New version of "Messiah"?

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.

Originally Posted by zentari

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 Händel's orchestration is bad, or that any later reorchestration is better. But we really should stop treating composers as infallible saints. Händel was a great composer who wrote awesome music (I really love Händel), but after all he was just a human like you and I and wasn't perfect. But being perfect never really was the point of music in the first place. Music has always been something open, changing and living through time, through various performers, various audiences and various cultures. No composer ever wrote "the ultimate, perfect masterpiece". Different musical personalities and different musical epochs have different views on the same material and this isn't really about "who's better". As different people perform the Messiah differently and can listen to it differently and thus change the music through their own musical personality, why shouldn't they do this in a more conscious manner by actually putting their interpretations of aspects of the material into a score?

And really, if it's not okay to take a piece and reorchestrate it, does that mean it's not okay to take any material or ideas of another composer and use it in a personal way? I wonder what music history would have been like if that had been the case...

Yes, there's this unfortunate hint of "making it better" in Justin Tokke's post, but I don't think it's fair to just focus on this one thing. You may disagree with his mindset in approaching this project, but what's wrong with the project per se?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with the project.

It is fantastic!

Let's just let people be creative and see what they come up with.

Kthnxbye.

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."