Talk:George Frideric Handel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image: Handel as a boy

This is a problem. The artist, where the work is housed, when it was produced—surely we know something about it. Does anyone have copyright on the digital picture used here? There's just no information at all, aside from the link to a questionable web site. Tony (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Messiah

When the part of this oratorio called "Halelujah" is sung, people usually stand up. This is because when people sang this oratorio, the king came in when they were singing "Halelujah". Then they stood up, and from there is the habit of standing up when "Halelujah" is sung.--Idontknow610 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That used to be the tradition, but it is seen less and less often these days. It started with King George III King George II, who stood up the first time he heard it and royal protocol demanded (and still demands) that those in attendance not remain seated whenever the monarch stands. I'm not sure if this was at the Dublin premiere, the London premiere, or some other performance. -- JackofOz 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the Dublin Premiere. ApsbaMd2 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthday Year Discrepancy

The composer, George Frideric Handel, according to all the cd/s and reference books I have ( and according to Wikipedia ), was born on 23 February,1685. However, a photograph in The Encyclopedia of Music ( copyright 2003 / 2007 published by Hermes House ) of his memorial in Westminster Abbey, shows the year of birth as MDCLXXXIV image here. This translates from Roman numerals into 1684. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgeousbloke (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See Old style - in England (but not Scotland) until 1752 the New Year officially began on Lady Day (25 March), not on 1 January. David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Handel in 1750: not Germany but The Netherlands

See the article 'Handel's Travels in the Netherlands in 1750' by R.G.King (Music & Letters LXXII, 1991, p.372-386) which is a serious biographical correction concerning Handel's whereabouts in 1750: from september up till the beginning of december he visited the Netherlands -NOT Germany- for a friendly-visit towards his former favorite music-student the Princess Royal Ann of Hanover and her husband Prince William IV of Orange. During this stay his performed in the city of Deventer ('Grote Kerk', September 10th) as well as in The Hague ('Nieuwe Kerk', December 3th). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.2.224 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Blind musicians?

While Handel did lose most or all of his sight towards the end of his life, I'm not sure the category of "Blind musicians" is appropriate. Are the reasons really the same as to why Handel, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles are grouped on that category page? There isn't even a mention of "blind" anywhere else on the main Handel page. Perhaps there should be a [[Category:Musicians who naturally lost some or all of their eyesight right near the end of their lives due to inadequate eye-care facilities in previous centuries]]; but until then, I propose removing the recently-added category—anyone mind?  HWV 258  03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It has just been removed.  HWV 258  04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationality (again)

This article says he was born in 1685, died in 1759 and became 'a subject of the British crown on 22 January 1927'. In other words, and leaving aside his unmistakably German music, he was at the very least officially German for more of his life than he was a subject of the British crown. For that matter, is there any evidence that he stopped being German? [this article says he was merely 'German-born'] Indeed, his 'subject status is the third point: hundreds of millions of people, from Cork to Calcutta, were subjects of the British crown and were never, obviously, British (unless they became successful of course upon which they were promptly claimed, but leave that aside). For musicians, as with all artists, it was natural to show loyalty to your patron by conforming with his politics, especially given the huge amount of travelling across Europe which marked Mozart, Bach and all the great composers. But conforming is an entirely different thing to converting. 193.1.172.163 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He took that nationality by choice, there doesn't seem to have been any particular pressure on him to do so. Having settled in England, he spent little time elsewhere (and don't forget that he lived in London for 15 years before actually taking British nationality). Is his music so "unmistakably" German? There's a fairly heavy Italian overlay. The current position is a compromise which has taken a long time to reach. David Underdown (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just copy-edited the opening and noticed the invisible comment at the top about not messing with his nationality only after I saved. Stating in such a prominent location that Handel was a British composer is rather difficult to swallow, even if technically he did become a British composer at one point. I think this should be treated in greater detail below, and not baldly asserted at the top. If this view is disputed, please come up with third-party references that argue convincingly that his style can be classified as "British" or "English". I doubt that these references exist. Thus, the issue is best left for the body of the article, don't you think? Tony (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This is probably a better solution. --Folantin (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Handel's style became British because British composers imitated it, since they'd heard it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

It seems to me that Halle was part of Protestant Germany - please correct me if I'm wrong (*) - and thus it was still using the Julian calendar when Handel was born. This raises the same issue that affects Bach – see here.

