New version of "Messiah"?

Well, here's a thread that may cause considerable controversy depending on how many purists are out there.

As most of us all know, Handel's “Messiah” is probably the most significant work of choral literature in the English language. Because of its famous “Hallelujah!” chorus, it has been a staple in Christmas and Easter festivities. While the original version can stand alone, several adaptations and arrangements have been made of the work ever since its composition, many by Handel himself. These include large orchestral arrangements with choirs of hundreds or sometimes thousands of people, to a complete gospel/jazz version, still the “Messiah” but updated to modern styles.

Thomas Beecham's 1959 version of “Messiah” was a large orchestration that brought out the true reverence and majestic glory of the work; it gives “Messiah” new meaning. However, it does have some flaws that detract from the performance: some because of orchestration, others by tempo and interpretation. The recording has re-inspired me to commit to orchestrating a new version of “Messiah”, far larger and hopefully better than Beecham's version.

Now I know all the purists are going to be yelling and screaming that “Messiah” is a baroque work and it should stay the way it is. I being a purist myself still believe that the full potential of a truly great work does not show itself in its original form, but in its adaptations and survival throughout history. I heard once in an interview that “Messiah” should be compared to a Gothic Cathedral, never completed but continuously being constructed by new generations of builders adding their own style and flavor to the edifice. That is my intention with “Messiah.” To put my own stamp on one of the greatest works ever written.

Any thoughts?

You know, I was thinking just the other day of re-orchestrating Tchaikowsky's "Pathetitique" Symphony. I fervently believe it needs just a bit more of something to achieve its full potential.

i like the idea :)

Do it.

You know, I was thinking just the other day of re-orchestrating Tchaikowsky's "Pathetitique" Symphony. I fervently believe it needs just a bit more of something to achieve its full potential.

That's funny - I remember a workshop on that symphony with the British conductor Charles Hazlewood. He was doing a little 'adjusting' of the wind instrumentation! (an example, if memory serves, is his changing of bassoon for bass clarinet in one passage.)

As for your Messiah orchestration.....I don't know if I see the point. I love Mozart's version, although it's very much suited to *its* time, and not as much the succeeding generations. Of course this is true of all such good arrangements. Why do you want to make yours larger than Beecham's? Triple winds etc. is already just about as big as you get. Why not do something that actually fits the spirit of our time, when composers are turning away from the ridiculous bombast of 7,000 piece orchestras, and using more and more smaller chamber ensembles?

I don't see that adding bombast will help anything. In any case, using a smaller ensemble will bring you back closer to Handel's orchestration (which I'm happy with the way it is).

Reorchestrating old pieces can be quite worthwhile and I'm sure you can bring out hidden elements in old pieces by new arrangements, so in principle I'm all for it. However, I got to agree with Daniel in a sense: I somehow get the "bigger = better" from the first post and I just don't understand the emphasis on this aspect. A huge orchestra size surely isn't the only way to bring out the "majestic glory" of this piece, as you call it. Like Daniel, I'd personally find it much more interesting to bring out your individual interpretation of that piece through a more "modest" orchestration which draws its power from how you use the instruments in detail, instead of how many.

Don't take me wrong, I'm sure an increase in sound mass wasn't the only thing you were going for and that you indeed want to sensitively orchestrate the piece with the experience and techniques that are to our disposal now in the 21st century. I just was a bit confused by the emphasis on orchestral size.

Also, I'm definitely not against opulence. I love opulence, hey I even love bombast. But the most obvious solutions aren't always the ones that will actually have the greatest effect in the direction you want.

But I'm in not saying you shouldn't go for it and write for a huge orchestra. It's possible that this will in fact be the best way to realise your vision. You have to see that for yourself.

Best luck, anyways!

Will be this performed? Or will stay hidden at home till someday see the true light as to be performed by a real orchestra and choir?

Okay, let's try another angle.

Does anyone else find Justin's attitude a little presumptuous? The whole idea of putting one's personal stamp on a great masterwork seems arrogant to me.

The gothic cathedral analogy doesn't wash, either. Eventually, gothic cathedrals were indeed finished, and their progression of styles has less to do with one being an improvement over another than the sheer enormity of the project, requiring generations to complete. During the 18th Century the interior of Notre Dame de Paris was faced in marble and decorated in high baroque. They could have left it that way, but at some point they decided to tear it all out, realising that the original edifice was perfect just as it was. So it is with Messiah. The original is just fine, and not even Mozart's re-orchestration could escape being a bizarre charicature.

Well, the part about surpassing the Beecham version may have sounded a bit presumptuous, but I don't really mind that.

I don't find anything wrong with taking a personal approach to an already existing (master)piece. Isn't this what all conductors and performers do too? New arrangements of old pieces have a long tradition, like in the the English "In Nomine" culture. Of course, if the point is "to make the Messiah better", it may seem a bit arrogant, but there's nothing wrong with writing down your personal re-interpretation of the piece, with the eyes of a person living in the 21st century.

The point is not whether it is "better" or "worse" than the original. It is simply a personal work based on material provided by H

As a composer, all I can say is "who cares?"

Why not expend energy on a new piece that will "surpass" Messiah?

Why waste time and energy on a reorchestration that will probably never see the light of day, nor ever really be taken seriously by the musical community at large?

And yeah, it DOES sound presumptuous, both the "making Messiah better" part AND the "better than Beecham's orchestration" bits.

If the OP had a Phd in music and was 50 yrs old and working as an orchestrator for the last 30 years, I'd STILL find it presumptuous.

I didn't see anywhere in the OP the claim to make the Messiah "better" than H

Not to get sound rude or anything... but with Handel being my favorite composer and all, here goes:

So, you say that Beecham's orchestration brings out the "true reverence" and "majestic glory" of the work? Sorry, buddy, but the "power, the riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing" are very much inherent in Handel's original work... in Handel's music. So he scored it for string orchestra and some trumpets... your point is what? That you could write a better version of Messiah? I'm pretty sure that you can reorchestrate the thing however you care to, but saying that Handel's original version is any less moving or powerful than Mozart or Beecham's orchestration is only a testament to the ignorance that most people place in the fact that Handel wrote the music. His version is already "better" than a reorchestrated version by the sole fact that he wrote it... he came up with the melodies, harmonice, counterpoint... and a simple orchestration for a simple message that he was trying to communicate.

If it takes Beecham's Messiah to give it new meaning, than you just aren't listening to Handel's version that closely, and if you really think that you can do better than the master, go ahead and try to prove me wrong- 'cause you won't.

His version is already "better" than a reorchestrated version by the sole fact that he wrote it... he came up with the melodies, harmonice, counterpoint... and a simple orchestration for a simple message that he was trying to communicate.

I'm definitely not saying H

I'm sorry, I was a little on the defense of the composer in my last post...

There's nothing wrong with reorchestrating Messiah, but there is something wrong with reorchestrating Messiah and then saying your version is "better."