Talk:List of compositions by George Frideric Handel

	Classical music portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

auto-dud system

I'd be very pleased not to see the many dates that are not autoformatted remain so, and perhaps those that are might be delinked. MOS and MOSNUM are now equivocal about what was formerly a mandatory system, given that it's widely recognised as partially dysfunctional. Looks as though the 25 February 1720 format is the one for this article. Tony (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Imposing underlying on so many dates is going to dilute the real links to other pages. As there are so many variations to the dates on this page (e.g. circa 1717-18), auto-formatting is going to be partially successful at best. HWV 258 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

column formatting

Any way of widening the "Premiere" column to avoid the ungainly wrapping? Tony (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you edit the Opera section, you will see that the Premiere column currently has the following as part of its definition: width="90px". The number can simply be increased as required.

Now if only all the nasty date-linking could be removed without starting a 'war'.

HWV 258 07:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't look mandatory to me: "can be autoformatted". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking. Get rid of them! Tony (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page title for HWV 333?

I wanted to create a page for, and therefore a link to, HWV 333, however I'm not sure what to use for the page title. I thought of HWV 333 (Handel) or Concerto a due cori in F major (Handel), but am not that happy with either. In addition, there's another Concerto a due cori in F major (HWV 334), so how will uniqueness be enforced? Any suggestions? HWV 258 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music) and possibly ask a question at the talk page. Tony (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handel hymns

set to words by Charles Wesley? Gontroppo (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italics on a musical list page?

In regards to edit [1], I must admit that I'm yet to be convinced by the sweeping use of italics on a musical list page. I can see the benefit in using italics when the name of a work exists on an ordinary article page (e.g. as used a few times on the Judas Maccabaeus page); however a list page has a different purpose to an ordinary page. The fundamental purpose of a list (on a composer's compositions page) is to list works, and to tabulate the works with various properties in corresponding columns. As a result, there can be no confusion as to what is in a "Title" column—it is implicitly known that the words in the "Title" column are the name of the work. There is no need to add emphasis to each work individually as the table does that. Therefore, I can see no benefit in the use of italics; however, due to the limitations of screen resolution, there is a disadvantage in the use of italics in that they are harder to read. Is there a better forum to raise this formally? Any thoughts? HWV 258 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this refers to my edit of opera titles, right? There is a well-established practice of putting all opera titles in italics. There are literally thousands of articles following this convention, see for example the series of Category:Lists of operas by composer. If you disagree with it you could perhaps take it up with the Opera Project? Personally I don't agree that italics are harder to read. I've never heard this opinion before on WP - but that makes me wonder whether you might be using a special font/skin of some kind? Regards. --Klein zach 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly don't find "Mitridate, re di Ponto" harder to read than "Mitridate, re di Ponto"? There's still my observation that musical list pages are special in that the table draws attention to the title. I'm not suggesting that ordinary pages shouldn't use the italics convention—just that the purpose-built list pages could be exempt. Anyhow, I thought I'd publish my opinion in case anyone else finds merit in it. (I've not tried to apply any special font or skin). HWV 258 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major titles (books, movies, opera, whatever else) are usually in italics in English convention. Quotes tend to be used for parts -- chapter titles for instance. This is pretty normal English practice that I, for one, learned probably in 4th grade. It's certainly nothing special on WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason (despite trying many times), I can't seem to convey the idea that a list of works doesn't need the italics convention in the same way that works mentioned in ordinary articles do. Sigh. HWV 258 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see the point in a list like this one where it's all or none. But it works out great in, say, a works list done by catalog number, where you can see at a glance what is an isn't a 'named' work. But I was just pointing out that it's a very standard thing to do it, and I imagine the guidelines would suggest this. I honestly am not too passionate about it either way, myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-align of dates?

