:RS explaining how this recording is notable? Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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