If we apply the same principle to Handel, what we’d get is:

• George Frideric Handel (5 March [O.S. 23 February] 1685 – 14 April 1759) ....

If that seems too revolutionary, we should at least have a footnote explaining that under the Gregorian calendar he was born 5 March 1685.

(*) Is there a list of German states that were Protestant/Catholic? I've looked but can't find it. Under Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Europe and the table below, we just refer to the Catholic German states adopting the new calendar in 1583 and the Protestant ones adopting it in 1700, but we don't actually identify any of those states by name. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, unless we can can find a source that clarifies the issue one way or the other, we shouldn't try to second guess. Grove, Oxford Dictionary of Music, and Oxford Comapnion of Music all just give the 23/2 date without comment, and I can't find any general description of their treatment of the dating issue either. David Underdown (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This strongly suggests that the date "24 February 1685" was the date actually written in the baptismal record the daye after he was born. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course Madgeburg was a Protestant state. When they officially adopted the Gregorian calendar, and if there was a date, is another question; it may have been adopted by a slow change of custom. Our article is more than usually likely to be a confusion. (Norway and some of the German states belonged to Denmark, and probably did convert at once; whether the Elector of Brandenburg, Handel's prince, went along is doubtful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

One clue is the day of the week on which he was born. The article says he was born on a Friday. I don't know whether that comes from contemporaneous sources or whether someone's used a calculator such as this one to work it out. "23 February 1685" in the Gregorian calendar was indeed a Friday; 5 March 1685 was a Monday. If we could establish from independent sources that he was actually born on a Monday, that would be strong evidence that Halle was using the Julian calendar at that time. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The baptism of George Frederic Handel took place on a Tuesday, bacause the entry in the church register ( 24 February 1685) used the corresponding astronimic weekday sign of that time. Traditionally children in the former Saxony were baptised the day after birth. --Hallenser143 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to rush to judgment and say that that settles it as far as I'm concerned. But then I looked at this:

... by the year of Handel's birth, Saxony/Magdeburg had adopted the Gregorian calendar.

I’d like to know their source for that claim. I actually don't believe it because the maths don't work out. We know he was baptised on Tuesday 24 February; the only calendar in which 24 February 1685 was a Tuesday was the Julian calendar. In the Gregorian calendar, 24 February 1685 was a Saturday. So the Julian calendar must have applied in Magdeburg at the time.

To throw a further spanner into the works, it also says:

... the baptismal record for Handel, which still exists, shows that he was baptized on 24 February, 1685. Because infants in those days generally received baptism within 24 hours of birth, the customary date of birth is given as 23 February 1685, though 24 February is certainly possible.

... which seems to make his actual date of birth as uncertain as Beethoven’s and Haydn’s. Is it the case that all these years we’ve accepted as gospel fact that he was born on 23 February (in whatever calendar), when it really could have been some days earlier, or even as late as the 24th? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as I indicated above, the major English language reference work for music, Grove, simply indicates the traditional date, with no comment - we should be wary of diving into OR. David Underdown (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about not getting into OR. However, if it can be clearly established that a particular published date was a date in the Julian calendar, it's not OR to simply state what the Gregorian equivalent would have been. In many cases of people born after 1582, we do indeed state both dates, so the precedent is firmly established. We don't have to wait for some external researcher to work out that, for example, 23 February 1685 Julian + 10 days = 5 March 1685 Gregorian. But we've got to resolve the issue of when Handel was actually born, and I don't know how much weight we should give to the link I supplied above because I've never seen any other source that suggests his date of birth is uncertain. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

←Indeed: this sounds very sensible. Tony (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

DOB/DOD

Is it strictly necessary to have the day of the week he was born/died? Fairweather01 (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so.  HWV 258  04:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have removed the day - Jay (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

List of operas by Handel put up for deletion by HWV258

This article is up to deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of operas by Handel. --Kleinzach 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a page created in the previous couple of days by user Kleinzach. There was no need for its creation as it exactly duplicates information already found at List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel#Operas (which Kleinzach then went and deleted without discussion). The recent edits by Keinzach have affected the work of hundreds of editors made over many years, yet he has sought no discussion or consensus for his edits. I have started a section that would allow discussion of the edits proposed by Kleinzach here.  HWV 258  04:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits by User:Belle5410 of the music history class at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee

I see User:Belle5410 is working on her (?) class assignment and has corrected the date of Handel's father's death from 1703 to 1697. Judging by Grove this is probably correct . . . . --Kleinzach 09:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the German Wikipedia it is correct.Taksen (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling box for media files