Regarding edit [2], the intention was to right-align the dates (it wasn't an accident). By right-aligning, the most important part of the date (the year) is easier to read and compare for all the entries in the table. As an example of how well that can work, have a look at Handel's Oratorios. Why (as per your edit comment) is there the necessity "to make cplumns all align the same way"? HWV 258 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's normal. See other tables of this kind. They don't align right and left alternately, though they can be centred. --Klein zach 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"other tables of this kind" doesn't necessarily make it correct in this case. I don't wish to rile you, but as I went to some trouble to explain why the right-align was used in this case, would you mind addressing the substance of my edit? Also, why would WP provide the "align right" functionality if it isn't to be used for formatting effect? I maintain that this is a case where the right-align is justified. There is no compunction for one column to match the alignment of its neighbour. I must also say that I'm very pleased to see you adding information to the page (the Operas Libretto section). I wish more people would add to this list. Thank you for that. HWV 258 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "other tables of this kind" doesn't necessarily make it correct in this case. Hmm. If you disagree with a practice then you can make a recommendation centrally. Otherwise you should go with the flow. Doing otherwise is regarded as point attack. We are here to serve the reader. We do that by presenting information clearly, through editorial consistency. If we make a mistake and introduce a wrong practice then we should make comprehensive corrections - not just individual ones.

Re why would WP provide the "align right" functionality if it isn't to be used for formatting effect? First of all it's provided by WikiMedia. It has multiple purposes e.g. statistics. I hope this addresses your questions. Would you mind changing back the alignment now? Thanks. --Klein zach 07:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point about "WikiMedia" as right-align is a standard table-formatting code provided by Wikipedia. I have used that formatting to "serve the reader"—as carefully explained above—to make the most important part of the dates (the year) easier to read and to compare from line to line in a table. Could you please demonstrate where in the guidelines it indicates that all columns in a table have to be similarly aligned, or why dates cannot be right-aligned? I won't be changing the alignment as I believe it would diminish the reader's experience. HWV 258 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganized the list to conform to Category:Lists of operas by composer - that obviates this issue. --Klein zach 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For "obviates", read "ignores". With edits like [3], all you've done is make the list of information more difficult to digest for WP readers. HWV 258 04:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. . . according to your subjective opinion. Fair enough, but then if that's your subjective opinion why are Cantatas and other sections done in the same (standardized) way? --Klein zach 07:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeuuuw. Sorry, Klein, but I find the right alignment gawky (surprisingly so). I don't follow your arguments that (1) because another table uses this, it's fine here, and (2) because the function is available, it's fine to use it in this situation. Tony (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klein: I knew you'd eventually get around to clutching at the straw of the "why aren't other sections done that way" argument. The answer is quite simple—no one has got around to updating them yet. Not just my "subjective opinion"—the opera list has been the way it was for a long time without any of the other editors minding one bit. You've ignored ALL of my points (including the new one about using the sortable feature), so could you please leave it alone now as you march off in your quest to turn WP into some sort of nineteenth century text book. Please try to get this simple point into your thinking: because other lists are done in a different (and often old-fashioned way) does not mean the lists on this page have to be down-graded to match. HWV 258 23:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera list/size

Ok, since it's come up, here's my thoughts. Absolutely, 100% for sure, I would propose againt a single genre /alone/ be taken out. It looks like the main reason for the size is all the extra stuff most composer pages don't have...and as it stands now it's well over the recommended article size (if this matters, as it's a list with no pics, and not an article). I could see doing a much more base list with sub pages for the extra details, or simply leaving the whole gambit. As an aside, shouldn't there also be a list by HWV number? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire page is driven by HWV number—those are the numbers you see in the HWV column in each separate list on the page. Due to the way the HWV number was originally selected, it would not add much to create a separate page with one global list containing all HWV numbers in order; and the disadvantage of having to update two pages with changes would outweigh any slight benefit. Please see HWV for more details. I'll deal with my thoughts on sub-paging in a new section below. HWV 258 23:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot that HMV is by genre and chrono-order within them. Silly me. What about a seperate list of the Opus numbers (which isn't going to be that big), though? Just a thought... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting discussion. When I filled out the various lists, I purposely omitted the HG and HHA information (thinking that would eventually be documented on the pages for individual works). In terms of recognised "Opus" numbers—they are present in the current lists (e.g. in the Concertos and Concerti Grossi). I think I'd still lean away from duplicating that information on a separate page (but I could be talked into it if others see the need). Adding the sortable option to the "Opus" heading (as well as others) in the mentioned lists would add functionality and assist readers. Cheers. HWV 258 01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-paging sections of this page (and page length).

