User talk:Baritone10

Your recent edits to Zadok the Priest

Hi. Thanks for taking an interest in (repeatedly) editing the Zadok the Priest article. To specifically address your point about Philip Glass: please remember that this article is about the music of Handel (who couldn't have been influenced by Glass' music). In addition, your words "lulls the audience into an unsuspecting stupor" and "which wakes everyone up" are subjective and do not belong in an encyclopaedic treatment of the work Zadok the Priest. The WP community has a policy of discussing such changes when disputes arise (which has now happened). You should now engage in a discussion on the article's talk page after your most recent edit is reverted (as it surely will be).  HWV258  04:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no reference to Handel being influenced by Glass. I would note, as a professional musician and sometime musicologist, that there's no universal ban on a playful reference to an older composer's work sometimes reminding one of newer music. I can assure you that I'm not a tyro on such matters; I've performed this work with two major world baroque orchestras. I admit my comments could be termed "subjective", but I'd argue that your description, in which the drama of the work is somehow magically created by minims and quavers, is similarly subjective, less useful, and really does less of a good job of conveying the shock of that tutti entrance. What's really going on there is a subtle string introduction, and then the shock of a full orchestral tutti entrance with full choir and three trumpets, without a preparatory crescendo or any other hint of what is coming. I was merely trying to convey that moment in a useful but entertaining way. I don't really appreciate the condescending tone ("left the gate open", "as it surely will be", etc.)...I'm sure we can collaborate in a more friendly manner than that, no? Baritone10 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you're happy for me to revert to the previous version while we (and the community) have a discussion on this issue?  HWV258  04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be rather unhappy, actually; it would seem more sporting of you to allow someone else to have a go at things, especially since I've removed the specific reference that you found to be most inappropriate, and have attempted to justify the rest of the edit. Can you explain to me how it is useful to imply that the drama of this work is created by "minims"? Come on; you even named yourself after the HWV # of this work. I'm sure you have more of a fun sense of why the work is effective than that. So far, you've done a lot of attacking, and very little justification of your own language. Baritone10 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Baritone, I appreciate your willingness to contribute; however, subjective or "playful" comments should be used very carefully, since they almost always reduce the authority of the text in this register.Tony (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to rephrase (and will), and I am duly chastened. But I think the general idea contained in my description of what's going on in this piece still works better than attributing it all to minims. Have you gents performed this piece of late? Did you watch the audience's reaction? It tends to be highly amusing; Handel has set the listener up for a surprise and it's a very effective one. Baritone10 (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my latest edit will be found more pleasing? Baritone10 (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)