The “Good” & “Bad” of Handel’s Messiah
In reading some articles and trying to better understand Handel’s Messiah, I was dealt with many different perspectives and also ways in which the piece and the composer and were interpreted from many different people with how the piece impacted them, whether that be good or bad. I stumbled across this article from Critic’s Notebook that was published in 1923 By Alex Ross, named “The Heavy use (Good and Bad) of Handel’s Messiah”.
In this article, it specifies and or talks about the tribulation and or the disappointment that the writer felt and even expressed in that being that Handel as a composer, and even this piece as whole has been set to not have any change coming its way, and how it is authentically a masterwork in itself, whether it is “done well, bad, or criminally” (Ross), and has “ubiquity” for being “of a true masterwork”. In this, I saw that he had explained is so widely known as a grand piece in the music world, but it has since been rather repetitively played and even a “cause for alarm; it indicates a musical culture governed by habit rather than enthusiasm” (Ross).
As a writer and listener, I see how in even in the past that this piece that has been brought out and played for centuries has since been an annoyance of ubiquity since it is so again widely known. Which is actually quite surprising, since I grew up loving the piece and knowing of it so vividly. Ross also explains that Handel himself would not call this piece one of his personal favorites, which stirs up the pot for me as even a listener when I get to learn more about the background mechanisms of how this piece was assembled at the time and even after. “He did not seek to publish the score, instead presiding over yearly performances himself and incessantly tinkering with it” (Ross).
It is actually quite funny and almost surprising to learn that Handel himself was never truly satisfied with the piece and he always felt the need to restructure it and change it to accommodate for certain changes throughout time, because he would simply not publish the score.
In speaking upon this, there were many editions and also performances restructured as slighlty different renditions to sort of change the structure of Messiah as a whole. With that being said, Ross had mixed reviews of different performances and or renditions of Messiah and explained them throughout the article.
In this, I as a reader see this as very important when we put the piece into a light and kind of also explain how renditions of famous pieces naturally are created and need to occur in order to keep the piece as a whole known of and also important in the music world and especially in society at the time and even now. It is also important to notice and keep in mind that like all humans, even composers have their own ways of doing things and or even making decisions. Was Handel insecure of the composition of the piece, and if so, why did he never publish the score? How was the use of new interpretations of voice and even different instrumentation play a role in making the piece restructured and even better, and did it change it for the better?
Opinion in music is very important, and it plays a key role in determining the likelihood and even outcome of a piece and or score. Without this judgment, Handel’s Messiah may have never even been talked about more during the time or even now.
Works cited: Alex Ross, 1923 (Critic’s Notebook); https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/docview/109115884/3188B527181E4173PQ/2?accountid=8360
Thank you for reading!
-Ethan Encinas