I don't believe the page of Handel's works should be broken into sub-pages. I hope the following points will give the reasons, and facilitate discussion:

The current list page does not feature in the Top 1000 "long" pages, and is well short of the length of number 1,000 on that page (which is about 108K in length).
Many of the pages in the top 1,000 are list pages, therefore there is ample precedence for allowing longer pages when in a list format.
From Article length - Occasional exceptions: "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields". There is therefore basis for arguing that this list page should not be treated in the same category as normal "long pages".
Other editors have found it convenient to list composer's works in entirety on "long" pages. E.g. Mozart and Bach are both greater than 85K in length.
The Article length page has a section on No need for haste. For a change of this magnitude, there should be time to discuss the options.
Due to the way modern browsers work (caching and staggered loading of individual parts of a page), there is not an inordinately long delay before the first (and subsequent) parts of the page are loaded. The breaking into categories of lists (operas, concertos, etc.) on the page help with browser caching and loading.
If page size is an issue, what size is being attempted? With modern browsers and ever-increasing bandwidth, surely not the archaic 32K barrier? If not, then what size (40K, 50K, 60K, etc.)?
According to Technical issues, an 85K page should take about 13 seconds to load in entirety—and that's with the slowest means possible of connecting to the internet (dial-up). Surely that's not a problem (and getting less of an issue all the time)?
One or two sections alone should not be sub-paged in order to reduce the size of the page. If only a few sections are to be sub-paged, then how to decide? The first, the largest, etc.?
If all sections are to be sub-paged, the page would look ridiculous (little more than two sets of Contents).
Because of the way the HWV numbering system was devised, and its implementation in separate lists on the page, other pages can link to categories as the page stands. For example, it is easy for another page to link to the List of Handel's operas section without it being on a sub-page.
As the page stands, there is extra information in the various lists. I believe that much of that extra information will be moved to pages on individual works as they are created over time. For that reason, the page is not expected to grow much over the current 85K and will, over time, reduce in size.
The current format is uncomplicated (no need for multiple-clicking to investigate Handel's works).
The page is interesting in itself in terms of providing the reader with an idea of the scale of Handel's works. This would be lost with sub-paging.
The strategy of seeing all the works together is utilised on just about all other composer's list pages.

To preserve the above points as a group, could further edits please take place below this line? HWV 258 02:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me. I'd like to get a sense of the breadth of the man's output, and the chance to cross-relate his different genres. Tony (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-page that was created (without discussion or consensus) has been marked for deletion here. HWV 258 02:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

separate date column?

I wonder why the dates are now scrambled into the venues. Is there an advantage? Tony (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can honestly see no benefit in the merge of the dates and venues columns. It simply makes the information harder to read, and sorting is now impossible. When the heat of recent events reduces a little, I would like to split the information again and implement the sorting functionality. I promise to standardise all the tables on the page in a similar way. HWV 258 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Klein zach 04:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Already noted above). 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 (above on this page) here. HWV 258 04:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the big debate, but since it appears that List of operas by Handel is here to stay, shouldn't the List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel#Operas section be pared way back? I thought one of the purposes of child articles is to take some of the burden off the main page. Some example, List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Operas is just a simple list and List_of_compositions_of_Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Cantatas_.281.E2.80.93224.29 goes so far as to defer completely to the other page. Just a suggestion. DavidRF (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Given the current length of this article, I would suggest to simply refer to the specialised list.