I've raised this with the Composers Project, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Scrolling_box_on_George_Frideric_Handel. --Kleinzach 10:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RP tags

As part of her class assignment, Belle5410 added RP tags like this: {{rp|[1]}}. They are not linked and show up as numbers in black, e.g. superscript :[1] etc. What are these for? Should we just delete them? --Kleinzach 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Those are page numbers. I had an article I was working on in which another editor used those. It reduces the number of separately listed footnotes significantly when referencing individual works heavily. (I don't like it, myself.) Magic♪piano 18:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Umlaut in name and alternative spelling

Should the name be Händel, ie with an umlaut on the 'a'? According to Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th edition, Microaedia, vol 5, p678, also online edition) the name does have the umlaut. Also Britannica lists an alternative spelling of Haendel (with no umlaut). Other reference: http://gfhandel.org/ Posted 22:49, 5 January 2009 Mitch Ames

This has been discussed before, see the archives etc. Can you sign please? You can do this with four successive tildes. --Kleinzach 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The move to London - help

The The move to London section contains the following: "He highly estimates also Acis and Galatea, like Winton Dean, who writes the music catches breath and disturbs the memory". Does anyone know what that means? If it is a quote, it should be indicated as such. If it isn't a quote, what the?  HWV258  04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at fixing it, without having the source in front of me. "He" refers to Romain Rolland, so

Romain Rolland stated that these anthems were as important for his oratorios as the cantatas were for his operas. Rolland also highly estimated Acis and Galatea, like Winton Dean, who wrote that "the music catches breath and disturbs the memory". During Handel's lifetime it was his most performed work.

Let me know if this seems reasonable. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  HWV258  04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class; I liked a lot about it, but also had a number issues. Those are detailed in my review on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Händel as a German-English Composer

It is ridiculous, just to call him an English composer; I think the way the German, French, Spanish and each other Wikipedias put it is better, in the whole world he is known as a German, so we gonna give a shit for what you describe as naturalization as an governmental act by an German King (George I.). Why shouldn't we write German, naturalized English, as the others do? A lack of composers? --91.62.96.229 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice joke! Das Land ohne . . . Now you are here, perhaps we can discuss this without any more revertions? I don't have strong feelings about this issue. What do other people think? --Kleinzach 02:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone suggested to sign on to Wikipedia and get a username.

Why?

Someone wrote: Hmm. If you have an identity people will take you more seriously. In life it's often like this . . . Also please learn to indent (with colons).

You really think, you and your freaky friends are "the people"? I think, it's more a nerd-monopoly you've installed, not an idea of "collective intelligence", because you lack any kind of general public. I indeed have an identity here, and I contributed a lot two years ago; but making diskussion here is completely senseless, when you can't follow-up your changings for your lifetime. So "Händel" as an English Composer, not more: It is really strange, isn't it?

Someone asked: You are in Nuremberg?

No. But the Nazi-argument had to come.

