Talk:Nelson Mass

Comment

Disagree completely with what was written about the "angustiis" referring (here) to times of distress. Especially as the Latin title was first noted in 1789 and the war referred to began in 1798, some 9 years later. Haydn was no soothsayer. I'm reverting it. Dan 22:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mh, your years seem to be wrong... The mass was written in 1798... Aldera (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

This article really, really needs to be NPOVed. I guess that's included in "wikify," though. Lbark 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, the discussion of the structure of the mass seems like entirely original research! 150.131.74.105 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so much original research as copied from a programme... --Smaug123 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Nickname

The title "Nelson Mass" is historically absurd. It's a biassed (british) misuse. Haydn never dedicated this work and of course never a catholic mass to Nelson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.252.113 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Most nicknames for pieces from this era -- "Jupiter", "Moonlight", etc. -- were not officially dubbed by their composers and this piece is no different from those. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the mass was dedicated to Nelson. In fact, I'm pretty sure (from List of masses by Joseph Haydn) that the mass was dedicated to Princess Maria Hermenegild of the Esterhazy family. The "Nelson" nickname has stuck though. It would be irresponsible not to mention it in the article. DavidRF (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Nelson Mass title is historically absurd. It's an aberration. Haydn wrote this mass for the name-day of Princess Esterhazy. And of course this is a catholic Mass. A catholic mass to pay tribute to a protestant guy? Ridiculous.

In this page: choirs.org.uk/prognotes/Haydn%20Nelson%20Mass.htm it's explained the real story.

"It is likely that the name Nelson Mass began being applied to this piece some time after this event, although the name WAS NEVER USED BY HAYDN HIMSELF. Haydn later catalogued this mass as Missa in Angustiis ('mass for times of distress'), a reflection of the uncertain times in which it was written. In another authentic catalogue of Haydn's works of 1805, where it is listed as Number 10 of the masses, this work is not given a special title. It was published by Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig in March 1803 as Number 3 of the masses by Haydn, but still without any caption. The first vocal score, made by Novello and published in London in 1824, is also without a special title. Still more confusingly, the score was published in Paris in 1811 entitled L'Imperiale, including the note 'Cette Messe a été composée pour le couronnement de Joseph II'. Joseph II had been crowned Holy Roman Emperor more than thirty years before the mass was written!" © Aylesbury Choral Society, December 2003

The responsible of the article should correct the text and add this to clarify the information. The article is another typical and pathetic article of the anglosphere. But this is the common rule in many unprofessional wikipedia articles. Propaganda instead history. What a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.236.182 (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Additions

I have added a few needed details to this article, including recommending a few citations, but the article still needs some work. I agree that the compositiional sections category seems like original research, but it needs to be verified or substantiated. Aprickel (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Aprickel

It could be that in the intervening months some of the "original research" has been removed, but I think that you're misunderstanding as "original research" quotations from Landon's book for which someone just forgot to tell us the title of the book. Or those comments could come from the preface of Landon's edition of the Mass. James470 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue- again

Edits I made on Jan 15 2015 were reverted in their entirety. All but one of them have been reinstated as of today. I would like to explain those edits to demonstrate their validity in the hope that this sort of blanket reversion action won't be considered an appropriate response this time.

Before 15-1-2015 and from 30-1-2015 until 20-3-2015 there were a few problems with this article that, while not yet eliminated, are at least being attempted to be addressed by me. They are

1. bias/hagiographic style 2. unverified/uncited remarks

The following is far from neutral: 'the mood in Eisenstadt was one of foreboding, to the point of terror, and this is what we hear as the great work opens'. Firstly, there is no need to amplify the mood of foreboding to the point of terror. 'Foreboding' is sufficient (it would be even better if a source for this claim had been cited). Secondly, 'We' should not be mentioned in an encyclpaedic article. It is a claim made about subjective meaning that may or may not have been intended on the part of the composer to have been present, and it is a claim made about the received meaning of all listeners. Such claims are subjective and unverifiable and have no place in an objective article. Thirdly, 'great' is another subjective descriptor not appropriate in an article that should have a neutral point of view. This sentence has been emotive/not objective.

The following claim has not been cited: 'From contemporary accounts, we know the opera made a great impression on him', and it contains again in 'we know...' the claim to an absolute. 'We' do not 'know' what impression was made upon the composer. The best that could be said in the article, IF the mentioned accounts were cited, would be that said contemporary accounts themselves claimed- or posited- a particular impression that might have been made on the composer. More woolly expression, not objective.

The following contains more 'we' beyond entitlement to generalise, and contains a portentously toned claim that could too easily be seen as strong religious bias: 'Some people have interpreted this section as a martial tribute to Lord Nelson himself, but we believe now that Haydn did not have Nelson in mind but a far greater power.' The use of 'we' has already been mentioned. The clause 'we believe now that Haydn did not have Nelson in mind but a far greater power' is undefined and therefore redundant. At the same time it is heavily loaded with what is to my mind likely to be interpreted as a tacit religious agenda. Please understand that it's fine to be religious [or anti-religious], but not in an encyclopaedia. The tone here needs to be impartial. Hence I have depersonalised the statement- to acknowledge and not deny the subculture of the writer of that sentence- without deleting it altogether, which deletion could well have been a more appropriate action.

Finally, the following contains more 'we' and is gushingly hagiographic: 'We have been transported from the greatest depths of despair in the first movement to a great and certain joy.' Two extremes of greatness in one sentence is excessive for an objective encyclopaedic article. The joy need not be certain as well as great. It need not even be great, as joy is by definition already something great. Rhetorical considerations aside, again it has to be said that the article should not be making claims about the meaning that has either been invested in the music by the maker or taken from it by the listener. The place for this sort of claim is in a review. I suggest its author place them on another website well-known for user- written music and book reviews.

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. FleetingJoy (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I can certainly see where you are coming from; the article has a very gushy and non-professional tone to it. Might it be a good idea to cut way back and more or less start over on a "just-the-facts" basis, with solid reference sources? Opus33 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - "Compositional sections" (a strangely-worded heading, BTW) reads like an essay or personal analysis, not an encylopedia article. Feel free to give it a drastic pruning. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, it seems that there is a pretty good factual section up front, after which the unconstrained speculation and gushiness set in. I have trimmed back the latter sections, hoping that this will be helpful. Opus33 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)