Also, the current category of this article, Category:Compositions by George Frideric Handel should be changed to [[Category:Compositions by composer|Handel]] -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The List of operas by Handel page is far from mature, and I notice that it has recently been edited to make it look more like the list on the main list page (re-splitting premiere location and date information). In fact, I believe there is still an argument to be made for editing the List of operas by Handel page so that it does not reproduce too much information that has long been held as consistent throughout the entire set of lists on this page.

Note that the list of Operas on this page is in a similar format to the information on all the other genre lists on this page, so to change the opera list alone would diminish the consistency a reader would get as they scroll this page.

Also consider how ridiculous this page would eventually look if more and more genres were to be split-off into their own sub-pages. We would be left with little more than a pseudo-categories page.

As I've pointed out (above on this page), the length of this article is not an issue. If the opera list were to be "pared way back", exactly how much of the page length is expected to be saved?

We should not be making decisions regarding this page as if it were opera-centric—it isn't, and never will be. HWV258 07:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a pseudo-categories page be so ridiculous? We already have one at Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis. That page could easily be modified to point to the sub-pages. (In fact, I should really wiki "Opera" in the table there to point to the new list page). Fully deferring to the child page would allow the child page to grow and expand while easing the pain of having to maintain the duplicate information on the parent page. Its just a suggestion. One thing I certainly wouldn't do though is to remove information from the child page. In my opinion, the child page needs to be a superset of the information in the Opera-section of the main page. DavidRF (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pseudo-categories page would be ridiculous as you already get that with the table of contents on this page. If everything were to be removed to sub-pages, you would have a table of contents followed by (up to) 26 links that basically repeat the table of contents. Please keep in mind that this page is not opera-centric and decisions should be made considering the consistency of information in all of the 26 category lists. If the editors (or others) who built out the opera list sub-page ever get around to creating sub-pages for the other 25 categories, perhaps some other decisions could be made. We are not at that stage by a long shot, and there should be no rush to alter this established page on the expectation of future formatting and editing.

I reject the implications made by the pejorative use of the word "pain". Handel is no longer writing operas, so we shouldn't expect the list to grow very much. Neither list page suffers substantive changes. What you refer to as "pain", I call trivially simple.

The HWV page (which I built-out to its current state) was designed not as a gateway, rather as a means to show the approximate ranges of HWV numbers. Links could be added, but they are not germane to the point of the page—and would be questionable distractions.

Continuing to be unanswered are the points that this page presents consistency across 26 different categories, and that the removal of the opera information would diminish the reader's experience in terms of obtaining an overview of the scale of Handel's works.

HWV258 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very uncomfortable with the fragmentation of this topic into sub-list articles. Why are Handel's operas so different from the rest of his output that they belong at another address? Why would this overall list be bloated by the reinstatement of the operas? Tony (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion. I hadn't realized that it was the main author of the parent page that was proposing deletion of the child page. The integrity of a single page including all the works seems to be the main bonus of not simply deferring to the child page. I understand that and won't press the issue much further. There's nothing special about the operas that warrants a child page, but as is often the case in wikipedia, things often get developed unevenly. The child page concept is usually welcomed for other composers because it takes a large section (for example Mozart's minor vocal works) and collects it on a separate page making the main page seem a bit less unwieldy. But this Handel page does seem readable at its current length.

As for the "pain" discussion above. Handel isn't writing operas anymore so its a trivial task to keep these things in sync? That's a bit naive. Speaking from experience on other pages, these table are generally not culled from the same canonical source. Someone will find a reference in their library and add to one table, but not the other. Someone will find and *old* reference and overwrite the more currently accepted composition date with the previous-best-guess for a composition date... but they'll only do it on one article and not the other. One page will get vandalized and not the other. I mean, they're already out of sync. Its my fault. I removed the "Arrival of the Queen of Sheba" note for Nero on one page but not the other. I'll fix it, but syncing the two tables is certainly not too trivial for me. :-) We can keep it all on one page if you'd like. It doesn't bother me. It just seemed to be the logical thing to suggest. (And it wouldn't be "opera-centric" to defer the operas to another page, that actually makes the parent page opera-un-centric :-)). DavidRF (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "centric" point, I meant that decisions on how to reorganise this page should not be driven solely by what is happening within the genre of opera. The entries on this page to do with opera amount to about 6% of the total entries, and therefore we should always be keeping an eye on the bigger picture. Cheers. HWV258 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to the HWV 448 entry

