Talk:Elias (Elijah), Op. 70 (Felix Mendelssohn)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

From 'Elijah' talk page

I've created this page to be a central place to link off to the individual movements of the oratorio. I do have one problem, however, and that is that I don't speak German! Would someone care to translate "Engel-terzett: Hebe deine Augen" for me? It is one of the movements in the original German, I know that much, but I don't know which one. Thanks in advance. Bobnotts 17:35, 14 February 2007 (PST)

The translation is roughly "Angel trio - Lift thine eyes" (to the mountains), and is #28 in your movement list. -- ChuckGiffen 10:46, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Page names

I'm not entirely sure how we should name the pages of individual movements of Elijah... according to the Wikipedia article:

"Mendelssohn originally composed the work to a German text, but upon being commissioned by the Birmingham Festival to write an oratorio, he had the libretto translated into English, and the oratorio was premiered in the English version. In German speaking countries today, the oratorio is very popular in Mendelssohn's original German version."

Which should we go for? Mendelssohn's clear preference of German or the first performed version in English? --Bobnotts talk 20:54, 4 October 2007 (PDT)

Why not numbers? They are the same in both languages. According to to the wiki article that you cite, Mendelssohn himself was responsible for the English translation. Add to that, the fact that wiki pages for mendelssohn are in English, and I see no problem with using English. I would think that the important point is whether people, who speak a variety of languages, can find the items that they are seeking.--Jennings 03:40, 6 October 2007 (PDT)

p. s. Hmmm...the date stamp looks wrong. It is now about 10:45 Pacific Daylight Time

I don’t mind to see English page names. It is more important that we have the lists bilingual—at least for those works been published in both languages (not only Elijah/Elias). CPDL is accessible worldwide, so we should prefer English titles when such works have been translated on behalf of the composer (and we’re not sure which language he’d preferred). Website visitors usually make use of available search functions first: then the results should display German titles, too. I’m going to upload another edition of No. 28, and I’ll format the list item as a specimen we could apply to the entire list later on. —Robert Urmann 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you make valid points, but when I look at the result it looks cumbersome to me (e. g. there are two separate links, but both link to the same page). Also, why did you give the voicing in Italian? What do you think about creating a separate page for Elias/Elijah entirely in German? The links to the pages for the individual movements could, of course, be the same for both pages. Jennings 03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear James, I agree that the current solution combining English and German titles in a single list item is not the best one (that’s why I wrote it could be applied). Of course, they have to direct to the same pages, and when you follow the link to #28 you’ll find bilingual titling. An alternative could be a single link formatted like English title [German title], which in many cases stretches over the entire browser window width and/or starts a new line (almost surely unpredictable). An additional page in German could be created quickly, but that means to maintain both pages in the future. I wouldn’t mind to have one large page including all movements (like Johannespassion). This list will be as extensive as St John Passion, but all would be in the right place.
Voicing/movements in Italian: that’s according to Mendelssohn. In my opinion it’s distinctive musical language like dynamics or tempi, and I thought it looked better like all of a piece. —Robert Urmann 02:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

From Overture's talk page

"It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Elijah, Op. 70 (Felix Mendelssohn). (Discuss) Reason: This is an instrumental movement and should not have an individual page at CPDL."

Ok, who suggested this, when was it suggested, and where is the discussion? For my part, it appears to be a tempest in a teapot: i.e. who cares. Suppose I say that it is an instrumental movement and SHOULD have a page at CPDL. What then? That isn't a reason either. Mendelssohn's Elijah is a well-known choral work, but is not complete without the overture, which sets the stage for the first chorus. All of the other movements have their own pages, so where is the problem? Is the CPDL server out of space? Jennings 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here are the replies to your questions: It was I who suggested the merger on 2 August 2009. Usually, instrumental pieces are summarily deleted from CPDL, simply because the site is for vocal music, not instrumental music. In this very specific case, it makes sense to keep the instrumental edition, but not to maintain a page for it, because it messes with the statistics, which are based on the number of pages and on some specific templates used in them. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 02:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If other movements of this piece of choral literature need separate pages, it doesn't make any obvious sense to me to leave this one out. It does not appear to be the policy of the CPDL either. I looked around a bit and in short order found a couple of purely instrumental movements of a choral work that have been on the CPDL since 2002. The pages for them date at least back to 2005 and appear to have been created by Rafael Ornes. I cannot imagine how deleting any of these would make accessing the music files easier for potential users. Would your statistics really be adversely affected? Why? What problem(s) would it cause if they were? Is there no way to deal with the difficulty? Jennings 02:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments convinced me, the merger sugestion was removed. Regards —Carlos Email.gif 03:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Score errors discussion about #20 : Possible unspecified errors in CPDL #4422

The allegation of errors seems to come from the following page edit: ":NOTE: Many errors in this edition. See m. 3, for example." Janower 14:18, 31 October 2007

I traced this page back in the history to find the source of the remark about errors. The only error that is actually mentioned is said to come from measure 3. I have examined measure 3 and it appears to be a faithful representation of the source. The simultaneous E flats at the start of the measure in the treble clef of the piano part are slightly different in superficial appearance, because this is rendered as a pair of tied quarter notes. The D is then added to the chord to produce the same musical result as the notes in the source. I hope that this clarifies the situation. If there are any actual errors here or elsewhere, I would like to know about them. In that case, please send me an email with the particulars so that the score can be corrected (for current email address, go to http://jennings.freehostia.com/ and follow the links to the contact page) Jennings 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It could help a lot if all would specify their sources. I compared the first page of CPDL #4422 with R. Larry Todd’s critical edition (© 1995 by Carus-Verlag Stuttgart; CV 40.130). In result the following has to be remarked:

  • This movement is number 20 (not #15).
  • m.3:
    • basses: 2nd note reads b♭; 3rd note reads a♭ resp. (violas have the same pattern)
    • piano reduction: 3rd beat: no g appears in the score in any voice/instrument
  • m.7 sopranos: 1st note reads b1♭ (repetition of the bass motive)
  • m.9 basses: reads one quarter e♭ followed by slurred quarters e♭–d (see Vc and Cb)
  • m.12 tenors: rhythm of sopranos and altos is applied to tenors

In my opinion this is quite a lot for a single page. But if the source of this edition is an older piano reduction it is possible to find such variances. Mendelssohn often made major corrections in his scores after first performances, and that’s why indicating sources for editions is that important. —Robert Urmann 01:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't email me. Why? That noted (pun strictly intentional), an appropriate consideration of your comments is in order:

1 "m.3: basses: 2nd note reads b?; 3rd note reads a? resp. (violas have the same pattern)" The second note in the bass part is indeed a B flat (b with a little box after it, if you prefer) followed by an A. This applies to the file as well as the source. Were you using an outdated copy of the file? Suffice to say that anything before August of this year is out of date. I do seem to have a vague feeling that there was an error there several years ago. If the score that you downloaded came from the CPDL server, then it was a number of years out of date.

2. "piano reduction: 3rd beat: no g appears in the score in any voice/instrument" I don't have a copy of the full score, much less Mendelssohn's autographs or first printing, so I can't say whether the G is reasonable. It is there, however, in the source and sounds reasonable to me.

3 "m.7 sopranos: 1st note reads b1? (repetition of the bass motive)" The score reads B flat above middle C. So does the file. Is that bad?

4 "m.9 basses: reads one quarter e? followed by slurred quarters e?–d (see Vc and Cb)" The source reads: half note, E flat, followed by a quarter note, D. So yours is different, oh well... I can't say who is right and who is wrong, and who is just different (I am NOT a musicologist). I am unsure what the reference for Vc and Cb may be.

5. "m.12 tenors: rhythm of sopranos and altos is applied to tenors" It is the same, anyway, in both the source and the file. I gather that your first language is not English. Were you looking at Germain edition? Typically, scores for one language will have slightly different rhythm when rendered in another language.

6. "This movement is number 20 (not #15)" Ok, here you have got me. Error in the title is now fixed.

"In my opinion this is quite a lot for a single page"
In the words of Calvin Coolidge: "You lose". Six tries and only one error, and that one not even in the music. Thank you for calling my attention to that (Well, sort of...You didn't email me, as I specifically requested). Having seen what the manuscripts of the time look like, the amazing thing is that there aren't more differences from edition to edition.

"It could help a lot if all would specify their sources."
What for?...in order to know that different editions are different? If you were in doubt before, now you know. Different editions differ.

"Mendelssohn often made major corrections [sic.] in his scores after first performances, and that's why indicating sources for editions is that important."
That was typical. I think the word "changes" would be better. In the case of Elijah, Mendelssohn personally oversaw its publication, so the contents of the first edition are important for evaluating things, and not only the manuscripts.

"I compared the first page of CPDL #4422 with R. Larry Todd's critical edition (© 1995 by Carus-Verlag Stuttgart; CV 40.130)."
My source was published by G. Schirmer and was prepared long enough ago to be in the public domain. I make no special claims for its accuracy or lack thereof. If you don't like it, you can always write to them. They are still in business. Carus-Verlag is a reputable company and I am quite willing to assume that R. Larry Todd knows what he is doing. Having said that, it should be borne in mind that decisions have to be made in the editing process and that the best answer is not always clear. The matter of different languages is another complication. Elijah was written first in German, but was first performed in English. The English translation was overseen by the composer himself, thus having full authenticity (I would think).

"But[sic.] if the source of this edition is an older piano reduction it is possible to find such variances."
The piano reduction can be a lot of things. Since it is not the same as the orchestral parts, what to put in and how much to leave out is an individual choice. The choice depends partly on the anticipated skill of the keyboard artists, and it does not necessarily depend on when it was written. Do not expect two different piano reductions to be the same. It won't happen. If it did there might be a lawsuit. Jennings 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to bring some light on the ‘unspecified’ part of the itself useless error report. If my remarks sound kind of offending I do apologize. Currently there are discussions on the wording of the score error template because editors wonder why their scores have been reported as erroneous. In many cases different sources have been edited, and that’s why I suggested to specify them to avoid unnecessary error tags.
I downloaded the PDF hosted on the CPDL server (I can’t use NWC). Todd’s edition has German and English text underlay.
In my opinion such matters can be discussed here. It can help other users to retrieve information about different editions. Kind regards, —Robert Urmann 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No. 11 Baal, we cry to thee

Can someone create a file for “Baal, we cry to thee”? Thanks. Seth Engel (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Elias_(Elijah),_Op._70_(Felix_Mendelssohn)&oldid=1185158"