Talk:Belshazzar's Feast (Walton)

	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.

Really so rare to hear it performed well?

"Despite its familiarity, it does present challenges to the chorus, and it is rare to hear a performance, recorded or in concert, without a few tentative entries."

Challenging it may be, but it's a bit much to say that it's rare to hear it without tentative chorus entries. Unless someone has some evidence to contradict the several live and studio recordings and live performances I've heard that contained no such entries, I'll be editing this. chrismear 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up - I was importing my impression of the live performances I've heard. Fixing it. David Brooks 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlioz - Requiem or Te Deum

Concerning the Beecham/brass bands anecdote: was the Berlioz work in question the Te Deum or the Grande Messe? All the printed sources I've seen have the first, but several online sources claim the second, and 88.108.86.207 (talk · contribs) has just made the change. Can anyone look at an authoritative bio, or the actual programme listing? David Brooks 18:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I must admit that the lack of actual brass bands in the orchestration of the Te Deum[1] is pretty compelling! David Brooks 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Times for 12 October 1931 reviews Beecham's performance of the Grande Messe.Tim Riley 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moral judgments of BF

The final two sentences of the text as it now stands are not referenced, and seem to me, if I may say so, to be an exegesis amounting to a point of view. Would anyone object to deleting them? Tim Riley 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you are right, and by strict encyclopedic rules they don't belong. The thought is not original to me, but I couldn't find a reference. I put them in because otherwise a casual reader wouldn't even be aware of the "trumpeters and pipers" interlude, which is in contrast to the rest of the final section and is a self-evident criticism of the Halsey view. David Brooks 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata, not oratorio

An anonymous editor has altered the classification of the work from "cantata" to "oratorio". I have altered it back again, and for the avoidance of doubt, here are a few authorities for "cantata":

Walton's publishers, the Oxford University Press [2]
William Walton Trust [3]
The Oxford Companion to Music [4]
The Oxford Dictionary of Music [5]
Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians [6],
Musicologists and music writers
- Michael Kennedy (complete list of Walton's works, in Kennedy, p. 302, et passim)
- Neville Cardus ("Leeds Music Festival", The Manchester Guardian, 9 October 1931, p. 10)
- Lionel Salter (The Gramophone, January 1960, p. 72) [7]
- Christopher Palmer (1989), liner notes to EMI CD CDM 7 64723 2

Tim riley (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but do you have any real proof? ;-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thou art weighed in the balance and found waaaaaant-ing. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you'd say that: The handwriting was on the wall. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chorus representing the Babylonians?

The article states that in the middle section (description of the feast) the chorus represents the Babylonians, but my understanding is that they continue to represent the Jews, who were in slavery to the Babylonians at the time of the feast. The lyrics are clearly written from the point of view of those serving the feast ("the King commanded *us*", etc.) whereas those praising Belshazzar are referred to as "them" ("then *they* pledged the King before the people.") And the Babylonians would presumably not have referred to the Temple of Jerusalem as "the temple of the house of God".

Before I edit the main article to reflect my understanding, any thoughts? Dr Almost (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably thinking of the "Praise ye the god of whatever" section. So perhaps change that to "section praising their gods"? David Brooks (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How the brass bands came to be included

It was not Beecham that suggested including the off-stage brass.

Walton knew that Beecham was conducting the Berlioz Requiem--he approached Beecham and asked if the additional brass players for the Berlioz would still be around on the day that Belshazzar's Feast was to be premiered--and if so, could he use some of them for his piece--Walton later reported that Beecham somewhat sneeringly said that yes, they would be available--and of course Walton could go ahead and use them--because Belshazzar's Feast would never be heard again anyway.

The account currently in the Wikipedia article is entirely erroneous.

Thomas Sheets, D.M.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.77.144 (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Please provide a citation though. David Brooks (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor may like to take the matter up via a medium with Walton himself, whose account of the matter is reproduced in the present article. Tim riley (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muse of Fire

When I click on the link to this reference, all I get is an image of the cover. Is this a local (UK) thing, or do editors in other countries have the same problem? Tim riley talk 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page also says "No eBook available". The book itself is from 2001, so copyrighted. I guess the editor just wanted to give more information about the reference, should you want to locate a legit copy. But, since you point it out, the reference was hand-crafted; I rewrote it as a {{cite book}}. Technically the url parameter should point to the text, but I decided not to destroy information. David Brooks (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]