I know the tempation will be to revert this recent edit, but I would prefer to make a stub page for the work and move the information there. I have the Groves listing of Handel's works, so I could probably build out a (very basic) page to start.
The question now is what the page name should be? It obviously can't be 'Keyboard Suite (Handel)' or even 'Keyboard Suite in D minor (Handel)' as these will eventually lead to duplicates. Would 'HWV 448 (Handel)' or 'Keyboard Suite HWV 448 (Handel)' be better? Other suggestions?
The circular reference will have to go.
I wonder if editor Ntnon could just confirm that the correct work has been edited (there doesn't seem to be a lot to distinguish HWV 448 and HWV 449)?
HWV258 22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "Sarabande in D Minor" - with or without a "(Handel)" - since that seems to be the most-cited name for the piece. Which is why I added it in..! As to whether the correct work has been edited: I don't know, should have checked further, and now do not believe it was. Sorry.

I came here from Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, which features the work, via Sarabande (after finding the "Sarabande in D Minor" - the title given to the piece used in Barry Lyndon by the author of the source I was using - didn't exist). I now note with some chagrin that at BARRY LYNDON, a previous editor wrote:

"George Frideric Handel's stately Sarabande from the Suite in D minor HWV 437" - however, I edited #448 based on information from Sarabande... while that page has now been changed to read #437, too!

So it probably should be 437, not #448.

However, elsewhere, #447 is also suggested. (See "Great Scores.com")

It is almost certainly therefore actually #437 that I should have edited, but I don't have CDs or DVD to hand, and can't check definitively. #448 appears to be (the start of?) "Sarabande in D Minor II." I shall re-edit here to remove the superfluous information (which can be better re-housed at Sarabande in D Minor or Sarabande in D Minor (Handel)), and move the name to #437. ntnon (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for all that—I will try to sort through everything in the days to come.

I would urge us not to use something like 'Sarabande in D Minor' (with or without '(Handel)') as the page name. The Sarabande is only one movement in a suite, and I'm hoping the suite will eventually have a page of it's own. As an initial draft, the sarabande movement can be drawn out as something special on the suite page: 'Uses in popular culture' etc. There is also the point that there may be other sarabandes of note in the future—and that would lead to ambiguity.

If the exact work can't be determined at the moment, perhaps the information can be move to the talk page for safe-keeping?

There's still the question of the best name for the suite's page (if anyone has suggestions)? I don't mind 'Keyboard Suite HWV 437 (Handel)', or 'Keyboard Suite in D minor HWV 437 (Handel). Perhaps the '(Handel)' bit can be discarded and '(HWV 437)' be used instead? As long as there's no possibility of ambiguity with another of Handel's (or another composer's) works, we should be able to come up with some sort of reasonable standard for these things.

HWV258 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

As per Bach's Toccata and Fugue disambiguation page, the obvious choice is "Sarabande in D Minor" - but with the "HWV 437" after it: Sarabande in D Minor, HWV 437. I take your point about the Sarabande being only one movement, but with all due respect, it does seem to be quite easily the most notable movement of the suite. Also, as per Bach's works, it's common to paginate movements rather than suites (although suites can also be paginated. c.f. Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach); of which BWV 1004 is "Partita for Violin No. 2 (Bach)").

I would suggest - and feel free to disagree! - that the 'initial draft' should be Sarabande in D Minor, HWV 437. If, in the fullness of time there becomes a page for the whole suite, then the decision can be made then whether to fold that page into the suite, or merely to link it from there.