• • 91.62.96.229: Please stop altering my replies. --Kleinzach 03:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry. You seemed to be joking five minutes ago. May we continue now with our discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.96.229 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(addressing the original point) Is the fact that Handel's German heritage is mentioned three times in the lead paragraph not enough to give a reasonable portrayal of the situation? That said, I can see the case for replacing "English Baroque composer" with "Baroque composer"—as the rest of the article explains the situation more fully, and the word "English" does have a connotation that may be misleading in Handel's case. By the way, in terms of a reasonable discussion, could you please leave out the histrionics ("ridiculous", "freaky", etc.), the invective ("$%&#"), and the insinuation ("A lack of..."). Thanks.  HWV258  03:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to other composer's pages, we should be bount to tell the nationality, so I suggest, not being interested in any national jealousy, to call him German-English or even German-British because of the aforesaid "naturalization". This would clearify the hole preface of the article. By the way, we say "Thanks", when someone is to fulfill our desire, not before. Histrionics, Invectives, Insinuations: It seemes to be somewhat German in you. But: I will, if this claim should be a matter of "respect".--91.62.96.229 (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• My personal prefrence is to say "English composer of German birth", which is the exact phrase used in Grove, Oxford, and Britanica.Nrswanson (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave it for others to decide on compound nationalities. The argument that other sources describe Handel as an "English composer of German birth" is a strong motivator, and certainly takes it out of the realm of being "ridiculous". Let's give this a day or two (before further edits to the main page) so that many more editors have the opportunity to digest your point-of-view. ("Thanks" was presented in the anticipation, and encouragement, of improvement.)  HWV258  04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Encouragement of improvement! It sounds wonderful fascistic, like a wonderful californian bleached-teeth grin! Is Waterboarding an encouragement of improvement too? I don't need to be encouraged in this way.--91.62.68.141 (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't write "Encouragement of improvement" (please take the time to appreciate the nuance introduced by the commas). My basic meaning was "anticipation of improvement"—and based on your opening comment in this section, improvement is badly needed.  HWV258  21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• "English composer of German birth" seems accurate to me. Would anyone seriously contend that Jean-Baptiste Lully was an Italian composer, even though he was born in Florence? In general on Wikipedia we do things the way the other major reliable sources do; Grove has "English composer of German birth" for Handel, which is fine with me. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to pre-empt any discussion, but am I the only one that sees the opportunity here in thanking 91.62.96.229 for alerting us to the fact that the German, French, Spanish (and others apparently) WPs may not be displaying Handel's nationality in a supportable manner? This is something that we should perhaps investigate at some stage. :-)
 HWV258  05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, Gordon Brown addressed the United States Congress on behalf of the "rest of the world". Like this, there should be no obstacle for the English Wikipedia, to convince the world, that Händel was an Englishman! What a consolation in a time, in which your way of life is as fucked up as in December 1973! So we should not modify the present version, although any other Wikipedia uses the good compromise "German-English composer".--91.62.68.141 (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you've now learned to 'sign' your comments! Progress. How about indenting as well? You use colons - like this : --Kleinzach 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Formalities = restrictions = your privileges? Not essential for changing arguments. What doe "Kleinzach" actual addresses? Perhaps your disregarded German roots? --91.62.68.190 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but some formalities are essential for coherent discussion. By not indenting you risk ambiguity as to whether you are responding to someone else's comment, or whether you are starting a new point in this section. (Admittedly, based on your wide-ranging ramblings, colons may not add sufficient coherence.)  HWV258  22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why "English" instead of "British"?

What I don't understand about the current version is why he should be English, instead of British. He was born German, "becoming a naturalized subject of the British crown on 22 January 1727". So you can very well argue (as many are doing above) about whether he is German or British, but why English? --Xeeron (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

British is not usually used as a description of national identity, especially at this very early date. AFAIK Handel had no connection with Scotland or Wales, so calling him 'English' would be a pragmatic approach. --Kleinzach 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But your main argument is still the legal act of naturalization, not the question of national identity, because this was certainly more of German nature, than of Italian or even "English". I see Handel more as a business maker, who settled down in London just for monetary reasons. For artistic reason, he would have possibly assumed Buxtehudes Job in Lubeck. So, hopefully you havn't naturalized all the German bankers and investment managers in London, which ran down your beloved England in the past month. They better should remain German, or not?--UPH (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not do it all again

We seem to have a fair few "let's do it all again"-type of discussions on this page. How do people feel about gathering previous discussions onto sub-pages, and putting a switchboard at the top of this page saying something like:

• If you are tempted to edit abc, then please read here first.
• If you are tempted to edit xyz, then please read here first.
• etc.

That might help to save these sorts of continual debates, and might help to lend credence to decisions already taken. I'm happy to do some collating and formatting work if others: think it's worthwhile, will specify the categories (abc, xyz, etc.), and will let me know the locations of previous discussions. Note that I don't mean we should discourage change—rather, we should allow people to easily become familiar with why the page has developed the way it has.
 HWV258  04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Two categories that come to mind are:

• If you are tempted to edit Handel's nationality, then please read here first.
• If you are tempted to edit the spelling of Handel's name, then please read here first.
  

 HWV258  05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For the time being I'll put up an archive search box and a {{Round in Circles}}. You can also make a {{FAQ}}, which is generally used for that sort of issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:30, 5 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I can see a few possible problems with this — accusations of ownership, trying to close off debates etc. I think it would be best to discuss it with the Composers Project. --Kleinzach 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Having said that {{Round in Circles}} looks a good solution. --Kleinzach 05:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't anticipate the same problems—and certainly nothing that appropriate wording can't address. Really, it's simply an attempt to make parts of the archive more visible. Let's see how it looks before condemnation.  HWV258  05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)