Talk:George Frideric Handel

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Correct title format for Handels works?

Having done all this work on the Brahms page, I think Handel could use a 'facelift' as well.
For the work entry's I assume this would look like Title, HWV#. This seems fair enough.
But, there are a number of compositions which are thematically related like the Chandos Anthems and the Coronation Anthems.As for now the Chandos Anthems stand out very clear, the Coronation Anthems are pretty well hidden.
I suggest that we stay in all circumstances we stick to the following principle: Title, Op. #, Catalogue # (Op. # and Catalogue # if applicable) eg. My heart is inditing, HWV 261, Coronation Anthem No. 4 or My heart is inditing, Coronation Anthem No. 4, HWV 261. (I would prefer the first choice.) Also make a separate 'overview' page Coronation Anthems were all 4 Coronation Anthems are listed. On the "works page" under the Title: might be an extra line with something like Part of : with a link back to this 'overview' page
The same goes of course for all thematically or Opus related works.

It has become a bit of a long story. --Arie 04:49, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

Arie: yes, great idea, please do continue with all this "facelifting"! I'm of the opinion that wiki page titles should be as short as possible. By adding info on the page itself to do with opus (or other catalogue) numbers, and larger works, it should be very easy to make this information clear under the "General Information" title. So, I would favour My heart is inditing, HWV 261, without the larger work mentioned in the wiki title but with a note below under "description" saying "Coronation Anthem No. 4" with a link to the page "Coronation Anthems (George Frideric Handel)". It might be worth waiting for other people's comments before going ahead, though, as those are just my opinions. Best, --Bobnotts talk 09:40, 2 October 2007 (PDT)
Robert, Thanks for the input. I hope someone else does join this discussion, since it is vital to all CPDL entry's (at least I think so). --Arie 03:14, 4 October 2007 (PDT)
Only after creating the Coronation Anthems page did I notice that you were already discussing it here (this page was already linking there). That page was created mainly to be an entry point for people being redirected to CPDL from the Wikipedia article with the same name. —Carlos Email.gif 15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 16:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Help 

The reason the Chandos anthems are organized and grouped together but the Coronation anthems are not is entirely due to me. I organized the listing of the Chandos anthems some time back and fully intended to do the same for the Coronation anthems; however, it is clear that I never was able to get back to the latter task. Perhaps I'd better get back to work on this!

In the meantime, Arie raises some interesting and valid points about titling - along with Rob's preference (which has since become my own preference, too) for shorter title names in individual works of a collection, at least where there is a separate collection page. On the collection page (and proably also on the composer page, under the collection title) the works should be sorted by the Opus/Catalog number, while an alphabetical listing (once Arie's format is adopted) can be automatically generated by DPL.

  • I'm rather unsure about instances of listing well-known sections of major works, such as Messiah, on the Composer page together with a link to a separate edition of the section where, in actuality, there are multiple editions available (even if incorporated within multimovement or complete editions).
  • I'm also somewhat unsure about providing separate pages for movements of longer works (such as oratorios, passions, operas, etc.) for which it seems unlikely that, in the near future, we can forsee having multiple editions of movements available or an essentially complete collection (at least of the choral movements) available.

How do others feel about this?

It's a difficult one, Chuck, since I feel sure that we should have separate pages for popular movements (that is, popular in performances and editions). However, one long page for Messiah with occasional sections which have just a link to a separate page should not be too much of a hindrance to users looking for a popular chorus. This would also solve the problem of editions which include recits and arias compared with some editions that have the two separately (ie. how to title the page?!) I've been meaning to do some serious re-organisation of the Messiah pages so I'm glad you've raised this. Merry Christmas by the way! --Bobnotts talk 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the overview page, the separate Opus list, and cat # inclusion

I agree with the overview page. I put Parry's "Songs of Farewell" in an overview page pointing to each of the separate songs, and on each "works" page I mentioned that it was number x of the 6 "Songs of Farewell". This page would also allow me to put some works-specific info down that would otherwise have to be duplicated in each of the 6 songs.

I also think the catalog number should be included when useful in the Works title, such as was done with Brahams. In the case of Brahms I'd make an overview pages pointing to each of "works" in the Liebeslieder and Neue Liebeslieder waltz collections, but the Opus organization where they are individually called out can stand as well.

Hope this helps with Handel reorganization. Johnhenryfowler

should Messiah movements be separately listed?

  • Posted by: Vaarky 15:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 Help 

Some movements are specifically called out on the Handel page, others are not. Confusing to users to enumerate some movements for which we have scores, or not? Would any user not know that a work was from the Messiah? I don't think so. And a search on a title will still bring it up. So I think we should not enumerate separate movements. How do others feel?

Having just added a score that is a movement from a larger work (which is not listed on here) I was faced with a similar dilemma. I chose not to list Chandos Anthem, then the movement title, since the rest of that anthem is not listed here (yet). Some of the individual movements of Messiah that are listed separately are the more "popular" ones, and these pages seem to have several editions on them. It is therefore helpful to have these titles listed as individual works, since some who search for them may not know where in Messiah they come. The entire Messiah contents is not listed on this page and therefore the titles of the movements are not here either, requiring the extra click through to the Messiah page. Perhaps, under Messiah, individual movements in question could be listed so they are clearly visible to a casual browser who goes to the Handel page to find a work.

I do not have time to work on it myself for a couple of weeks, but my impression was that this page, particularly the works above the oratorios etc. needs a little cleanup and re-organization. It is clearly a matter of growth issues. I want to check if someone has adopted the Handel page as theirs to maintain, and thus won't change anything until I can find out. Otherwise, I would be happy to take this on. -Paul Marchesano Marchesa 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Vaarky 06:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 Help 

Would be great if you'd do that. The Adopt-a-Composer page indicates no adopter yet.

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 16:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Help 

See my reply (above) which addresses some of these issues.

Chandos Anthems

I've made a page with suggested pagenames for the so-called Chandos Anthems (George Frideric Handel). Comments welcome! Richard Mix (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)