How's that? ntnon (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Personally, I would push for an eventual page for the entire suite, but have no problem with a link from the suite's page to the 'Sarabande in D minor, HWV 437' page (and by having the 'HWV 437' in the page title, all ambiguity is removed). I'm happy to make a basic (aka stub) page for the suite—but will have to wait until the weekend.

I would suggest that we make absolutely sure we have the correct HWV number as it would be painful to fix later. I did a Google search for "handel sarabande hwv 437" and I can see youtube search matches. Unfortunately, youtube is blocked for me at work, but perhaps someone could confirm things that way?

Even if the suite is in D minor, could we confirm that the sarabande is also in D minor (as movements don't have to be in the same key as the overall suite)? I'm just thinking about the suggested page name of 'Sarabande in D Minor, HWV 437'.

To be really pedantic, the sarabande itself is not HWV 437, so the title would be accurate as 'Sarabande from suite in D minor, HWV 437'. HWV258 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Keyboard suite in D Minor (HWV 437) page and moved the relevant information there. HWV258 08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date issue

One of the entries reads:

125b Lungi da me, pensier tiranno London, after 1710 No autographs or Italian-period copies. One version copied for Ruspoli,1708.

This suggests it was copied for Ruspoli before it was composed, which seems confusing and would need explanation if it is true. --86.139.65.151 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language issues

How can Kyrie eleison (Greek) and Gloria in excelsis Deo (Latin) be classified as "Italian works?" Safebreaker (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandos Anthems

I have a bound edition of Chandos Anthems in 2 vols, I'm sure dating from Handel's time. Numbers as follows:

Anthem I - key A - I will magnify Thee O God my King

II - key A - Let God arise

III - key Bb - Let God arise [II and III have some of the same verses, but different music]

IV - key Bb - Have mercy on me O God/Lord

V - key A - O Come let us Sing unto the Lord

VI - key F - O sing unto the Lord a new song

VII - key G - My song shall be alway

VIII - key G - As pants the Hart for cooling streams

IX - key Bb - The Lord is my light

X - key F - In the Lord put I my trust

XI - key Bb - O praise the Lord with one consent

XII - key D - Praise the Lord [ye angels of his]

I could give you the instrumentation and the numbers in each of these, but the point is these Chandos Anthem numbers don't match up with those in the table here. The correspondences seem to be random:

I -> 5

II - > 11 (?)

III -> 11 (?)

IV - > 4 (a match!)

V -> 8

VI -> ?

VII -> 7 (a match!)

VIII -> 6

IX -> 10

X -> 2

XI -> 9

XII -> ? (HWV 257?)

Can someone please advise what's going on here. I thought I could check these against the list in the article? P0mbal (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit tricky without seeing the publication. Do you have the ISBN? HWV258. 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando, re di Castiglia

Why is this opera, which has been recorded by Curtis (REMOVED LINK TO EBAY LISTING FOR ITEM # 290461462816 THAT MENTIONED "Fernando"), missing on this list and not mentioned anywhere on the Wikipedia? It's rather strange. Please add it to the Handel opera cannon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.159.11 (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Sosarme (HWV 30). HWV258. 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HWV 358

HWV 358 appears to be a sonata for recorder. This is what I read from The Sonatas for Violin and Continuo with Barton, Schrader and Rozendaal. I believe this information could/should be added.

ICE77 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no instrumentation indicated on the score by Handel, but both the article about the work (Sonata in G major (HWV 358)) and the notes on this List page mention the recorder. Does that not meet your concern? GFHandel ♬ 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation on the right column of HWV 358 of this article and the HWV 358 article certainly satisfy my concern. I guess Barton, Schrader and Rozendaal just used the recorder for their CD, although the CD booklet should have pointed out that HWV 358 might not have been written for a recorder since no information was provided by Händel.

ICE77 (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nine German Arias

The nine German arias (Neun Deutsche Arien), HWV 202-210 are grouped under the sub-heading "Hymns". Is this an error? Or was it intentional? In any case, I think they should be in their own section, just above Italian Arias. Beowulf (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Five famous compositions by Handel 105.116.2.219 (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]